Few classic era film directors did comedy better than Frank Capra, if any. The over-the-top ridiculous dark comedy farce “Arsenic and Old Lace” is not the three-time Oscar winner’s usual cup of tea (there’s an inherent lack of romance), but he captures the adaptation of the play with a sense of humor that’s critical for a story so ridiculous. Read the rest of this entry »
One has to judge “Gentleman’s Agreement” in the context in which it was made. This was a landmark film, one of the first socially responsible films in movie history that barely escaped the clutches of the government’s inquisition of communism in Hollywood as well as numerous movie industry bigwigs who didn’t want it made. Few films are true achievements in a socially relevant sense, even today, but “Gentleman’s Agreement” managed to reach that level in a time when the movie industry almost always kept its nose out of real-world issues. Read the rest of this entry »
Films about the movie industry are always interesting, but “Sullivan’s Travels” is in its own special niche in the show-biz comedy genre. The premise is about a successful musical comedy director who wants to make a serious picture about human suffering. The film opens with a dedication to the memory of clowns, buffoons — anyone who has dedicated their life to making people laugh. What do you think he will learn at the end of this story? It’s not revealed with the most impressiveness, but few themes ring as true as this film’s, especially to anyone with a love of the movies, especially classics. Read the rest of this entry »
The Charles Dickens classic “Great Expectations” could not have been in better hands than David Lean’s. Though his later works would be the ones to earn him accolades, this film is just as special. Few directors can make a film feel grandiose while still paying close attention to the details like Lean. “Great Expectations” is a film with as much power on-screen as the literary classic it came from. It also calls attention to what’s between the lines of Dickens’ pages. Read the rest of this entry »
In the wake of World War II, Alfred Hitchcock brought audiences “Notorious,” a romantic thriller with political undertones. To audiences of the era, I’m sure it was slightly scandalous. Not only in its dealing with Germans living in Brazil post-WWII and handling uranium, but also with its co-stars Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman kissing on and off for an extremely long take. It’s safe to say that was particularly sensual for film in 1946, but for modern viewers, their love affair seems almost childish and unfounded. The one aspect of this film that has not withered over the last 60-some years, however, is the immaculate direction of Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Read the rest of this entry »
The oldest Best Picture winner I have seen … so far
“It Happened One Night” is a classic love story yet its best feature is that it surprises you: it’s not chock-full of clichés (though not devoid of them either) and it has an enduring sense of humor that all generations can appreciate.
The film stars two classic screen actors in Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert playing Peter Warne and Ellie Andrews, one a recently fired journalist and the other a runaway heiress who meet on a bus to New York. For Peter, this scoop could save his career and for Ellie, well, she needs all the help she can get to make it to New York alive. The two develop an unlikely relationship exchanging humorous jabs as they bus, hitchhike and hijack their way and of course while neither will be the first to admit it, there’s no hiding their feelings for each other from the audience. Read the rest of this entry »
Acclaimed writer/director Billy Wilder strikes again with another humorous and romantic comedy in “The Apartment.” But more important than another triangular love story from the “Some Like It Hot” creator is the actor he brought along with him: Jack Lemmon. Though “Hot” was his breaking out party, “The Apartment” really boasts the range of the funny, neurotic and charismatic Lemmon. Read the rest of this entry »
More than a half century after “Sunset Blvd.,” audiences are well aware that Hollywood is not all glitz and glamor — that there’s a stark reality. Yet despite that knowledge, “Sunset Blvd.” is still an eye-opening and deeply affecting motion picture today as it was in the 1950s. Because even though our “access” to Hollywood is greater than that of yesteryear, great film-making and chilling performances are timeless and that’s what this classic delivers. Read the rest of this entry »
Three of the brightest stars in the golden years of cinema converge in “The Philadelphia Story,” a romantic comedy of great wit and sophistication. Although it would be unfair to say that the talent makes this film, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn and James Stewart are far and away its best feature. Read the rest of this entry »
My first Hitchcock movie makes its way to Blu-ray today. Of all the oldies to work in high def, this could be one of them.
There’s something so timeless about “North by Northwest” and it’s not necessarily that it will echo with any generation. Cary Grant’s Roger Thornhill, for example, feels a little foreign among today’s thriller protagonists (accent aside) as a 50-year-old everyday man thrown into a mess of a government situation. The action is certainly not big-budget like modern films either with the exception of one explosion. The “it” that “Northwest” has is something more unique and a lot of it stems from great thriller writing and of course the direction of Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Read the rest of this entry »
Wish that today’s romantic comedies full of superficial blabber and polluted ideas about love and sex would just — shut up? Hold on to your ten dollars and rent the Charlie Chaplin classic “City Lights,” a heart-warming romance and physical comedy — where no one talks.
It seems like the era and even the idea of the silent love story has been long gone and forgotten. Relationships and courtship are full of drama, selfish sexual desire and prejudices and attitudes about what’s attractive. In a modern context, “City Lights” can be viewed as an hour and a half trip back to innocence.
The already famous Chaplin returns to the screen in “Lights,” his first silent film in the dawn of the “talkie” era. Chaplin once again plays the Tramp, this time befriending a suicidal drunken rich man and taking a fancy to a blind flower salesgirl. As a social commentary, Chaplin picks on the snootiness of the upper class and their fancy parties that only mask their unhappiness, as well as championing those who are not as wealthy but don’t create social prejudice. But “Lights” is a love story at heart.
Maybe it’s only because he knows she won’t judge him by his appearance that the Tramp is immediately infatuated with the blind flower seller, but his unblinking kindness toward her is just heart-warming. As he tries to find the money to pay for her rent, (leading to some hysterical scenes, namely a boxing fight) you know deep down that he’ll never fully be repaid for his kind deeds. That is until the classic ending that could win even the coldest of fish over with its simple but perfect execution.
There’s plenty opportunity here for us to laugh at the Tramp too, but it’s just not what you take away most from “City Lights.’ You can name the classic comedy scenes without problem, but the impression does not follow them. It’s the beautiful story of two seemingly nobodies who treat each other with unconditional kindness amidst a city of superficial and judgmental people that makes you stop and wonder. The fact that in all honesty we still search for that ideal today despite an even greater setting promoting the opposite, and that’s what makes “City Lights” a classic.
It’s not unfair initially to dismiss “The Day the Earth Stood Still” as sci-fi pulp from an era full of it, but the film’s anti-war message given the Cold War context it was released in makes it nothing short of a classic. Its commercial exterior featuring posters with Gort the space robot pales in comparison to the social/diplomatic values it preaches at its core. Sure, it’s not all that suspenseful or riveting for science-fiction, but it represents one of the first pop culture films to reflect important moral values.
Borrowing from the lucrative UFO alien movies before it, TDTESS begins with a flying saucer landing in the Washington mall and producing an alien with a human appearance named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) and his robot protector Gort, a goofy-looking man in a shiny suit with the ability to disintegrate anything with a beam from his eye. For starters, Klaatu is greeted by military bullets that destroy a gift he intended for the president that would give us the ability to study life on other planets. That’s the example of the strict satirical tone taken by writer Edmund H. North (based on the short story by Harry Bates).
Despite humorous special effects and the cheesy running and screaming you see in pulp alien invasion movies, TDTESS manages to expose many of our flaws including our fear of the unknown and our propensity to resort to violence. It warns of the dangers of nuclear energy and outwardly scorns war. In the beginning years of the Cold War, such a message getting out to the public is an accomplishment that must be lauded.
TDTESS isn’t only good for its messages, though it certainly is what makes the film stand out. Rennie is a terrific Klaatu. He’s intriguing, friendly but also very frank, winning our sympathies but still convincing us of his other-worldly nature. The relationship he develops with the young Bobby Benson (Billy Gray) is the film’s most interesting subplot next to Klaatu helping a scientist out with an equation that will lead to interplanetary travel.
Rarely does a film become a classic solely because of its message, but TDTESS certainly does. It’s so frank, but speaks such an undeniable truth that in the form of cheaply made science- fiction, resonates in a way that straighter films can’t. That’s the beauty of the genre and why TDTESS is its first classic.
With all the cop drama TV shows and films that have come out over the years and the corruption thrillers, revisiting an old noir thriller such as “Touch of Evil” about cops taking justice into their own hands can be unexciting. There’s very little that those of a younger generation haven’t seen before, so what separates “Touch of Evil” from the pack? Good film-making. In the long tracking shot that consumes the opening scene, you understand right away that Orson Welles is serious about his finest directorial effort, and that no matter how un-thrilling the story might be, that this what good movies look like.
I watched the 1998 re-release featuring scenes that the studio cut that Welles wanted to keep in, always the best way to watch a classic in a time where this was even more common practice than it is today. Welles’ style is reminiscent of Hitchcock, only choosing close-ups in critical scenes so that they have a big dramatic impact. I can only speculate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “Touch of Evil” got actress Janet Leigh her unforgettable role in “Psycho” two years later.
“Touch of Evil” stars Charlton Heston fresh off the heels of “The Ten Commandments” as Mike Vargas, a (unconvincing) Mexican narcotics official that’s wanted dead by a Mexican narcotics dealer gets caught playing a role in a murder investigation when a car explodes when he and his wife Susie (Leigh) are on Honeymoon in a Mexican border town. The infamous local police captain Hank Quinlan (an almost unrecognizably overweight Welles) suspects a Mexican national and soon Vargas is on to Quinlan, accusing him of planting evidence. Meanwhile, Susie is kidnapped by the dealer’s nephews to be used as a bargaining chip.
Not just directing and writing, but from an acting standpoint, this is Welles’ film too. Not only does Quinlan take up much of the screen, but his old crooked persona makes him easily the most interesting character. He’s a cop struggling between right and wrong, operating on a false sense of justice. It’s not highly original, but Quinlan is our main draw to the story. It’s certainly not Heston pretending to be Mexican.
Quick pacing and suspenseful, shadowy direction is the real signature Welles leaves on the film. There’s no particular emotional investment in the story or characters, just intrigue in knowing when everything is going to finally get nasty and dangerous instead of the continuous verbal accusations. Welles does deliver and brings the film to a thrilling climax that confirms our suspicions of what was really the most important part of his film.
A story of a man talking to a tall imaginary rabbit seems like a child’s film, but “Harvey” is anything but. In fact, it challenges our tendency to dismiss it as such. It is a case study of a perfectly delusional but perfectly charming middle-aged man who despite those around him believing him insane, ends up making them drive themselves crazy.
Based on Mary Chase’s Pulitzer-winning play (Chase also had a hand in the screenplay), “Harvey” tells the story of Elwood P. Dowd (James Stewart), who as mentioned appears to have an imaginary friend rabbit who accompanies him to the bars where he meets people and invites them to have drinks at his house sometime. He appears to have no job and his older sister Veta (Josephine Hull) is embarrassed by his behavior, enough to the point where she finally takes him to a mental hospital to be committed, where farce-like humor ensues.
Stewart, who has always fallen nicely into roles involving naive people passionately committed to something, is an ideal choice for Elwood. He gives the role a dreamy quality few of the other great actors of the ’40s and ’50s could have. Elwood is warm, kind-hearted, complimentary and other than drinking a lot and talking to an imaginary rabbit, seems devoid of any other vices or character flaws.
As the doctors and nurses at the mental hospital get involved, we learn more about Elwood. The film is like a psychological case study in which we become so focused wanting to know what is triggering his delusion that we miss the point. That is until Chase’s wonderful script makes sense of it toward the end.
The film has the vibe of a very straight play adaptation. My guess would be that little of script changed; there’s a lot of expository dialogue in the beginning. There’s also not a whole lot of interesting visual storytelling. About the best thing director Henry Koster does other than not actually show Harvey is include where Harvey ‘is’ in the frame of his shot, which as I read was suggested by Stewart. The film relies mostly on the talents of Stewart and of Oscar-winner Hull as the completely whiny and over-dramatic old coot of a sister and the thoughtful and simplistic wisdom of Chase’s script that preaches that normality is relative and that kindness is the true measure of character.
