Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label 1943. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1943. Show all posts

Double Feature: Blossoms in the Dust (1941) & The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Blossoms in the Dust:

Greer Garson teams up with Walter Pidgeon in their first of many pairings, as Edna Gladney and her husband Sam. After losing their child, Edna starts a nursery for children with working mothers, which she runs from home while Sam runs his wheat mill. She feels fulfilled caring for these children now that she hasn't a child of her own. When they go bankrupt and lose the mill, Edna operates a small adoption service, finding unwanted orphans new homes with respectable families. Unfortunately, she is forced out of her establishment for legal reasons and must start from scratch to acquire better facilities. It is here that she is inspired to pursue legal action against the "illegitimate" label that orphans must face, placing shame on them for their entire lives. While she pursues this, she continues to care for the orphans, trying to give them better homes and better lives in the process.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Art Direction (Color), and Best Cinematography (Color). It deservedly won Best Art Direction (Color).

The Ox-Bow Incident:

This classic western stars Henry Fonda as a visiting cowboy named Gil who gets mixed up in the murder of a local farmer. When the news comes through, he and his friend join the posse, which will track down the three men who stole some of the deceased's cattle and killed him. Once they find the men, the story really turns on its head. The three men appear to be innocent, claiming they bought the cattle from the farmer and that he was alive when they left him. Although this is possible, it isn't believed by most of the posse because the three men have the man's cattle, his gun, and no bill of sale. How can either side prove their case? The posse must decide what to do with the men, as both sides argue back and forth and amongst themselves. On a side note, this would make a great double feature with 12 Angry Men.

The film received a single nomination for Best Picture. Though it had no shot at beating Casablanca, it's a very worthy nominee that benefited from the Academy's ten-film lineup.

Trivia: Both films feature Marc Lawrence in a small, but pivotal, role.

I Saw "Casablanca" on the Big Screen...

Thursday, March 22, 2012


...and it was amazing! Turner Classic Movies has re-released the film in theaters for one day only (today) in honor of its 70th anniversary. Not only is the restoration gorgeous, but the screening also features a brief documentary on the film, as well as an introduction by none other than Robert Osborne. I'm lucky I even got to see it, because I actually forgot all about it until I just happened to check the theater's showtimes. Anyway, the film is universally hailed as one of Hollywood's best offerings and should be seen in theaters if possible. Check it out if you can. You won't be disappointed. More details here.

Update: TCM is presenting the film again on April 26th at 7 p.m.

081. Desert Victory

Thursday, March 8, 2012

081. (06 Mar) Desert Victory (1943, ?) 33



Having watched so many WWII combat documentaries in a row, it's now easy to spot a genuine dud. This misfire is difficult to follow, lacks context of what the war in nothern Africa means, and fails to engage on most basic levels. The filmmaking is disjointed. There was clearly an abundance of footage, but not much of it seems usable. The decision to shoot in black and white is an obvious mistake, but by not giving a sense of who the men fighting the war are or what their daily lives are like it's almost impossible to care whenever the battle heats up.

062. Baptism of Fire

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

062. (22 Feb) Baptism of Fire (1943, ?) 52



I love that the Oscars make me rate training films in the Documentary Feature category. Baptism of Fire is at least intriguingly atypical. It's clearly geared at hard-fighting macho men. Unlike war films of the era, there's harsh language and extreme violence. When a German soldier gets a gun butt smashed in his face and a bayonet through his chest, there's blood everywhere. It's almost shocking to see violence and death portrayed so realistically in a film from 1943, but it's all to prepare soldiers for the harsh reality on the battlefield. In that capacity, this is something of a success. But those are a tiny handful of images in a training film that otherwise would have soldiers nodding off in the screening room.

The Man in Grey (1943) **

Monday, February 13, 2012

manin

First off, please don’t tell me I’ve misspelled “grey”—as this is a British film, so the title will be spelled in proper English.  Second, I am not surprised that you haven’t seen this—it’s rarely (if ever) shown on TCM and is unavailable on DVD in the USA. A friend hooked me up with an illegal viewing (names and places will be omitted in case the piracy police are on the prowl), so that’s how I came recently to see it.  Lastly, you should find a way to see this, as it is so outrageously different from anything in early-1940s English-speaking cinema.

The Man in Grey (1943) is a Gainsborough Pictures melodrama starring James Mason as Lord Rohan (literally the man in grey) and Phyllis Calvert as Clarissa (AKA Lady Rohan).  Ah, but they weren’t the real stars of the film, as Margaret maningrey42Lockwood got top billing playing one of the most deplorable characters of her career—Hesther Barbary!  Based on Lady Eleanor Smith’s 1942 novel of the same name, the film is set during Regency England (1811-1820) and tells the story of how a beautiful, ebullient woman has her life ruined by a callous husband and a calculating “best” friend.  Quite simply, if I didn’t know the story was written by an Englishwoman, I would have thought it was French!

How can I describe this without telling you everything—thus ruining it (sort of) if you ever see it for yourself?  Little known British director Leslie Arliss must have been given free reign to do whatever he liked with Margaret Kennedy and Doreen Montgomery’s adapted screenplay—that should tell you all you need to know: woman author + 2 woman screenwriters = wickedness gone wild (especially for 1943).  In addition, it’s a costume melodrama, so the wardrobe and sets are somewhat gothic, which gives the film an almost otherworldly feel. 

manCalvert’s blonde Clarissa represents innocence and goodness; Lockwood’s brunette Hesther represents evil and sinfulness. They meet at Miss Patchett's school for young ladies, where Clarissa is beloved by all and Hesther is shunned by everyone but Clarissa. When they meet a gypsy fortune teller (Beatrice Varley) she sees bad things to come for the two girls.  Obviously foreshadowing and foreboding are necessary elements of any good melodrama, so this is no surprise.  What is a surprise is how these bad things happen and by whom. 

Eventually, Hesther runs off and elopes with a local soldier and Clarissa meets and marries the man in grey, Lord Rohan.  To say that he his less than doting would be an understatement.  When asked why he married her, Rohan says Clarissa was pretty, healthy and able to produce an heir. James Mason is beyond brooding as Rohan, and, I must say, every bit the S.O.B. He lives by his family crest, which reads “He who dishonors us dies.”  Hence, he enjoys duels.  He also enjoys bad women, so 2792660325_0986dc3bc6_mwhen Clarissa brings the recently widowed Hesther into their home he finds her to his liking.  Hesther’s been through some hard times and has turned into quite the opportunist since her school days.  She wants everything that Clarissa has and she has no qualms about getting what she wants. I can’t recall Lockwood ever playing such an out-and-out bitch.  She makes you hate Hesther—there is nothing, and I mean nothing, redeeming whatsoever about her. 

Yet, don’t feel too sorry for Clarissa. Once she produces a son (which she and we never see) Rohan lets her do whatever she likes as long as it doesn’t dishonor his name. Also, for some reason, she is tmigcompletely oblivious to the fact that her husband and best friend are carrying on a torrid affair—though I doubt she would have cared anyway, but it would have made her less likely to trust Hesther’s advice in her own illicit affair. Yes, Clarissa must have been attracted to no-good men, because she falls for another rogue in Rokeby (Stewart Granger).  And, this sets up two very shocking events, both of which Hesther plays a crucial role.  I won’t say what happens, but you will be both repulsed and outraged. 

There are a few things that make this film standout (some good, some just bizarre).  The affair between Rohan and Hesther is brazenly presented for our eyes. maningrey9One scene has her leaving Rohan’s bedroom in the middle of the night and creeping back to her own. Just so many amoral characters running about in 1943 England when the Brits are trying to win WWII just seems wrong, but this is the only good thing about the film.

Another thing that stood out for me was Clarissa’s slave boy Toby, played by Harry Scott.  Okay, please don’t get upset about what I’m about to say, but what the hell! If you have seen this, please explain to me whether Harry Scott was black or if he was a white child in tobyblackface.  When I checked on IMBD he only had one film credit and there is no information listed about him.  I know it sounds strange, but every scene he was in I couldn’t take my eyes off him (and not because his performance was great because it surely was not), because I was so shocked.  They couldn’t find a black child somewhere in England to play this part?  The things I find fascinating!

Okay, so what’s the final assessment?  The Man in Grey is an average movie with an above-average cast.  The final ten minutes of the film are what makes it memorable. Once you see how far Hesther will go to get what she wants you will never forget it—nor what she gets in return for her loathsome behavior. If you are interested, email me and I will inform you where you can procure a viewing.

027. The Constant Nymph

Monday, January 23, 2012

027. (22 Jan) The Constant Nymph (1943, Edmund Goulding) 56



The 26-year-old Joan Fontaine doesn't just rise to the challenge of playing a 14-year-old, she never makes you doubt the age for a second. Her performance is a ball of pure energy as she bounds up and down stairs and unconsciously throws her body about without a care. It's hard to imagine anyone accomplishing what Fontaine did in '43 on a physical level. Thanks to Fontaine, you also get every bit a sense of the kind of hopeless romanticism that comes with youth. Even with a charismatic presence like Charles Boyer sharing the screen, Fontaine's performance is so magnetic and thoughtful, it's impossible to focus on anyone else. It's a genuine star turn.

The film itself is a bit more jumbled. Goulding uses some amazing tracking shots, foreshadows like a pro, and makes the most of the film's melodramatic plot. But there's too much story to unravel over the runtime. It also doesn't help that the difference in age between Fontaine and Boyer's characters constitutes an illegal relationship.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1943

Sunday, August 21, 2011

1943

So the much anticipated ranking is:

I was quite disappointed by this performance as I expected way more of Greer Garson, a truly wonderful actress. She's trapped in a boring movie, which is the enemy of its on and she's sometimes overshadowed by the boredom of Walter Pidgeon. Under these circumstances, it's a very good performance with its problems.

Everything works perfectly with this performance. Then why am I still a bit disappointed? For some reason, I was never totally blown away by Jean Arthur's work. Although I enjoyed it from the beginning to the end, there wasn't a moment when I said "Wow! She's amazing!". Still, it's a well-played, entertaining comedy role and I really don't have complaints.

It might seem like that I'm collecting many things to prove that I like her (because of my love for Ingrid) but I'm indeed quite fond of this performance. It's nothing groundbreaking but it's quite impressive and interesting. Ingrid does her usual routine and the result of it was positive for me. Not great but certainly good.

I wouldn't say that this is a pleasant surprise because I expected to like Joan but I was really impressed by Joan Fontaine's performance as Tessa. Although this is neither groundbreaking nor amazing work, I enjoyed every minute of it. Joan never fails to make Tessa a sympathetic character and I liked the character overall.

A no-brainer, easy winner. I really did not expect to be impressed by Jennifer THIS much but I was, after all. Jennifer Jones is nothing short of amazing as St. Bernadette. Her grace and dignity shines through the screen and grabs your attention and never lets you go. It's a wonderful, unforgettable performance that's not as frequently talked about as it should be. A real miracle, if I may say so.

So I can proudly announce
the winner is...
Jennifer Jones
in
The Song of Bernadette
Easy win.


Omissions:
  • Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca *My Pick*  (Do I have to explain????)
Congratulations Louis (once again on your predictions). You can pick another year (which I'll probably do after two years I planned to cover now or if you pick either of them then sooner).
Available years: 1933, 1953, 1956, 1967, 1968, 1971, 1976, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2008
Final thoughts: A mixed bag. Jennifer Jones got my vote very easily. I liked the rest of the ladies, too but to a much lesser extent. Joan and Ingrid were almost equal for me, Jean was not far behind them and Greer wasn't much worse than them. I think it's a very even but quite weak year and Jennifer so obviously stands out in this bunch. She's just wonderful. Otherwise, I enjoyed this year but didn't love it.

Note: From now on, I won't rank the years. I don't really see the point of it.

About the next year: Wow, I'm ending the summer with a really strong three-way race. I'm very excited to give clues once again (after such a long time :D). However, I can only start reviewing next Saturday. But I'll annonce the year on Wednesday.
  • Mommie dearest (x2)
  • Don't get THIS mad!
  • Leading or supporting? Vanity will decide. :D
So what do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Greer Garson in Madame Curie


Greer Garson received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing Marie Curie, the famous scientist in the Best Picture nominated Madame Curie. One year after winning the Best Actress Oscar in 1942, Greer was nominated once again for playing a strong female character (and she would receive two other consecutive nods plus another one in 1960). I think there was a lot of leftover love for Greer Garson, that's why I believe that she was ahead of Joan Fontaine or even Jean Arthur. She basically recreated Mrs. Miniver, a character that people were crazy about at the time.

Madame Curie is an extremely dreary, uninteresting and shallow biopic about the Curies. I mean how can you make such a boring film from a quite interesting story. I felt they just wanted to do Mrs. Miniver once again and move the audiences with the inspirational lives of these people. Come on. Everything is very Hollywood here and I bet there's a great difference between reality and this movie. Walter Pidgeon gives one of the most boring and uninspired performances ever to be nominated for an Oscar. I mean he's obviously so bored and he seemingly doesn't give a sh#t about the movie.

And there's Greer Garson who (you may or may not know) is an actress that I love immensely. Many consider her performances dated and not too flashy but I'm not one of them. She has a very radiant and refreshing presence, which seems quite unusual for her era. Her acting is so natural and I especially appreciate that she never seems to be faking. All in all, I really love her (even in the often criticised Mrs. Parkington) and therefore I was really looking forward to Madame Curie.

Truth to be told, my hopes seemed realistic. Greer (an actress I love) plays Marie Curie, a very interesting strong female character and I was sure that Greer would be excellent in the part but, alas, she wasn't. At all. I don't really understand why but there wasn't a moment where I strongly felt Greer's usual wonderful charm that I'm always raving about. It's simply missing and that's quite shocking as I thought that no matter what if a performer has charm it always helps a great deal.

Marie Curie is a very rich character and I think a great actress can get a lot out of her character. However, despite her greatness, Greer was just not able to make her a fascinating character. Or was she really interesting at the first place? Playing scientists may not be that rewarding unless they have serious problems. Biopic performances are mostly applauded when we see scenes of devastation, addiction, singing, marital problems, violence and such things. You can see none of those things here since the Curies were quite ordinary people who happened to be scientists. They were, however, truly dedicated to their work and that's something that Greer did excellently. We can always see Marie's determination to solve problems and work on a better future.

The rest of her performance is just unremarkable. Personally, I would have expected her to get something out of the fact that Marie was obviously more talented than her husband and yet she had to live in his shadow in a way. Or just quite simply the fact that Marie was a woman and how she succeeded in a world of men. These are interesting things rarely discussed in this movie and everything connected to them is just insignificant and boring. All we see is how perfect and wonderful this marriage was and how well these people worked together. Well, I don't think that they never had big rows when experimenting. And then I got to the point: the unspectacular reaction to discovering a new element: I don't know how you feel but I would be much more enthusiastic if I changed the face of science. That might be just me, though. :)

However, I must admit that Greer is still far and away the best thing about Madame Curie (why do I always want to write Mrs. Miniver once again? :D) . You know, everything IS relative. On her own, she's nothing amazing but she's very good compared to the awful performance of Walter Pidgeon. When Pierre died I felt that it was a breath of fresh air to Greer's acting in this movie. Her breakdown with tears and her last speech remined me of the Greer that I love.

To sum up, I was quite disappointed by this performance as I expected way more of Greer Garson, a truly wonderful actress. She's trapped in a boring movie, which is the enemy of its on and she's sometimes overshadowed by the boredom of Walter Pidgeon. Under these circumstances, it's a very good performance with its problems.
What do you think?

Joan Fontaine in The Constant Nymph

Saturday, August 20, 2011


Joan Fontaine received her third and last Oscar nomination for playing Tessa Sanger, a teenager falling in love with a composer in The Constant Nymph, the favorite movie of hers. In my humble opinion, Joan could have been third, fourth or even fifth. I guess she was fifth as Greer Garson might have had some leftover love after Mrs. Miniver plus Madame Curie was a Best Picture nominee while The Constant Nymph was not. However, Joan was at the peak of her career in the early fourties so who knows? This one remains a mystery for sure.

The question about The Constant Nymph is not the usual "How did you like it?" but "How did you get it?". Well yeah, this movie is among the most hard-to-find Best Actress movies (it's probably the second on the list after The Blue Veil"). Everybody who's lucky enough to see it, can watch only very awful copies. However, it's quite a good film and it's much more surprising than one would imagine. I really liked Charles Boyer and although he's doing his routine, he's quite good here. The supporting cast is also quite good in this movie. All in all, I must say that I enjoyed this movie though I probably wouldn't watch it again.

Joan Fontaine, in my opinion, is a very interesting actress who always gives very special performances. I prefer her to her sister and big rival Olivia as Joan's performances always seem to be much more honest and less fake. I always enjoy Joan's presence on the screen even when she's not given a very rich character to work with (like in Suspicion). It's sad that Joan is not that frequently talked about nowadays even though she would deserve to be. Whenever Joan comes to my mind, I always think that she's able to give such rich performances. She fills very uninteresting characters with life and she's able to turn in wonderful works. In Rebecca, her unspectacular character turned out to be full of layers and she really rocked in that part.

Because of these reasons (and the fact that this was Joan's favorite movie of hers), I was quite optimistic about The Constant Nymph and was really looking forward to watching it. You know, when I read the story, I didn't think "another 1940s romantic movie with a young girl hopelessly falling for an older man". I though "Wow! Joan Fontaine must be great in this one (and she is). Yes, the story (and once again, the character) is not that interesting at first sight. Tessa is just a fourteen-year-old who's crazy about a handsome composer, Lewis (played by Charles Boyer). Alhtough her love marries her cousin, there's still a special relationship between Tessa and Lewis.

Honestly, I hate when adults play teenagers but 1943 has caused me to get rid of my prejudices as not one but two actresses gave excellent performances as teenagers. While Jennifer Jones had a very epic role in The Song of Bernadette, Joan's character is somewhat different. However, there's a common thing in their performances that neither of them overplays the childlike aspects of the characters. Joan could have fallen into that trap much easier than Jennifer as Joan's character had many of the traits of young girls. She's giggling, she blushes because of the sight of a man and such things. With Joan, it's all really believable.

The chemistry between Charles Boyer and Joan Fontaine was crucial to the story and it worked. They seem like the perfect hopeless lovers and I actually felt sorry for them. Although it's Joan who's the emotional centre of the film, Boyer adds his own to the story. Whenever I saw Joan, it was just fine the way it was and I was simply charmed by her presence. Her scenes with Boyer (as a result) were really likeable and I thought that neither of them overdid them. This is another thing I admire about Joan: she never really overplays the sentimentality of her characters.

Joan plays the ending excellently. I was kind of surprised by it and Tessa's last scenes were really impressive for me. I was taken by the emotions and I felt truly sorry for her. However, it was never too soappy or sentimental (at least not more than it had to be).

So to sum up, I wouldn't say that this is a pleasant surprise because I expected this but I was really impressed by Joan Fontaine's performance as Tessa. Although this is neither groundbreaking nor amazing work, I enjoyed every minute of it. Joan never fails to make Tessa a sympathetic character and I liked the character overall.

What do you think?

Ingrid Bergman in For Whom the Bell Tolls

Thursday, August 18, 2011


Ingrid Bergman received her first Oscar nomination for playing Maria, a raped young girl in the movie, based on Ernest Hemingway's novel, For Whom The Bell Tolls. I think Ingrid (along with her legendary performance in Casablanca) must have been the only real competitor of Jennifer Jones. After the Oscars, when Jennifer Jones told Ingrid that she should have won, Ingrid said "No. Your Bernadette was better than my Maria." Well, Ingrid Bergman was surely really gracious and I admire her for admitting not being the best one (remember her 1974 speech). Those were days when stars had class.

For Whom The Bell Tolls is a long movie, above all. It's very huge and the whole thing has a very epic feeling. It's really shocking that neither this nor The Song Of Bernadette was able to beat Casablanca, a seemingly smaller movie. I would say it's great that this movie lost as it's incredibly boring sometimes. I mean the technical part is fine, even by today's standards but the whole thing just didn't work with me. The performances aer fine: Gary Cooper's acting is kind of boring, he just overdoes his usual on-screen habits. Katina Paxinu is fine but I'm much less enthusiastic about her this time so I might join the Gladys Cooper camp. Akim Tamiroff is strong but not that great.

And there's Ingrid Bergman. I know that nowadays many people are bashing her (and it's kind of painful for me, I'll admit) but for me she'll always remain special because of many of hers performances. I mean how can you not be blown away byAutumn Sonata? How can anyone forget her in Casablanca where she says goodbye to Humphrey Bogart? However, nobody can deny that she has a very unique presence, which may not appeal to some but it certainly does for me.

Ernest Hemingway always wanted Ingrid to play the role of Maria. I can easily see why. I think nobody else could have portrayed Maria's fragile personality the way like Ingrid did. For example, I just don't see Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis in this part (or any other actres of that era). Ingrid's presence fits Maria perfectly, in my opinion. Her radiant, very emotional acting was needed for this movie. While Gary Cooper's acting seems to be wooden, Ingrid is more emotional and personally, I found it easier to relate to Maria or understand her emotions.

However, I'll also have to admit that this performance's success depends on whether you like Ingrid or not. If you love her, you'll be impressed but if you dislike her, you'll simply hate this performance. She's very "Ingrid" here. Everything that's criticised about her is there in this movie. The teary eyes and everything that drive some of Ingrid crazy. Thank God, I'm a fan of hers since I am one of those who were quite impressed. I'm not saying it's one of her best, you can't say that about her nominated works (except for Autumn Sonata and Gaslight) but it's a very fine performance, in my opinion, which stands out from the cast.

What I liked the most about this performance is the purity of Maria's character. She's a person who's gone through some really horrible things. It's a very memorable scene where she talks about how her parents were killed. Again, it must be a horrible, unbearable moment for the haters but for me, it all worked. I think she did quite well at showing Maria's ambivalent feelings. Ingrid is not a techincal performer at all (it's a problem that whenever she needed an accent, she used her own) but it's always the emotions that get me. Sometimes she's a bit much, indeed but I still cannot resist her because of her radiance and beauty. Her beauty is quite simply irresistable. You just cannot take your eyes off her and that helps her overcome the gaps in the technical part.

I was also happy that she didn't get lost in her big movie. She was always significant enough for me to pay attention to her (OK, that's the point of my reviews but at least I didn't have to struggle). In some of the scenes, her presence was really magical and I completely forgot about everything else. That's a big achievement, I think.

It might seem like that I'm collecting many things to prove that I like her (because of my love for Ingrid) but I'm indeed quite fond of this performance. It's nothing groundbreaking but it's quite impressive and interesting. Ingrid does her usual routine and the result of it was positive for me. Not great but certainly good.
What do you think?

Jean Arthur in The More the Merrier

Tuesday, August 16, 2011


Jean Arthur received her only Oscar nomination for playing Connie Milligan, a woman who decides to share her apartment during WWII in The More the Merrier. I think Jean was probably the third one that year. I guess nobody could stop Jennifer Jones from winning, except for Ingrid Bergman who starred in an epic movie. Jean, however, played a comic part and the Academy prefers serious drama to comedy. Still, the fact that she was a star helped her, I'm sure. It's ironic that the funny ladies of the 30s and the 40s (Roz Russell, Irene Dunne and Jean Arthur) never received Academy Awards.

The More the Merrier is a nice comedy about a woman who shares her apartment with two strangers (both of them men, one is older, the other one is young, guess what happens). The last time I saw it, I was much more impressed by it and I kept on raving about it. However, this time I'm much less enthusiastic about it. While it was enjoyable, it's no His Girl Friday or The Awful Truth. It is lovely and the screenplay is quite good but it's nothing amazing. Charles Coburn won the Oscar for his performance but I don't see how they voted for him.

Jean Arthur is an actress I mostly know from Frank Capra's 1930s movies where she usually played a bit cynical women who turn out to be really charmed by a simple American fella but she was also quite memorable as the mother character in Shane. That being said, I think she's a very lovely, charming actress who was most certainly the best choice to play Connie in The More the Merrier. She has the opportunity to show all her comic skills and to display her irresistable charm.

However, to tell the truth, Connie's character is not the most original one ever created. She's very firm, she has a boring fiancé and such things. Her normal life (which is full of her own rules) is turned upside down by two strangers. One cannot accuse Jean Arthur of not developing Connie. We can see her journey from her initial self to a more loving and kinder woman. And the best thing about it is that this development never becomes too ordinary or predictable. Sure, the story is predictable but thanks to Jean, it's really no problem.

Arthur gets many funny scenes with Charles Coburn in the beginning and she nails them all. Again, she filled those clihés with her own charm and they turned out to be very amusing. First, the movie is a typical comedy of errors and Jean knows perfectly well how to handle it. She neither overplays nor underplays the scenes. They are just fine the way they are. It's like when you hear a joke for the fifth time and you still keep laughing at it because the person delivers is excellently. Well, that's most certainly the case with Jean Arthur here. The scene where she locks Charles Coburn out of the apartment and then he knocks on the bathroom window is an entirely predictable sequence and yet it works because of Jean.

When Joel McCrea enters the picture, the movie becomes much more romantic but Jean does that part excellently, too. They make up an excellent couple and I really was rooting for them. Everything worked out with them and the scene at the party is just wonderful. I was totally taken by Jean's charm and I became just as dazzled by it as Joel McCrea's character.

The end is also fine: Arthur's timing is excellent (once again) and I really laughed out loud when she was crying. Again, I'm a sucker for those exaggerated cries and this one was no exception (still, Diane Keaton remains my favorite in that category).

As you see, everything works perfectly with this performance. Then why am I still a bit disappointed? For some reason, I was never totally blown away by Jean Arthur's work. Although I enjoyed it from the beginning to the end, there wasn't a moment when I said "Wow! She's amazing!". Still, it's a well-played, entertaining comedy role and I really don't have complaints.
What do you think?

Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette

Monday, August 15, 2011


Jennifer Jones received her first Best Actress nomination and only Oscar for playing Bernadette Soubirous also known as St. Bernadette. Jennifer Jones' Oscar win is one of those star-making wins when a relatively unknown actress wins an Oscar out of the blue and becomes a huge star and receives many more nominations and becomes a star. I mean there was NO way that Jennifer was losing the Oscar. She was in the Best Picture front-runner, won the first Golden Globe, she had David O. Selznick on her side (and with this the most of Hollywood). I guess Jennifer's good friend Ingrid Bergman might have come close to her (combined with her Casablanca performance, she gained many votes, I think).

The Song of Bernadette is a wonderful movie. I mean it two and a half hours long and it doesn't feel that long. There are no useless, boring moments in it and the story flows brilliantly. Personally, I'm quite shocked that this one lost the Best Picture award. Not that it's better than Casablanca but it's definitely bigger and more epic (Why did they pick Casablanca? A mystery. It's brilliant, though.). I guess... no, I don't have an idea. This movie received many other nominations and three very deserved technical awards. I liked all of the supporting players, Gladys Cooper was a standout but I'm not sure if I would vote for her.

You know, winning an Oscar depends on so many things but there's no easier and more powerful way to get the coveted award than surprising the voters. When there's a brilliant actress like Jane Fonda or Maggie Smith, you just except them to be brilliant and you're not satisfied with anything less. However, when an unknown or underrated actress comes along, you just say "WOW! I never imagined she could be that great!". That worked for Mo'Nique, Marion Cotillard, Natalie Portman, just to mention names from the recent past. Well, I think that was also the case with Jennifer Jones. There was this unknown young girl who gave a really unforgettable, huge performance.

The role of Bernadette screams Oscar: scenes of religious experiences, real life person, horrible death at a young age and these are all shown in an epic movie. And while Jennifer Jones' performance is indeed epic, there's nothing loud or exaggerated about it. In fact, it's one of the most subtle performances ever to win the Best Actress Oscar. And thank God for that since this means that Jennifer Jones plays Bernadette the way she should be. You know, I'm kind of relieved that she was chosen to play Bernadette, not a huge star like, say, Loretta Young (OK, I know, why did she come to my mind?). Jennifer is free from all the vanity and modesty radiates through the screen.

When I was thinking about this work, one word came to my mind: humility. Jennifer plays Bernadette with such respect and love. She's not a fascinating personality. She's not great-looking, she's not smart, she's silent and a bit shy. Jones plays these aspects of the character so well and there's something so pure in her work. I can only compare her to one quite similar and yet different performance that I love dearly: that's Audrey Hepburn's in The Nun's Story. Not only are they both testaments to the talents of the actresses, but they also shine so much that it's impossible not to be taken away by them. Just like with Audrey, whenever I looked at Jennifer, I just felt great. It really wasn't anything physical, it was more of something spiritual and that rarely happens. There's so much grace and dignity in this movie and that's 100% thanks to Jennifer Jones. I really can't imagine anyone else.

The scenes with the visions are unforgettable, if I may say so. I was so touched by Bernadette's faith and hope. Wheter you be a believer or not, you can find inspiration in Bernadette's story and Jennifer's performance. It's true what Henry King said in his autobiography. Jennifer doesn't look, she can see. I mean, I was totally blown away by her ability to grab my attention with her unspectacular(-looking) performance. At the trials, there are no big monologues or breakdowns and yet she's able to make a great impression. It's kind of strange but I think people really should see this movie.

The scenes towards the ending are truly heart-breaking and Jennifer plays them with wonderful naturality and ease. I mean there was nothing sentimental about her and yet I felt very emotional about her. Although Bernadette has a long and horrible death in the end, those scenes are not different from the others. Jennifer is just as subtle as she was and she doesn't try desperately to move the audience.

I really did not expect to be impressed by Jennifer THIS much but I was, after all. Jennifer Jones is nothing short of amazing as St. Bernadette. Her grace and dignity shines through the screen and grabs your attention and never lets you go. It's a wonderful, unforgettable performance that's not as frequently talked about as it should be. A real miracle, if I may say so.

What do you think?

The Next Year

Thursday, August 11, 2011

1943




So the nominees were:
  • Jean Arthur in The More The Merrier
  • Ingrid Bergman in For Whom The Bell Tolls
  • Joan Fontaine in The Constant Nymph
  • Greer Garson in Madame Curie
  • Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette
A weak year apparently but we'll see. :)


What do you think? What's your ranking? What's your prediction for my ranking?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) **1/2

Saturday, February 19, 2011

shadow1
(This article is from guest contributor The Lady Eve and first appeared at http://classic-film-tv.blogspot.com/.  The rating in the title is my own.)

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) was Alfred Hitchcock's fifth American film and the first of his films that he believed truly depicted America. Hitchcock's "first draft" attempt at this had been Saboteur (1942), but he hadn't had the cast he'd wanted, he felt the script was weak and that he'd been rushed into the film before he was ready...none of this was the case with Shadow of a Doubt.

The narrative was based on a story called "Uncle Charlie" by Gordon McConell. For the adaptation, Hitchcock got Thornton Wilder, convinced that the author of Our Town possessed the concept of small-town America he wanted for Shadow of a Doubt. Wilder, who helped Hitchcock select Santa Rosa, California, as the setting, wrote a prose outline of the story before being mobilized into World War II. Hitchcock then turned to screenwriter Sally Benson, another writer deeply steeped in Americana. Her "5135 Kensington Avenue" stories had been the basis for Meet Me in St. Louis.

The opening scenes of Shadow of a Doubt make it clear that the man we come to know as Charles Oakley (Joseph Cotten) has sinister secrets and a dark side, so when he descends on pristine Santa Rosa and his sister's family, the Newtons, we already know that something is quite wrong, but we don't what it is. Oakley is handsome and smooth. His voice is velvet and his manner is insinuating; he has seen the world and flaunts his style and money with confidence. When he comes to stay with the Newtons, their staid community is bedazzled and responds by immediately embracing him.

Santa Rosa, scene of much location work, is blissfuly serene, a spotless tree-filled little town of quaint houses with broad porches, lush flower beds, friendly neighbors, fussy librarians, crusty traffic cops, immaculate churches, a stately and bustling bank and every trapping of the ideal American town in the 1940s.

At the heart of the film is a doppelganger motif personified by young Charlie (Teresa Wright) and her Uncle Charlie. They are admitted "doubles," she was named for him and adores him; he obviously favors her. The two Charlies seem to have a psychic link, share a restless spirit and other traits. But one of the pair is pure while the other is corrupt, and the two eventually come to an unbridgeable abyss and a stand-off. Teresa Wright delicately renders Charlie as an intelligent and decent girl impatiently verging on womanhood. Intuitive and strong, she has her mettle tested and must grow up quickly and profoundly when she realizes her beloved uncle is a cold-blooded killer. Uncle Charlie, intricately wrought by Cotten, is a ruthless sociopath of indecent charm. His view of humanity is far beyond cynical: "Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know if you ripped the fronts off houses you'd find swine?"


Wright and Cotten contrast and play off each other beautifully; their scenes together are rock solid. Backing them up is an excellent supporting cast that includes Hume Cronyn making his memorable film debut as the Newton's eccentric next-door-neighbor; Henry Travers, cozy and congenial as small-town-dad Joe Newton; Patricia Collinge, note-perfect as fluttery and sentimental Emma Newton. Also very watchable are Edna May Wonacott as the cheeky little sister and Wallace Ford as a detective on Oakley's trail.

Shadow of a Doubt has been called Hitchcock's first fully-realized masterwork. I'm not so quick to write-off his direction and overall imprint on Rebecca, but agree that Shadow of a Doubt, multi-layered and meticulously orchestrated, is among his very best films. The juxtaposition of a simple and complacent American small town with the lethal killer creeping toward its heart is neatly executed, and the early kinship that becomes a battle-to-the-death relationship between the two Charlies ensures that the dramatic tension never eases up.

What are your impressions of Hitchcock's vision of America in Shadow of a Doubt? Any comments about his style and technique or technical aspects of the picture? Which of the performances are standouts for you and why? Does it seem to you that the film is referencing the international situation of the time? What other films owe a debt to this one? ...And have you heard about or noticed the repeated use of "twos" or "doubles" (starting with the two Charlies) in Shadow of a Doubt?

The Seventh Victim (1943) **

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

seventh
(This article is from guest contributor Sarkoffagus and first appeared at http://classic-film-tv.blogspot.com/.  The rating in the title is my own.)

Mary Gibson, attending a Catholic school, is informed that her sister, Jacqueline, has not paid her tuition in six months. Concerned for her sister, who is apparently missing, Mary travels to New York and discovers that Jacqueline has sold her business to a partner. Additionally, she rented a room above an Italian restaurant, changed the lock on the door and left, returning a few times only to dine and pay a monthly rent. Mary pleads with the restaurant owners to open Jacqueline's apartment, Room 7, where they see a single chair sitting underneath a hanging noose. Irving August, a private investigator, wants to help Mary find her sister (mostly because he was told to stay off the case), but things take a turn for the worse when someone is murdered.

vlcsnap-2009-10-11-10h41m54s15Well known producer Val Lewton was hired by RKO Pictures to produce low budget horror films with titles provided by the studio. When the first film, Cat People (1942), proved a hit, Lewton was allowed much control over the pictures. He insisted that the directors cover many scenes in shadows and imply the impending horror, like the attacks in Jacques Tourneur's Leopard Man (1943). But whether or not there was a monster or a physical evil, Lewton's movies all contained a somber ambience and a sense of doom lurking in the dark.

In The 7th Victim (1943), there is a feeling of dread throughout the movie. In the opening scene, Mary learns that her sister, her only living relative, is missing. Jacqueline's room represents the way in which she wants to live, as if she could control her life by knowing when and how she would die. She does not want to be unaware of her time of death, but would rather decide for herself. In a terrific sequence, Mary and the P.I. break into the building housing Jacqueline's company. A long hallway leads to a door (which is the only locked room in the building, according to August), and the hallway is hidden mostly in shadow. Without having a clear reason for being frightened, the two debate on who should be the one to continue down the dark corridor. Another great scene is when Mary is threatened while taking a shower. Predating Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), a silhouette of the character appears on the shower curtain as Mary is harshly told to stop looking for Jacqueline.

Mary does learn about what has happened to her sister, but it is best to watch the film knowing as little as possible. It is a movie which thrives on fear of the unknown, and Mark Robson handles the directing reins wonderfully. With Lewton as producer, he also directed The Ghost Ship (1943), Isle of the Dead (1945) and Bedlam (1946), the latter two starring Boris Karloff. Kim Hunter, in her film debut, gives a strong showing as Mary. Hunter would later earn an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role as Stella in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951).

 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading