Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

 

Director: Michael Anderson

Cast: David Niven, Cantinflas, Shirley MacLaine, plus an enormous list of cameos
Genre: Drama, Adventure
Other Nominees: Friendly Persuasion, Giant, The King and I, The Ten Commandments

Around The World in 80 Days is an interesting movie. By today’s standards it seems slow, drawn out, and just not very exciting. With a runtime of close to three hours, an incredible portion of this film rolls by without any dialogue whatsoever. Whether we are on the back of an elephant that saunters through the Indian jungle, or on a steamship looking out at a Pacific sunset, there are many scenes where the setting is the main character on screen and the characters themselves have very little to do.

The film opens with a very unusual sequence. At first I had mistakenly thought I had started a special feature on the DVD and was accidently watching a documentary about the Jules Verne novel upon which the film is based. Upon returning to the menu of the DVD I realized that I was indeed watching the opening scene of the film and continued on with the show. The narrator of this documentary explains to us that, despite the fact that today (1956) a man can journey around the world in 80 hours, back in the late 19^th Century when Jules Verne penned the book the feat of circumnavigating the world in 80 days was a daring and impressive one. Not only was I confused regarding the use of this documentary to open the movie, but I soon wondered why a movie would go out of its way to point out that what we are about to see will not seem that impressive. That seems a bit negative. Then, just as I am pondering this, the narrator and documentary suddenly disappear and we find ourselves on the streets of 19^th Century London.

The sets in this film are varied and stunning. The recreation of 19^th Century London is breathtaking in its detail and all the more impressive knowing that most of the movie takes place elsewhere. The vast number of cities, cultures, and environments that our hero moves through are each one recreated in extreme detail. From bullfighting in Spain, travelling the Suez Canal, a journey through the Indian jungle, Calcutta, Hong Kong, San Francisco, a train ride through the Wild West; probably the best thing about this film is the fact that you genuinely feel like you are getting a world tour as you journey with the cast.

When he has something to do on screen, David Niven plays Phileas Fogg, the epitome of an English Gentleman. Phileas accepts a challenge from his peers to leave London that very evening and journey around the world in 80 days. David Niven has been quoted as saying that this was his most enjoyable role and while there is no doubt that he looks comfortable playing the English gentleman, I cannot wonder if it was his most enjoyable role because of all the travelling involved! The best scenes involving Mr. Fogg show us a refined Englishman maintaining his composure and routine amidst increasingly unfamiliar and strange environments. There is a lot of humor to be found in seeing him relaxed, enjoying his ritual cup of tea on the deck of a ship while a tempest rages around him, or to watch him almost nonchalantly react to scenes of human sacrifice or rampaging Indian braves attacking his train. He reacts to these events, but it is the restrained reaction of a gentleman, and not the excitable reaction of an action hero. Mr. Fogg is not an adventurer and does little to stir the passions of those around him. He is a man dedicated to punctuality and routine and there is a lot of comedy to be found in David Niven’s portrayal of that.

Accompanying Fogg on his journey is his valet Passepartout, played by the Mexican actor Cantinflas. Passepartout is not really a devoted servant to Fogg, having only been taken into service right before the adventure begins. But Passepartout appears to go along with the challenge for the experience of seeing as many females from as many parts of the globe as possible, than for any other reason. While in India, the two join forces with an Indian princess played by Shirley MacLaine. For me, Princess Aouda is the weakest character in the film with her attraction towards Fogg having no real chemistry or explanation. The lack of chemistry is understandable given the emotionless character of the man she is falling for, but the “love scenes” appear to be more and more random as the movie progresses and I found them to be more and more inexplicable and frustrating as time went by.

We cannot talk about the cast of Around The World in 80 Days without discussing the enormous list of cameos that appear onscreen. A full list of the appearances can be found at the link below but there is no doubt that it represents an enormous portion of 1950’s Hollywood. I wonder if this fact alone was a major reason in the movie being so popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_80_Days_%281956_film%29#Cameo_appearances

Whatever the impact that the list of cameos had on its popularity, this film was as much about the locations and visuals as the actors involved. The movie has become known for being a celebration of Technicolor. And although it falls in the same year as two other renowned color spectacles in The King and I and The Ten Commandments, the combination of the Technicolor spectacle along with the thorough representation of Hollywood stars of the day may have guaranteed its victory. Today, I would recommend this film to cinematography students but not so much to anyone else.

Next up: The Bridge on the River Kwai

Marty (1955)

 

Director: Delbert Mann

Cast: Ernest Borgnine, Betsy Blair, Esther Minciotti, Jerry Paris
Genre: Drama, Romance
Other Nominees: Love is a Many Splendored Thing, Mister Roberts, Picnic, The Rose Tattoo

“Hey, you know a nice girl for my boy Marty?”

“You get married. You hear what I say!...You should be ashamed of yourself.”

“All your kid brothers and sisters married and got children. When are you gonna get married?"

If Marty thought me one lesson it’s that it’s tough to be an aging bachelor in an Italian community! Marty (Ernest Borgnine in as natural a role as I have seen any actor in) is 35, and suffering through a torrent of personal questions regarding his relationship status. When we first meet the butcher in the Bronx, we see a man exhausted by the kind of questions and comments listed above. It does not help that he has just become the only man of his household not wedded, after the recent marriage of his brother. As the patronage, mostly made up of outspoken Italian housewives, ask about the recent wedding they are inevitably moved to asking about Marty’s wedding prospects. He is pleasant enough while answering the questions but you can tell it is an enormous relief when his shift ends and he finds himself at a local bar with two beers and a newspaper spread before him.

The first half of the films deals solely with Marty. It is clear that before any possibility of a love story developing, the directors want us to understand just how alone Marty is, and how far beyond desperate he feels about it. Exhausted after his busy day, he fends off relentless pressure from his friend Tommy (Jerry Paris) to go out dancing for the night, or to do something other than sit in and drink beer. Over dinner with his mother (the brilliant Esther Minciotti) he is again pressured into going out and finding a girl. It is during these interactions that we learn of the sheer hopelessness that Marty feels when it comes to finding love. Marty is trying to accept the fact that he will remain lonely and get on with his life, but with everyone continuing to pressure him and question him he can do very little to escape the misery.

I've been looking for a girl every Saturday night of my life.

Ma, sooner or later, there comes a point in a man's life when he's gotta face some facts. And one fact I gotta face is that, whatever it is that women like, I ain't got it.

And yet, after finally agreeing to go to a dancehall, Marty’s fortunes with women take a turn for the better when he meets an equally alone Clara (Betsy Blair). Marty is a romance but it is absolutely not epic in its scale. The entire movie takes place over these few days in Marty’s life. It gives us just enough time to learn to know his misery, shows us the early glimpses of the love that he and Clara will share, and any dramatic elements of the movie revolve around Marty’s hesitation to act on his instinct. This is not an epic romance, nor is it epic drama. Even at its most depressing moments there is a sense that all Marty wants to do is just get on with things. The movie does not wish to explore the dark potential of human misery. It is just taking a look at some lonely people and in the end it is a simple story of two people who deserve to find each other. And it is precisely this simplicity that makes Marty such an easy film to connect with. With a runtime of 90 minutes Marty is the perfect movie to sit down to in the afternoon. The ending, and particularly the line that Ernest Borgnine speaks right before the camera fades out (I won't spoil it for you), is so full of joy that I challenge anyone to not leave in good spirits!

Next Up: Around the World in 80 Days

On The Waterfront (1954)

 

Director: Elia Kazan

Cast: Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb
Genre: Drama
Other Nominees: The Caine Mutiny, The Country Girl, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Three Coins in the Fountain

On The Waterfront boasts one of the most well recognized and memorable scenes in Hollywood history, the famous “contender” scene. I have to admit that since seeing the film I have experienced a full blown obsession with this scene and have watched it repeatedly. While there is certainly a lot more to this film than just this one scene, I have found that to reflect on On The Waterfront is to reflect on this one, grand slam, scene.  

The scene takes place in the back of a small cab where two characters sit uncomfortably together. A Venetian blink covers the back window and the camera never gives us any external or wide shots of the conversation. Conditions are cramped and claustrophobic throughout. We see the well dressed mob lawyer Charlie “The Gent” (played by Rod Steiger) attempt to convince his little brother, the subdued Terry Malloy, not to testify against the mob gang that operates out of the local waterfront (Terry is played by Marlon Brando, who deservedly won an Oscar for his role). At first Charlie resorts to typical mob tactics and attempts to bribe his little brother with a high paying job. But Terry has seen too much, been implicated in too much, and life is no longer simple. He tells his brother that “there’s more to this than I thought… much more.” He cannot make money and be ignorant to the corruption around him. The first of many great moments in the scene comes with a sudden shift from relaxed conversation between two brothers, to an immediate anxiety about what will happen next. After failing with the bribe, Charlie begins to get desperate, and in not so many words lets slip the fact that this cab ride is actually a last ditch effort to convince Terry not to rat, and that should he be unmoved the cab is taking Terry to his death. In a moment of frustration, Charlie reveals these details:

Well make up your mind before we get to 437 River Street!!!

I cannot recall seeing a better example of building tension within a scene. This explosive comment is followed up by a shocked silence and you can physically see the realization of what is being said dawn in Terry’s mind. Suddenly, any trace of the relaxed conversation is gone. But for Charlie the tension held within the silence is even worse and in a state of shock he resorts to pulling a gun on his kid brother. It is a final desperate attempt to get him to take the job and to stay quiet. I understand that Marlon Brando had a real problem with how his character was initially written to “play it cool” when the gun was pulled. It is a testament to Brando’s genius that he transformed the scene into the emotional powerhouse it is. Terry does not play it cool. How could he? His older brother has just pulled a gun on him, an act that has destroyed their relationship once and for all and that cannot be taken back. In the most dramatic way Charlie has just shown how bad things have gotten between the two brothers. Instead of being cool, Brando took the scene in another direction. With eyes full of sadness he almost caresses the gun to one side, and shaking his head he whispers “Oh Charlie”. With these words he disarms his brother, who then slumps back in his chair, defeated. In this deflated moment Charlie also knows that by not quieting his brother, and by not being able to kill him, he has signed his own death warrant.

The brilliant thing about On The Waterfront is the sense of history it gives to its characters and location. I think the really good films accomplish this. They instill in us an understanding that what we are seeing is happening in a timeline, that there is an unseen past which plays into the action. A great film makes us feel that it is a part of a bigger picture, a chapter in a story. It is easy to believe that the characters in On The Waterfront have a past and the movie hints continuously at their past without showing us flash backs or fade outs to memories. Neither character is given time to explain the details of their past to a lover or friend, and in turn to us as the audience. And yet their pasts are all around them, living in every scene. As these two men confront each other in the back of their cab a sad history weighs on them and even though we were not privy to all the details we know enough to notice it.

By the time this scene plays out we have pieced together some major aspects of their sad back story. We know that the brothers were raised in an orphanage, that one brother turned to crime and another to sport in an effort to escape their bleak future. We understand that the older brother looked out for himself and, like the mob that controls the town, used his friends to get ahead. We have also learned that Terry is a failed boxer, and that he was convinced to fix fights for the mobs benefit. In this cab scene the weight of all those years is clearly felt by both. We see the pain that has built up for decades spill out as Terry finally explains his anger at his older brother for not looking out for him, and much worse, for robbing him of his future. Both actors manage to attribute to their characters an entire life that has played out off screen. This is why I consider it to be such a fine example of acting, culminating in the classic Marlon Brando line:

You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it.

I can do nothing to hide the fact that this one scene has dominated my On The Waterfront experience. I believe this film is worth seeing for the 5 minutes and 18 seconds I have described above but I can assure you that this scene is not just a diamond in the rough. The film was filmed on location in Hoboken, New Jersey and everything about the neighborhood is authentic from the dockyards to the slum dwellings and bars, the alleys to the rooftops. The supporting cast give fantastic performances, with Karl Malden as the local priest roused into action by the escalating violence, Lee J. Cobb as the mob boss Johnny Friendly who rules the entire neighborhood through fear and intimidation, and Eva Marie Saint as Terry’s love interest, a sister to a murdered brother, and a catalyst for change within both the slumbering priest and Terry. There is a very real threat of danger present and these characters decide to stand up against oppression no matter what the outcome. Terry Malloy knows first hand what the mob is capable of and, as he holds one of his pigeons on his rooftop, he explains to Eva the true nature of the neighborhood.

You know this city's full of hawks? That's a fact. They hang around on the top of the big hotels. And they spot a pigeon in the park. Right down on him.

The “contender scene” is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVq1e6JKlw

Next Up: Marty

 

From Here to Eternity (1953)

 

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Cast: Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Donna Reed, Frank Sinatra, Ernest Borgnine
Genre: Drama/Romance/War
Other Nominees: Julius Caesar, The Robe, Roman Holiday, Shane

From Here to Eternity is a film about the sacrifice demanded by a military life. The interesting thing is that these sacrifices are not the ones we typically expect from military films, as the majority of this film takes place in peacetime. It is the summer and fall just before the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the film takes place on a Hawaiian barracks where three military men suffer for the army, and appear to get nothing in return.

Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) is a new transfer to the barracks, and both an excellent bugler and boxer. Upon his arrival he finds that the brutal base commander pulled some strings to have him transferred there as it is his personal wish to build a championship boxing team at the base, an achievement which the commander sees leading him directly to promotion. But Prewitt refuses to fight for the commander, eventually revealing details of a tragedy that prevents him from entering the ring. The commander is not impressed by these details:

You might as well say 'stop war' because one man got killed. Our fighting program is the best morale builder we have.

In response to his refusal to fight Prewitt receives “The Treatment”, an onslaught of abuse, both physical and mental, from some of the higher ranking officers at the base, most of them belonging to the boxing team. In one scene we see him dig a six foot grave to bury a newspaper, before being asked to fill it back in. Scene after scene of forced marches up the side of mountains, running laps of the fields in full gear, and other punishments are seen, all of them unjust punishments for a man who just wants to be a soldier. But even as the severity of the punishments and the pressure to submit to the commanders wishes increases, Prewitt insists on being his own man and refuses to give in:

I know where I stand. A man don't go his own way, he's nothin'.

On his first day at the base Prewitt meets Private Angelo Maggio and the two quickly become friends (Frank Sinatra won a Best Supporting Actor award for this role, considered his comeback role after a string of unsuccessful movies in the 1940’s). Maggio, on numerous occasions, defends Prewitt’s decision not to box and as a result of his support often ends up sharing the punishment being heaped onto his friend. But Maggio’s sacrifice ultimately stems from his own battle against corruption, centered on the malicious stockade sergeant "Fatso" Judson (Ernest Borgnine).

From the beginning “Fatso” had taken a disliking to Maggio and after a number of altercations between the two shouts a warning that guys like Maggio sooner or later end up in the stockade and under his jurisdiction. When that very scenario presents itself the sergeant unleashes all of his pent up frustration and anger on Maggio, brutally beating him where marks will not show, knowing that the pride of the young soldier will prevent him making complaints. Maggio’s death at the hands of the warden begins a chain of violence that escalates until it is interrupted by the Japanese attack.

The third example of personal sacrifice is seen in First Sergeant Milton Warden (Burt Lancaster). Disillusioned by operations at the base and at reporting directly to the corrupt base commander, Warden seeks the affection of the commander’s wife Karen, a crime that is punishable by up to twenty years in army prison. The wife has a promiscuous reputation on the base that, once the affair begins, creates a lot of tension. It is clear, even as the two bicker, that at the root of the affair are very strong feelings for each other. The most famous scene in From Here to Eternity, one that has been parodied again and again in film (my favorite parody being Airplane!) is the love making scene on the sandy Oahu beach. This scene was incredibly torrid for its day and remains one of the more erotic scenes in Hollywood history.

Another love story begins to gain momentum as the movie progresses towards that fateful day at Pearl Harbor. This is between Prewitt and a hostess (or prostitute) at a local gentleman’s club. Attracted to each other mostly because of the intense loneliness of their lives, the relationship struggles to gain traction, the nature of both of their careers being the biggest problems. Prewitt is understandably jealous when it comes to Alma’s work while Alma is seeking a man of higher social standing to help her climb out of her current life.

Both relationships play out and result in talk of marriage. And both prospects of marriage or a future together are dashed by the men’s love for the military. It is especially difficult for Alma to understand Prewitt’s love for the army, an institution that not only abuses him on a daily basis, but that is responsible for the death of his best friend. Prewitt tries to explain to her that even after all those things he does not hate the army, that the military was and is all he has got in this life, and that when "A man loves a thing. That don't mean it's gotta love him back".

With Warden there comes a clear opportunity to progress in his relationship with Karen and choose the woman he loves over his love for the army. It would require him to become and officer, take a desk job, and leave the barracks and in the end he cannot do it. Warden is not being selfish when he chooses not to be an officer. Although he knows that the job is not for him I believe that he would still do it to be with Karen. Instead he is sacrificing his passion and happiness for the army because he knows that he will make a poor officer and as a poor officer he would not be giving his best to the army. And this reasoning is after years of seeing injustice and brutality performed by the very institution he loves. Karen is understandably devastated but manages to say what the reality is:

You just don't want to marry me. You're already married - to the Army.

The true test of the men’s heroic dedication to the army comes when the attack on Pearl Harbor begins. At the time of the attack Prewitt is AWOL and in hiding. Suddenly, whatever negativity he is feeling is replaced with pride for the military. Rushing to confront the invaders as a proud soldier, he shouts “Who do they think they're fighting? They're pickin' trouble with the best Army in the world.” Warden, having sacrificed a better life and the potential for love and happiness, leads the men in the defense of the barracks, the attack solidifying him as the soldier he is. Both men have chosen to let their devotion to the army shape their destinies. 

War is the sacrifice of human life and of human spirit but From Here to Eternity deals with sacrifices that occur primarily in peacetime. During this time we see prostitution, adultery, military injustice, corruption and violence, alcohol abuse, and murder. While the last moments of the film cover the barracks heroic reacting the invasion, by then the sacrifices have already been made, and the blood has already been spilled. Even sadder is the moment that you realize the characters who survived to make it to the battle are about to be dragged into a horrifying endeavor, one that will demand even more sacrifice than they have already given and that we have just watched them give.

Next Up: On The Waterfront

 

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

I am working on tracking down a copy of this film. In the meantime I will post my review of the 1953 winner, From Here to Eternity.

An American In Paris (1951)

Director: Vincente Minnelli

Cast: Gene Kelly, Leslie Caron, Oscar Levant, Nina Foch
Genre: Musical/Romance
Other Nominees: Decision Before Dawn, A Place in the Sun, Quo Vadis?, A Streetcar Named Desire

To begin with, I have to be bluntly honest and say that I found it very difficult to get through to An American in Paris. I think we can put this down to the fact that I list very few musicals among my favorite films. My childhood did have its musical movie moments with the likes of Oliver!, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and Mary Poppins but even my love for those once cherished films has diminished over the years. I think it is fair to say that musicals and me just do not mix well.

That being said, when I set out to watch all Best Picture Oscar winning movies I knew that there would be some that I would struggle through. I made a promise that when those films came along I would go beyond my dislike for the film and try to see just what about the film made it the Academy’s choice for Best Picture of that year. So here, with An American in Paris, I am choosing not to focus on why this film did not have a lasting impact on me and instead focus on the positives and wonder why it did impress, and why it continues to be loved by so many others. What is so special about An American in Paris?

The first impressive thing about this film is the setting, the city of Paris, or “La Ville-Lumière”, simply shines in this film. If American cinema goers were not infatuated with the city after Casablanca, it makes sense why this city has gone on to be the romantic capital of the world after it’s representation in this film. The movie centers on Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) who remained in Paris after the war as a struggling painter. As he puts it “back home everyone said I didn't have any talent. They might be saying the same thing over here but it sounds better in French.” Even though his career is less than  profitable, Jerry makes it clear that the beauty of the city is fulfilling enough for him, and we see this beauty in every single shot of this film. He lives in a one bedroom studio above a café on a picturesque Parisian corner. The cobblestoned streets are bustling with small markets, local vegetable sellers, and quaint cafés. The residents and workers seem to have accepted Jerry as a native to the street, and his coffee fueled days are filled with singing and dancing at the café with his best friend Adam, a struggling pianist. This life is not the miserably poor life of a struggling Parisian artist we have seen in other films (The Life of Emile Zola, for example) but rather Jerry’s jovial life is the one that artists fantasize about when they entertain thoughts of Parisian life.

As is likely to happen to any character in a story set in Paris, Jerry falls in love. The romance that blossoms between him and Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron) is complicated by the fact that Jerry is attempting to fend off a suitor, who happens to finance his work, and further complicated by the fact that Lise is an engaged woman. The drama centers on these complications but plays out in settings that, with the use of exquisitely painted backdrops, show us more of this beautiful city. The two express their love on the banks of the Seine, under the shadow of an arched bridge, with the Notre-Dame looming in the distance. In the many scenes set in cafés, bars, or jazz clubs, we see the Bohemian side which Paris prides itself on. Paris takes center stage in this film, even when we have a solo dance routine the actor or actress is immersed in the beauty of their surroundings. With less than a decade since Casablanca, here we have another film that romanticizes Paris. I could not help but think of Humphrey Bogart’s immortal words, “We’ll always have Paris” when Jerry and Lise speak about the city:

Lise: Maybe Paris has a way of making people forget.

Jerry: Paris? No. Not this city. It's too real and too beautiful to ever let you forget anything.

I can also see the attraction of this film for the many fans of musicals that are out there. A French twist is applied to very American, Gershwin songs such as “Our Love is Here to Stay”, “I Got Rhythm”, and “Nice Work if You Can Get It”. The dance routines were choreographed by Gene Kelly who received an Academy Honorary Award that same year for his “versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film.” And the whole musical extravaganza climaxes with the “An American in Paris ballet”, a whopping 16 minute musical number that takes place in Jerry’s mind as he imagines his life in Paris with Lise. Almost the last twenty minutes of screen time have no dialogue whatsoever. This ballet is the curtain closing number of the movie and is epic in scale.

I could talk about the problems I had with this film but I think it would make for dull reading and may even insult those fans of the film whom I can respect. The fact that it is not one of my favorites does not mean that I cannot acknowledge that there are fans out there and at the very least try to see what the attraction is.

Next Up: The Greatest Show on Earth

 

All About Eve (1950)

 

Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Cast: Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, George Sanders, Celeste Holm, Hugh Marlowe
Genre: Drama
Other Nominees: Born Yesterday, Father of the Bride, King Solomon’s Mines, Sunset Boulevard

While the title of the film is All About Eve it is less about the character of Eve and more about the impact that she has when she enters the life of the aging actress, Margo Channing. The greatest scene in All About Eve is delivered by Bette Davis as Margo when she pauses on her staircase, turns to her anxious guests, and mischievously declares, “Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!” Eve is the reason for this line being spoken. She is a catalyst that brings all of Margo’s fears and anxieties to the surface, and all of Margo’s petulant behavior comes right along with them.

The movie opens to a lavish awards ceremony where we meet the recipient of the night’s biggest award, the beautiful Eve Harrington. As Eve accepts the award that recognizes her as the brightest star in theatre she is greeted by rapturous applause. As the camera pans the room we focus in on two women in the audience who are neither clapping nor smiling. Instead these women brood darkly and watch the proceedings with bitter looks. As Eve is about to make her speech the narrator informs us that we shall now learn “all about Eve”.

From there we flashback one year and take another look at the two brooding women from the audience. Margo Channing is a talented actress sitting at the top of the theatre world. When we first meet her she has just finished a performance and is plastering her face with all manner of beauty treatments. It is clear that Margo struggles with the concept of her aging and with the inevitable effect it will soon have on her career. She is at this time a maturing woman playing twenty year old women on stage. The stress of her situation causes her to be prone to bouts of acting the teenage drama queen, a habit that has no doubt been encouraged by her position of fame.

Karen Richards, played by Celeste Holm, is the second of the brooding women, best friend to Margo, and wife to the playwright Lloyd Richards. It is Karen who introduces Margo to Eve, a timid and mousy girl who Karen has seen waiting outside the theatre night after night.

Eve is introduced as Margo’s biggest fan, a young girl who has stood in the rain to catch a glimpse of her day after day, and who has seen every single performance of Margo’s current play. When she does get a chance to explain her devotion to Margo her life story is touching and full of sadness. Those in the room instantly sympathize and like the impressionable young woman, so much so that Eve is almost instantly accepted by the group as a friend. It is only after a few months of this friendship has passed that we get to see behind the innocent little girl to the manipulating one out to seek her own fame and glory.

She quickly manipulates the men involved, most notably Margo’s lover, theatre director Bill Sampson, and Karen’s husband Lloyd. Before long, and against Margo’s wishes, Eve has become understudy to Margo, who has already figured out what motivates the young aspiring actress and attempted to put distance between them. I will leave the remainder of Eve’s machinations a mystery. As Eve’s reputation and status rises, Margo’s reputation begins to plummet and the better Eve is appreciated by everyone and the more innocent she appears, the more cruel, unkind, and full of bitterness Margo appears to her lover and friends. And honestly, it makes for great entertainment.

A special mention should be made to George Sanders as Addison DeWitt, a role that won him the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Addison is our narrator and the only character in the film that appears immune to Eve’s Machiavellian ways, although it is clear that this immunity stems from his own slippery and conniving ways. Working as a theatre critic, and with an ever present sense of his own self importance, Addison DeWitt was one of the things I enjoyed most about this film. In one scene he arrives at a party with a blonde bombshell on his arm (an early role for the then new to the scene Marilyn Monroe), and immediately and effortlessly takes center stage. He is a socialite and a powerhouse in this theatre world and he knows it. His arrogance is great fun to watch.

I walked into All About Eve with little expectations and was stunned by how great of a movie it is. Nominated for a staggering 14 Oscars (a record that it held firm for 47 years until it was equaled by Titanic in 1997) this is a true classic and a film that has stood, and will stand, the tests of time.

Next Up: An American in Paris

 

Top 3 -- Best Picture Oscar Winning Movies from the 1940s

With the exception of the movie that was always going to be ranked in first place, I found it very difficult to choose from what was a great decade of film. Here is my pick of the litter from the 1940s:

3rd place
1945 The Lost Weekend
Watching Don Bingham and the lives of his loved ones decimated by alcoholism is not exactly a fun filled experience. Alcoholism is a lonely and melancholy disease and this film about it is best watched when you are in a lonely and melancholy mood. It was far more brutal than I expected it to be, relentless in both its disturbing imagery and dialog. And with a truly outstanding performance from Ray Milland, this is a film that transcends time and may be as relevant to some today as it was to others over 60 years ago. 

2nd place
1940 Rebecca
What a fantastic film to start the decade of Best Picture Oscar Winners with! The fact remains that since seeing Rebecca I have felt somewhat obsessed or haunted by the film. It is no coincidence that obsession and the supernatural form two strong themes in Hitchcock’s masterpiece. There are some simple pleasures to be found in this psychological thriller/mystery: I enjoyed the fact that we never learned our heroines name throughout, I enjoyed how we never see the person who gives the film its name and yet she is very much a presence on screen, and I enjoyed how both Manderley house and its inhabitants intimidated me as much as they did our heroine. This is a film that has aged beautifully and I can imagine that the impressions I garnered are exactly the same as those taken away by film goers in the 1940’s. 

1st Place
1943 Casablanca
As fantastic as the other contenders were there is simply no beating what may be the greatest film ever made in my opinion. As a film Casablanca oozes as much confidence as Humphrey Bogart’s Rick does (that is before his cool demeanor is beaten upon by the return of his lost love). I spoke about The Lost Weekend transcending time and Rebecca aging beautifully but “as time goes by” I doubt there will be another film so ingrained in the fabric of our culture. How often have you found yourself quoting this film without realizing it? I know that I was doing so before I had ever seen the movie which is a fact that speaks for itself.

All The King's Men (1949)

Director: Robert Rossen

Cast: Broderick Crawford, John Ireland, Joanne Dru
Genre: Drama
Other Nominees: Battleground, The Heiress, A Letter to Three Wives, Twelve O’Clock High

Is it possible to corrupt even the most honest and decent of people? All the King’s Men takes a hard stance on the subject showing us a very decent and loving family man attain a position of power and then proceed to delve into corruption. The fall from grace is so drastic that this man passes beyond being just corrupt and by the end trends towards becoming truly evil. This is a hero to villain story that blatantly warns us of how frail the condition of being a good person is. While the message may come across as overzealous at times, there is no doubt that the movie sets out to scare you into believing that we are all corruptible and that nobody can be trusted.

At the beginning of the film we meet a witness to these events, Jack Burden (John Ireland). Jack is a newspaper columnist assigned to travel to a small southern town and investigate the political rumblings caused by a then small time, uneducated politician by the name of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). It seems that the corrupt officials of the town are making some questionable deals that focus on lining their own pockets rather than on the good of the people. When Jack asks his editor what is so special about Willie the editor replies in all seriousness that “they say he’s an honest man.”

Willie Stark’s first dalliance with politics occurs when he learns that the building of a local school has been done cheaply to profit those in charge and publically expresses his outrage. He is eventually arrested for his outspoken actions. Soon after the school tragically collapses, and as people look to point the finger of blame, Willie Stark finds himself promoted to a highly trusted member of the community and people begin to flock to him for help with problems. With the purest of intentions Willie puts himself through law school and opens up a firm to help take on these problems, and becomes a local champion against injustice and corruption.

In this early segment of the film great pains are given to show how good a person Willie is. We learn that he and his wife adopted their son from the neighboring farm when both of the boys’ parents passed away. In these early scenes we see a man with absolute adoration for his wife and son, a man completely content with his own family life while being equally focused on helping others reach the same level of contentment. In short Willie appears to be very much the “honest man” that he was described as.

However, born from the frustration that comes from losing his first political race we begin to see the seeds of the monster that Willie will become. Determined to win the next time he runs, Willie begins to loosen his moral sense. At first he makes statements like “the ends justify the means” as he begins to make the same bad deals that he fought so hard against. In his defense at this time there does appear to be a focus on the “ends” with aggressive plans for a new hospital and free health care for all and a focus on education for every child in the state. But as more and more lucrative deals are brokered and as roads, bridges, hospitals, and churches get built across the state, we begin to see the focus shift towards the gaining of wealth and power.  

It was interesting to watch Willie make no attempt to hide his increasingly immoral transgressions and begin preaching that “good cannot exist alone, that it can only be born from bad.” At this time we are dealing with a man who is habitually a part of bad dealings and whose sense of purpose has been lost. But like most villains who remain in power he has a way with words and a charming demeanor that allows him to delay any repercussions. 

In contrast to the earlier scene of familial bliss the Willie Stark we see in the latter half of the film lives away from his wife and son. He begins to have multiple affairs and the love that existed in those early scenes is utterly destroyed. When the family gathers for a portrait on the front porch of their rural home it is for purely political reasons and his wife’s earlier warm embraces are replaced by a cold and distant peck on the cheek. This demolition of the family is where we see just how much Willie Stark loses sight of himself as the movie progresses. Finally he reaches a state of pure corruption and his mantra changes to “man is conceived in sin and born in corruption”, a statement that both takes away any responsibility he has for his actions and frees him of any remorse.

We see this rise and fall of Willie Stark mostly through Jack Burden’s eyes, the reporter who was sent to investigate the honest politician. The admiration that Jack feels for Willie and for the work he is doing, coupled with the feeling that he himself is not accomplishing anything with his own life, causes Jack to gamble all of his worth, his career, his family and his friends on being associated with Willie. I use the word gamble because I get the sense that, out of a sort of desperation, Jack is betting it all on Willie coming good on his word. And when Willie begins to fall into corruption Jack cannot simply walk away nor can he even accept what is really happening, having invested so much. I struggled throughout the film to understand why Jack remained a supporter of Willie even when his methods turned extremely sinister. But it is quite clear that Jack is a man with little self worth and when a “sure bet” like Willie came along he jumped at the opportunity to be part of something important, and in the end he simply refuses to see when things turn horribly wrong.

I do find the aforementioned “man is conceived in sin and born in corruption” quote interesting for another reason. One of the big themes in this film is the idea that anyone can be corrupted no matter how pure they are. While Willie begins this story as nothing short of perfect, at the risk of sounding dramatic, his rallying speeches to the crowd or to “his militia” found at the end of the film remind me of footage of Adolf Hitler rallying his troops. Willie is full of pride, emotion and enthusiasm but his words hint at an aggression that will mow down innocent people before it and at a man that will do anything to get ahead.

Remember, it is not I who have won, but you. Your will is my strength, and your need is my justice, and I shall live in your right and your will. And if any man tries to stop me…  I'll break him. I'll break him with my bare hands, for I have the strength of many.

John Wayne was offered a role in this film and flatly turned it down, calling the film “unpatriotic”. I am assuming he was referring to the hostile representation of the political system shown in All the King’s Men. I was a little taken aback by how this film does nothing to dull the blows it takes at politics. The shocked remarks about there being such a thing as an honest politician scrape the surface of the political stance the film takes. It outright suggests that, not only is our society under a fragile sense of control, but that it inevitably breeds corruption. The movie gives no vision of the it being capable of producing anything but corruption and it was a little surprising to see such distaste in the American political system, especially at a time when America was emerging as the land of freedom.

Up Next: All About Eve

Laurence Olivier's Hamlet (1948)

Director: Laurence Olivier

Cast: Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, John Laurie
Genre: Drama
Other Nominees: Johnny Belinda, The Red Shoes, The Snake Pit, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Milton Shulman said in his review of the 1948 adaption of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet that to some it will be considered one of the greatest films ever made and to others it will disappoint deeply. After giving the film some thought I could understand how people could feel either way.

Before I get to my take on why it could be one of the greatest films ever made or why it could disappoint deeply, here is a brief summary of events: On the island of Elsinore we find the Danish prince Hamlet who is in a deep depression. His father had died only a few short months before and Hamlet is furious at his mother’s decision to remarry his uncle Claudius. The queen Gertrude and her new king seem content to forget Hamlet’s father and move on with their ruling of the state while poor Hamlet is clearly still in mourning and very upset. It is while in this frustrated and angry state of mind that Hamlet hears news of an apparition that is appearing nightly on the castle walls. Upon investigating he discovers the ghost of his father who reveals to him a shocking secret, one that demands swift action. The story centers on Hamlet’s response to this information and the disastrous events that play out. Since first appearing on stage the character of Hamlet has become the epitome of procrastination. This film is a study of the impact his inaction has on both his own mental state and on everyone around him.  

Why it could be one of the greatest films ever made…

For me there are two reasons why people would consider this adaption great. First, you have those who rightly recognize the performance from Laurence Olivier as Hamlet as being probably the best incarnation of the Danish prince to date. I have seen Mel Gibson and Kenneth Brannagh’s versions of Hamlet, but Olivier stands above time in terms of sheer passion. In the earlier parts of the film Olivier is brilliantly depressed as the suffering Hamlet and dispels for the audience any notion that this is simply a phase of sadness and grief, as Gertrude attempts to persuade him. Olivier shows us a deep anguish and the thoughts of suicide that are spoken are legitimately disturbing as a result of it. Olivier’s prince is not simply suffering with teenage melodrama but instead is deeply unsettled when he sighs “how weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, seem to me all the uses of this world!”

That same deep anguish is partly responsible for leading young Hamlet to fake madness, or to put on an “antic disposition”. One of the aspects of the play that I always enjoyed was the blurring of the lines between Hamlets pretending to be mad and being overwhelmed by an actual insanity as disasters unfold. By the second time the ghost of his murdered father appears to Hamlet the nature of his apparent instability is brought into serious question. Other characters were able to witness the first appearance of the wretched spirit wandering the battlements but this second appearance is seen by Hamlet only while his equally emotionally disturbed mother sees nothing. Here Olivier shifts his performance and the morose Hamlet is replaced with a frantic and uncontrollable Hamlet. Without the powerful performance of depression up front this frenetic performance would fall flat but Olivier shows us a very believable man whose sanity is on the verge of collapsing. Of the adaptions I’ve seen this version best displays the interpretation that we are witnessing a very real descent into madness and as the King Claudius puts it “madness in great ones should not unwatched go.”

Another aspect of the movie I considered to be brilliantly performed and directed was the voiceover work for some of Hamlets famous speeches.  For these soliloquies in stage productions, the actor playing Hamlet would oftentimes physically separate himself from the other characters and speak directly to the audience. This separation, sometimes as simple as a step away from the main body of action, was a deliberate means to inform the audience that what they were hearing were Hamlets thoughts and not his spoken word. For this film version I thought the mixing of voiceover and spoken word was a great way to let us into the tortured mind of the prince while making us aware that the other players were not hearing these words. It is a risky approach that could have ended up feeling very kitschy but Olivier brings a professionalism that makes it work well. It can be seen most effectively in his famous soliloquy that begins “to be or not to be that is the question…”  

The second reason why this film deserves massive praise is the cinematography used to bring Elsinore to the screen. In the first act we meet the murdered ghost of King Hamlet, lost among the battlements of his castle. The ghost appears as a rotting corpse in armor and looks fantastic on screen. It seems to tower over the terrified guards while being perpetually lost in a thick and swirling fog. When it finally speaks to Hamlet and tells of how it met its end the effect is satisfyingly horrific. I always loved the sheer drama found in the line “the serpent that did sting thy father’s life now wears his crown” and thoroughly enjoyed how it manifested itself here.

The sets are stunning with the interior of the castle being an absolute maze where all rooms are connected by twisting stairways and multiple exits. It appears that no matter which exit you take from one room you will inevitably end up where the action is next unfolding and the camera takes liberties in exploring the different paths available to you as it moves from scene to scene. Throughout the play characters are required to hide behind curtains and listen around corners and this castle is an endless source of secret hiding places. The whole structure brings to mind M.C Escher’s Relativity pictured below and the labyrinthine nature of the castle begins to act more and more as a reflection of Hamlets suffering psyche as the movie progresses.

 

Why it could deeply disappoint…

I can present two reasons that were cause for film can been criticized. Both have the common theme of deviating from the sacred to some source material.

When performed in its entirety Hamlet runs at about 4.5 hours and yet Olivier’s adaption comes in at just over 2.5 hours. This is the first and greatest cause for concern for some people. The argument is simple… a lot of people feel that Olivier simply cut too much from the play. The omissions from the original material are considered unnecessary by many with lines of dialog cut, altered and even allocated to different characters. The latter decisions to have different characters speak lines were mostly made as a result of the original character being cut from this version altogether. Most notably absent from this version are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who are hired by the king to investigate Hamlets apparent madness. Also missing is the prince Fortinbras and an entire political subplot that shows us more insight into the kings character. These two cuts alone account for most of the missing action but throughout the film dialog and scenes are consistently shortened. In the end these decisions were bound to upset the purists but I have to admit that even I am a little concerned about the simplification of the story.

The film opens with an excerpt from a speech that is repeated later but then adds a simple statement that is not from the original text (you may have guessed as much when I said it was a simple statement). Olivier appears to sum up the play as being “a tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind”. Personally I think that if the film is to be considered offensive this is where the rankest offense lies and I would agree with the argument that the story is so much more layered than this simple summation. While I have always thought the movie is an extreme warning against procrastination I do think it is somewhat disrespectful to sum it up as being about just that. I can understand how even those who are not purists may be led to question the decisions to cut material after hearing this line at the beginning.

The second reason for criticism, and a reason why this film sits uncomfortably with some people, revolves around the relationship between mother and son, Gertrude and Hamlet. The theme of incest is repeated throughout the play but restricted mostly to Hamlets thoughts on his mother marrying his uncle. He speaks many times on the matter describing his uncle as “that incestuous, that adulterate beast” and describing Denmark as “a couch for luxury and damned incest.” Olivier however clearly interprets the relationship between Hamlet and his mother Gertrude as being incestuous in nature and that notion is played up in this adaptation with some intense physical encounters between the two. I can understand the argument for the interpretation being true but I can certainly understand people being upset, not so much at the interpretation itself, but at the inclusion of it in the film when its existence in the original play is one of those still hotly debated topics.   

Ultimately what you make of Laurence Olivier’s film all depends on what side of this argument you fall on…

You may feel that, with such a magnificent performance and a visually stunning experience, any deviations from or interpretations of the original material are justified. After all you could argue that the worst that can happen is that this film inspires people to investigate that original material. And you could further point out that there is no written rule that a movie adaptation need stick so closely to its source material, something that we have seen countless examples of since this films release.

"He would drown the stage with tears,
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty, and appal the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze, indeed,
The very faculties of eyes and ears."

Hamlet Scene 2 Act 2

On the other hand you may consider the works of William Shakespeare to be as close to perfection as they are going to get and in no need of altering. I can respect and tolerate the purists out there when you are dealing with these works. It may also be of concern to you when films attempt to make such works with a preconceived notion of what the audience will be capable of understanding. The “dumbing down” of material in film is also something we have seen countless examples of since this films release..

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
Hamlet Scene 1 Act 3

Up Next: All the Kings Men

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

Director: Elia Kazan
Cast: Gregory Peck, Dorothy Mcguire, John Garfield, Anne Revere, Celeste Holm
Genre: Drama, Romance
Other Nominees: The Bishop’s Wife, Crossfire, Great Expectations, Miracle on 34th Street

It is not surprising to learn that the three Best Picture Oscar winning films post WWII all dealt with socially conscious themes. We had already seen alcoholism dealt with in The Lost Weekend in 1945 and veteran rehabilitation the subject in The Best Years of Our Lives in 1946. Completing this “trilogy” the 1947 winner turned its attention to racial bigotry and anti-Semitism in Gentleman’s Agreement. With the details of the Holocaust and all its atrocities emerging, I imagine it was hard not to find the subject of bigotry prevalent everywhere in life. In fact Gentleman’s Agreement shared the theme of tackling anti-Semitism with another nominee for Best Picture in 1947, Crossfire. With the evil of Nazism gone from the world perhaps it was only right to look around and attempt to purge any similarities to the regime at home and it appears that anti-Semitism was very much present in American culture. While it goes without saying that it never reached the lunatic levels of Nazism the same seeds of hatred existed and I understand that they demanded exposure.

In Gentleman’s Agreement Gregory Peck plays Phillip Green who had recently moved his family, his son and his mother, to New York City. Upon meeting with the editor of the liberal magazine he writes for Phillip is tasked with exposing anti-Semitism in the city. Initially he struggles to come up with the “right angle” and feels that the facts and figures lack any real insight into how it must feel to be at the receiving end of any injustice he perceives. Then in a moment of clarity, Phillip decides to take on a Jewish persona to personally discover the actual attitudes of people in a town where very few people know him. From there the film proceeds to display example after example of an underlying bigotry and hatred that seems to be everywhere.

The examples come thick and fast. While experimenting with his new identity, Phillip finds that applications sent regarding open job positions are rejected when the name implies the person is Jewish, while the same application with a non-Jewish sounding name is accepted for an interview. He discovers that landlords similarly reject rental applications and strive to keep their buildings free of Jewish people. In one scene a doctor discourages seeing a Jewish specialist on the grounds that the patient will be cheated. He quickly makes excuses and leaves when Phillip discloses his “religion”. When Phillip attempts to make reservations at a swanky hotel his request is rejected as management strive to restrict customers to non-Jewish guests.

While these examples very successfully demonstrate the anti-Semitism in society, the more impactful demonstrations seen in the film are also the more subtle. There is enormous strain put on the blossoming relationship that Phil has with his editor’s daughter Kathy. While their relationship has few problems and they seem a perfect match for each other we see in Kathy an acceptance of the bigotry as being a part of life. When she first learns of the scheme she reacts poorly before attempting to save face:

Phil Green: I'm going to let everybody know I'm Jewish.
Kathy Lacey: Jewish? But you're not! Are you? Not that it would make any difference to me. But you said, "Let everybody know," as if you hadn't before and would now. So I just wondered. Not that it would make any difference to me… … Phil, you're annoyed.
Phil Green: No, I'm just thinking.
Kathy Lacey: Well, don't look serious about it. Surely you must know where I stand.
Phil Green: Oh, I do.
Kathy Lacey: You just caught me off-guard.

As the film progresses it becomes clearer to Phil that he had not simply caught Kathy off guard and that even bigger than the problem of outright discrimination was the subtle acceptance that “nice people” had for anti-Semitism. It is a lesson that Kathy learns before the films end but it also becomes the key theme of the film. Just as Phillip could not get his point of view across with pure facts and needed an emotional angle to tell the story the film too cannot get the problems of anti-Semitism across by simply giving examples and needed to explore the emotional impact the divide had on relationships. This demonstration of bigotry being accepted and of the impact it has on Phillip’s relationship with Kathy is where the true power of the film lies.

Phil Green: I've come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows. People who would never beat up a Jew! People who think anti-Semitism is far away in some dark place with low-class morons. That's the biggest discovery I've made. The good people! The nice people!

A second relationship impact is shown between Phil and his young son Tommy. When Tommy learns that they are playing a game of pretending to be Jewish he begins to ask questions of breakfast one morning. I really enjoyed this simple scene where Phil struggles to explain bigotry and why it exists to an innocent child. It reminded me of the sad fact that one day I will have to explain similar things to my own child.

Tommy Green: What's anti-Semitism?
Phil Green: Well, uh, that's when some people don't like other people just because they're Jews.
Tommy Green: Why not? Are Jews bad?
Phil Green: Well, some are and some aren't, just like with everyone else.
Tommy Green: What are Jews, anyway?
Phil Green: Well, uh, it's like this. Remember last week when you asked me about that big church, and I told you there are all different kinds of churches? Well, the people who go to that particular church are called Catholics, and there are people who go to different churches and they're called Protestants, and there are people who go to different churches and they're called Jews, only they call their churches temples or synagogues.
Tommy Green: Why don't some people like them?
Phil Green: Well, I can't really explain it, Tommy.

Tommy plays along with the game of pretending but the pain that Phil feels when his child begins to be bullied is more powerful than any of the examples mentioned earlier. What at first is just a game to Tommy becomes much worse when the local kids begin to ostracize him. After being bullied one afternoon Tommy arrives home with tears in his eyes. A Jewish friend of Phillips tells him that now that his children have felt the sting of bigotry, he has a complete understanding of what it feels like to be Jewish. This friend goes on to describe comforting his own child who does not understand why he cannot play with other kids or why they are rejected from attending camp.

That moment where Tommy arrives home also becomes the pivotal moment between Phillip and Kathy. Upon seeing him upset Kathy embraces the crying Tommy and soothingly tells him that “it’s not true. You're no more Jewish than I am. It's just some horrible mistake.” This proves to be the final straw for Phillip who is enraged that rather than explaining to his son that the bullying of Jews is unjust and cruel, she chose to comfort him with the knowledge that he was above being Jewish. Not only does Phillip realize the jeopardy that he has placed his son in, and the injustice of that jeopardy, but this moment also solidifies that idea that good people are propagating anti-Semitism as much as any bully or bigot is. This indifference to injustice becomes the films key message.

As I watched Gentleman’s Agreement I could not help but think about Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, a character who shares a lot in common with Phillip Green. Both are fathers attempting to raise children who see beyond the labels placed on people by the color of their skin or by their religion. Both fathers are forced to explain bigotry to children whose innocence cannot comprehend the complicated reasons of why such hatred manifests itself between different people. Both fathers attempt to stand up against society and show their children that they can behave differently than those around them. In particular I thought about To Kill a Mockingbird and the continued struggle to treat all people equally when I listened to the words of Phillips mother as she looked to the future:

I suddenly want to live to be very old… Very. I want to be around to see what happens. The world is stirring in very strange ways. Maybe this is the century for it. Maybe that's why it's so troubled. Other centuries had their driving forces. What will ours have been when men look back? Maybe it won't be the American century after all... or the Russian century or the atomic century. Wouldn't it be wonderful... if it turned out to be everybody's century... when people all over the world - free people - found a way to live together? I'd like to be around to see some of that... even the beginning. I may stick around for quite a while.

It has been over 50 years since Mrs. Green first said those words to her son and although we have not reached the utopian vision she had of all people finding a way to live together I’d like to think that we are still moving in the right direction. That however is a debate for another day.















Up Next: Hamlet

The Best Years Of Our Lives (1946)

Director: William Wyler

Cast: Myrna Loy, Fredric March, Dana Andrews, Teresa Wright, Virginia Mayo, Harold Russell
Genre: Drama, Romance
Other Nominees: Henry V, It’s a Wonderful Life, The Razor’s Edge, The Yearling

The Best Years of our Lives deals with three World War II veterans who return to America to begin the road to rehabilitation, Al Stephenson (Fredric March), Fred Darry (Dana Andrews), and Homer Parrish (Harold Russell). All three soldiers bare either physical or emotional scars from their wartime experience and struggle to adjust to normal life. We see psychological problems manifest themselves in all three, most notably in the night terrors that Fred suffers through and in Al’s struggle with alcoholism. And we see the physical devastation war can leave behind in young Homer Parrish who is missing both hands below the elbows. While all three suffer different agonies they each have women in their lives who attempt to help them through it. The Best Years of Our Lives is a film that tests the love that these women have for their men to see if it can survive the difficulties that the veterans struggle with.

There are three very different love stories in this film and each displays a different test for love to endure. First there is the love between the now disabled Homer and his high school sweetheart Wilma. Homer is a Navy officer who lost both his hands in battle and is played by Harold Russell, an actual war veteran afflicted with said disability. Despite having little acting experience Harold excels in his role, perhaps because the pain and confusion he portrays is less pretend for him than it would have been for other actors. Incidentally, Harold won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role and was commemorated during the ceremony for “bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans”.

When we first meet Homer Parrish it appears that he has accepted his disability and even overcome it. Rather than suffering with what would have been an understandable depression he is jovial and lively while he speaks with his fellow veterans. But when his disability meets his old life, his family and his girlfriend, it surfaces as a painful problem and it is in the awkward embrace of his girlfriend that we first glimpse his suffering.

Fred Derry: You gotta hand it to the Navy; they sure trained that kid how to use those hooks.

Al Stephenson: They couldn't train him to put his arms around his girl, or to stroke her hair.

We learn that Homer is simply unable to accept the notion that Wilma can see beyond his missing hands. He does not want her to settle for him, for something less than she deserves. As he puts it: “I want you to be free, Wilma, to live your own life. I don't want you tied down forever just because you've got a kind heart.” The love that Wilma has for Homer is tested to see if it can be blind to Homer’s physical disability.   

The second love story is between the older soldier Al and his wife of a few decades. When Al returns home he bears no physical disabilities and is even welcomed back at work with a promotion. But he has returned to find his children have grown into young adults and finds a wife who is distant and unfamiliar to him. Overwhelmed by his old life suddenly returning to him and by his inability to relate to his family Al turns to alcohol to help him through it.

Mrs. Stephenson has a great line in which she explains to her daughter that love is not always easy and alludes to the fact that she and her husband need to rebuild their relationship. This comes after the daughter exclaims that they have "never had any trouble." Speaking to her husband she says:

How many times have I told you I hated you and believed it in my heart? How many times have you said you were sick and tired of me; that we were all washed up? How many times have we had to fall in love all over again?

The love between Al and his wife is tested as they struggle to reconnect. Both have to be patient enough, kind enough and understanding enough in order for that to happen.

The third love story is a story of new love that has to overcome an enormous social taboo. Fred returns home but is unable to find his wife. It turns out she has taken up work at a nightclub and, using the money Fred has been sending back home, she has been living the life of a socialite. There is clearly little love between the two and the bitterness that lives in their marriage becomes all the more apparent when Fred is unable to find work and his wife has to face the prospect of a great lifestyle change.

Fred Derry: Thirty-two fifty. I used to make over four hundred dollars a month in the Air Force.

Mr. Thorpe: The war is over, Derry.

When this film was screened to audiences it is said that there were many audible gasps when Marie Darry uttered the word “divorce” to her husband. At the time divorce was severely frowned upon and considered to be socially unacceptable. By today’s standards the big moment has less of an impact and comes across as melodramatic but I think it is important to understand how unheard of this word was in film. Personally, considering that Fred suffered great psychological distress I found the disregard for his experience more shocking than the mention of the D word!

Marie Darry: I gave up the best years of my life, and what have you done? You flopped! Couldn't even hold that job at the drugstore. So I'm going back to work for myself and that means I'm gonna live for myself too. And in case you don't understand English, I'm gonna get a divorce.

The final test for love does not exist within this marriage but outside it. As he and his wife separate Fred meets Al’s daughter and they begin a romance together. But it is a timid and frightened affair that may not survive in the society it finds itself in. Of the three love stories this is perhaps the one most at risk of survival simply because of its environment. The ultimate test for both lovers is to see if their love is worth the sacrifice of being labeled a social outcast.  

The Best Years of Our Lives challenges love to conquer these tests. The test for love to be blind to physical or monetary problems, the test for love to be patient and understanding, the test for love to defy social conventions when necessary, and the test for love to endure ridicule. The men face enormous problems when they return to a life that no longer makes sense to any of them. In all three examples it is love that helps the men through their problems and in the end perhaps the movie argues that it's only love that could help them through it.

Up Next: Gentleman’s Agreement

The Lost Weekend (1945)

Director: Billy Wilder

Cast: Ray Milland, Jane Wyman, Howard Da Silva, Frank Faylen
Genre: Drama
Other Nominees: Anchors Aweigh, The Bells of St. Mary's, Mildred Pierce, Spellbound

In the previous year director Billy Wilder directed the classic Double Indemnity, a film that was nominated for seven Oscar categories but failed to win a single one. It has been suggested that the success of The Lost Weekend owes a little something to its director’s snubbing by the Academy a year earlier. However, after viewing it and based on the heavy impact it had on me, I strongly feel that The Lost Weekend is a movie that, even today, stands on its own merits and deserved all the accolades it received.

Alcoholism is the subject matter dealt with in The Lost Weekend, a subject matter that is as important and prevalent today as it was in the 1940’s. The victim in this film is Don Bingham who is brilliantly portrayed by Ray Milland. Don refers to himself as being two people, Don the writer and Don the drunk. In one scene he explains to his girlfriend how these two Dons interact, and of how the writer’s lack of self esteem leaves him vulnerable to the drunk. Whenever he attempts to write, a panic seeps in and the drunk whispers in his ear, telling him that one drink will help. But as Nat, the local bartender explains “One’s too many and a hundred’s not enough!” In this way Don has never finished anything he has started writing and his self loathing keeps him stuck in a dangerous routine. “Don’t wipe it away, Nat. Let me have my vicious little cycle” he tells Nat who attempts to wipe away the condensation mark left behind by his last drink.

But as with all alcoholics no matter how disturbing their suffering is, it is the people who love them who suffer the most. In this movie we see two people suffer through Dons disease. Don has been living with his brother Wick free of charge for years and there is his girlfriend Helen St. James, who tells him “I know you’re trying Don. We’re both trying. You’re trying not to drink and I’m trying not to love you.” Both are just as much a victim as Don is. But while Helen, played by Jane Wyman, appears to be endlessly compassionate and forgiving, Wick Bingham has had enough of his brother and is seemingly beyond the point of being compassionate. When faced with the possibility that Don may harm himself over the upcoming weekend he lashes out and says:

If it happens, it happens and I hope it does. I've had six years of this. I've had my bellyful ... How often have you cried? How often have I beaten him up? Scrape him out of a gutter and pump some kind of self-respect into him and back he falls, back in every time.

The score to this film sounds as if it’s straight out of a classic sci-fi film. It is unrelenting and while it may turn some viewers off I thought it did a great job at helping to depict alcohol as a very real onscreen monster. In sci-fi/horror films the appearance of a villain is marked by a dramatic change in music, so too here is a glass or bottle of rye whiskey identified. In The Lost Weekend you are acutely aware when the villain appears to torment and destroy Don, as acutely as if an inhuman creature had just shambled onscreen and started towards him. The music confirms for us that for Don Bingham alcohol is a brutal enemy, a nemesis capable of destroying him completely.

As the weekend in question progresses and Don’s condition deteriorates some truly horrific scenes occur. After awaking to find him in an alcoholic’s ward of a hospital Don is warned of the effects of delirium tremens, or the DTs, a condition which the nurse predicts is imminent for Don given his blood alcohol levels. Don proceeds to escape the ward and return home where horrific hallucinations begin and culminate in the gruesome image of a bat biting the head off a mouse. This scene sees Don at his lowest point in the weekend, when his very sanity is threatened by his drinking.

My only argument against the greatness of this film comes with the ending. Until the final scene this film had been utterly uncompromising and as such had a profound effect on me. The notion of Don committing suicide had been foreshadowed throughout the film and, as disturbing as it is for me to say this, perhaps this film would have better sent the message it intended to send had it had a more negative ending. I will leave it for you to judge the final scene but for me, after being beaten mercilessly until then, I felt like the film pulled a punch.

Up Next: The Best Years of our Lives. 

Going My Way (1944)

Director: Leo McCarey
Cast: Bing Crosby, Barry Fitzgerald, Gene Lockhart, Frank McHugh
Genre: Musical/Drama
Other Nominees: Double Indemnity, Gaslight, Since You Went Away, Wilson

“Would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a mule…”

There are some songs that will last forever. While I am hazy on the lyrics to Swinging on a Star the song is immediately recognizable from my own past. I’m sure it was on one of the many compilation records I had as a kid, right next to High Hopes and Puff the Magic Dragon. I still remember the kid friendly, and by that I mean utterly indestructible, record player that I used to play these records on. So imagine my surprise when, while I sat through Going My Way, Bing Crosby’s singing priest and his youth choir perform this song that comes right out of my childhood.

The singing priest in question, Father Chuck O’Malley, is not your typical priest. He’s the problem solver of the New York City Catholic Church, a cunning thinker with a heart of gold. Even at his young age he has displayed a knack for turning “problem churches” into successful outfits and in Going My Way the young priest is assigned as a curate to an aging Irish priest at Saint Dominic’s, an inner city New York church that’s at risk of being closed down.

Barry Fitzgerald is excellent as the elderly priest, an aging Irish immigrant who build the church from the ground up, and whose pride is perhaps blinding him from the problems that grow around him. The mortgage payments are overdue and building up, church attendance is low, while the local youth appear to already be well practiced criminals. Enter Bing Crosby to set things right.

The inspirational thing about Father Chuck O’Malley is how he goes about setting things right. Throughout his efforts he displays an unceasing kindness to others. Chuck is excellent at manipulating people but it is always done with the best of intentions towards those being manipulated. His cunning only result in people doing what is best for them and never in him profiting. When confronted with a person of malicious intent he reacts with kindness. In one early scene he deals with an irate and self proclaimed atheist by lending him his rosary beads to cover an expense owed. Throughout the movie he displays only humility in his accomplishments and a constant desire to make others happy. In short, he makes for the perfect priest, one that is made all the more perfect as Bing Crosby adds his good natured smirk along with some great songs.

While Going My Way is classified as a musical I was surprised at how little music was involved. It is more a comedy/drama punctuated here and there with songs. In total there are only three original songs here: “Going My Way”, “The Day After Tomorrow”, and the aforementioned “Swinging on a Star”. Add to that a short scene from the opera Carmen, a spattering of catholic hymns, and the repeated singing/humming of an Irish lullaby, and you will find that music takes a backseat in this “musical”. It is the characters that take center stage in this film and in my opinion Father O’Malley may be one of the better examples of a human being portrayed on screen.

Up Next: The Lost Weekend

Casablanca (1943)

Director: Michael Curtiz
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lore, Conrad Veidt
Genre: Romance/Drama
Other Nominees: For Whom the Bell Tolls, Heaven Can Wait, The Human Comedy, In Which We Serve, Madame Curie, The More the Merrier, The Ox-Bow Incident, The Song of Bernadette, Watch on the Rhine

And so chronologically we come to the first Best Picture Oscar Winning film that I had seen before taking on this challenge to watch the entire list. This movie had an honored spot in my DVD collection beforehand and in a way my love for the film has made it more of a challenge to write a synopsis. After all I am arguably writing about the most popular Best Picture Winner of all time. I can say that, although I know that this thought is premature, I personally am not sure I will find another movie on the list that betters Casablanca.

As the name suggests Casablanca is set in the desert city of Morocco after the Germans had occupied France during World War II. The city was bustling at the time, filled with refugees of all status who were attempting to flee Europe and their Nazi oppressors. These refugees all had one destination in mind: America. As the opening narration explains most of them were on a roundabout journey to get there. This journey took them from the port city of Marseilles, France across the Mediterranean by boat to Oran, Algiers. And from there they trekked to Casablanca, Morocco hoping to continue on to Lisbon, Portugal. Lisbon was a rare European city from which ships still sailed the Atlantic to America.

But as we learn most refugees never reach Lisbon and find themselves permanently stalled in Casablana. For corrupt officials controlled the necessary exit visas required to leave and these were only exchanged for large amounts of money or even for sexual favors. Crooked gambling houses sprang up and preyed on the hopeless. In an early scene a pickpocket whispers a warning to his victim telling him to be careful, that“this place is full of vultures, vultures everywhere”!

Whether you agree with the accolades bestowed on Casablanca or not you cannot argue with its “quotability”. I have listed here the better known quotes but in my view you could take the script and have a successful social life recycling almost all of it. While some have argued that the writing comes across as corny I feel that this may be the one film that can get away with such cliched speech, which is a credit to the actors involved.

“Play it once, Sam. For old times sake..”
“Here’s looking at you, kid.”
“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”
“Round up the usual suspects.”
“Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”
“Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.”
“We’ll always have Paris”
“The problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”

While the above quotes reflect the drama and romance found in the film it is the comedy that makes this film easy to watch. Particularly funny are the conversations between Humphrey Bogart’s character and Louis Renault, the captain of the local police played with guile by Claude Rains.

Louis: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Louis: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert!
Rick: I was misinformed.

Major Strasser: What’s your nationality?
Rick: I’m a drunkard.
Louis: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.

In another great moment the prefect of police is asked to find a reason to close Ricks and he announces that he is shocked to find that gambling is going on there. Right as he says this a cashier is bringing him his winnings from his nights gambling which he stuffs into his pocket. This wit and humor hardly ever lets up and helps tremendously with the films pace.

In Casablanca, Rick (Humphrey Bogart) is a cold hearted debonair whose staunch neutrality to both the war effort and to people around him is shattered when his past comes back to haunt him. Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) is his past and a woman torn between love and commitment, between what she wants and what is right. Ingrid Bergman may also be one of the most beautiful women ever captured on screen. In this film she is no less than stunning. Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) is a revolutionary, escaped from a German concentration camp and propagating resistance to the Nazi Party wherever he goes while Captain Renault is the corrupt local official profiting from the refugees plight as they flee across the globe. I should also mention Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet), the kingpin of all local criminal activities, and Rick’s main rival. It is a combination of these five characters that give the comedy, the drama, and the romance real life in this film. But while all of these characters are essential to the success of Casablanca there can be no doubt that the story rests heavily on the shoulders of the two reunited lovers, Rick and Ilsa.

The first we see of Rick is his confident signature of authority on paperwork, an ode to his “all business” demeanor. As the camera pans wide we see the owner and proprietor of Ricks Americain Café, smoking and drinking scotch by himself. He is isolated from those around him but has a magnetic swagger of coolness about him. Early on we see him reject a woman and cruelly eject her from his bar, a woman who was clearly in love with him and perhaps was led on by him. He is indifferent to her or to anyone’s feelings and his life is full with profit and loneliness. Rick is a man who “never drinks with customers” and who “sticks his neck out for no man”, two quotes that sufficiently sum him up as the film begins.

Despite his isolationism or perhaps because of it, Rick still manages to be the most sought after social companion in Casablanca and when a local thief comes into possession of “letters of transit”, letters which would allow the bearer to travel freely and unquestioned across German territory, he entrusts them to Rick before being captured and killed. As if Rick was not powerful enough to begin with he is now granted the ultimate position of power in the community, the ability to grant escape from the Nazis to anyone he wishes.

But here and there we get small hints that suggest to us that Rick was not always this greedy and self-involved. For one, he refuses to allow German bankers to gamble in his casino no matter how high they rank in society, while we also see his refusal to take German money when he tears up a check left by a German soldier. If he is not outspoken about his political beliefs it is clear that he hides some conviction on the matter. We also hear rumors that he ran guns to the resistance in Ethiopia and fought the fascists in Spain. So like the refugees that run from Europe Rick too is running from something and soon after obtaining the letters his past walks into his bar to meet him.

Victor Laszlo, a famous Czech resistance leader who had escaped a Nazi concentration camp and further evades Nazi forces across Europe, had arrived in Casablanca and seeks passage to America so that he can continue his important political work. On his arm is Ilsa and it is Ingrid Bergman’s character that comes right out of Ricks past. The impact she has sees his cool façade crumble into anger and sees him show weakness, but ultimately her arrival provides for Rick the chance for redemption.

Sacrifice is a huge theme of this film and Rick and Isla are asked to sacrifice much for the greater cause. The film has been described as an allegory to the United States own personal journey and this sacrifice, along with the changes we see in Rick, mirror the journey that the United States had just gone on. For the country had changed from the cynical and isolationist mind frame that followed the first World War to the renewal of patriotism and commitment to a greater good experienced during World War II. You may find it interesting to know that this film premiered at the Hollywood Theater in New York City on the same date that the Allied invasion of North Africa began and the city of Casablanca was captured. This was November 26th, 1942.*

I will leave you with a description of a great scene from Casablanca. While it is not the famous final scene, the one that is littered with many of the quotes I have mentioned above, it is absolutely my favorite.

The German soldiers are gathered around a piano in one corner of the bar and as the beer flows they begin to sing nationalist songs. Their voices are loud and prideful and practically beat on the rest of the bar. The people are sullen and withdrawn as they listen to the Nazi songs. They are beaten. Rick, hearing German songs being played in his bar, steps out onto the balcony but does nothing to stop the singing. He simply watches as Victor Laszlo strides to the house band and asks them to play “La Merseillaise”, the French national anthem. Rick nods his approval. At first Laszlo sings alone and is barely heard above the Germans but within seconds the patrons are stirred from their stupor and with their own patriotism rekindled they drown out the Germans with a rousing chorus. The German soldiers retreat sulkily to their beers.

The excitement in this scene is infectious and as impactful as any battle scene could be. It is both uplifting and inspiring, and summarizes what this film is about. For while the love between Rick and Isla takes center stage there is a cause far more important all around them and this cause has the potential to drown out any tears that result from whatever sacrifice is asked of them, and from whatever sacrifice they choose to make.

Up Next: Going My Way

* It officially released on January 23rd, 1943.