Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label James Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Stewart. Show all posts

Alternate Best Actor 1954: Results

Friday, August 3, 2012

5. Charles Laughton- Charles Laughton has a fairly simple role but he is consistently amusing in his performance.
4. James Stewart in Rear Window- Stewart manages to provide a realistic portrait who we can easily go along through the sometimes quite seedy world of being a voyeur.
3. Toshiro Mifune in Seven Samurai- Mifune gives a very big but also a very striking performance of a swordsman driven mad by his past.
2. Ray Milland in Dial M For Murder- Milland gives a strong performance by both bringing to life the fierce some hidden motivation of his murderer, but as well as easily adding an appropriate degree of humor in the role as well.
1.James Mason 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea- Mason gives a great performance of an iconic character by always bringing to life both the wondrous qualities to his portrayal in equal measure with his more violent aspects.
Overall Rank:
  1. Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront
  2. James Mason in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
  3. Ray Milland in Dial M For Murder
  4. Toshiro Mifune in Seven Samurai
  5. James Stewart in Rear Window
  6. James Mason in A Star is Born
  7. Bing Crosby in The Country Girl
  8. Kirk Douglas in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea 
  9. Dan O'Herlihy in Robinson Crusoe
  10. Takashi Shimura in Seven Samurai
  11. Charles Laughton in Hobson's Choice
  12. Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny
  13. John Mills in Hobson's Choice
  14. Paul Lukas in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
  15. Gene Kelly in Brigadoon
  16. Bing Crosby in White Christmas
  17. Danny Kaye in White Christmas
  18. Robert Francis in The Caine Mutiny
Next Year: 1937

Alternate Best Actor 1954: James Stewart in Rear Window

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

James Stewart did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying  L. B. "Jeff" Jeffries in Rear Window.

Rear Window is an excellent thriller about a photojournalist with a broken leg who spends his day looking out the window and finds that one of the people he is spying on might just have murdered his wife.

James Stewart again is the other leading actor for an Alfred Hitchcock film, and he shares some similarities with Ray Milland for Dial M For Murder. They both spend most of their time in their home, although Stewart's character is forced to be there, whereas Milland happens to be there just by the way the film is set up. They are also both romantically involved with Grace Kelly. The difference here is great though in that Ray Milland's character is already married to her, and plans to murder her, whereas James Stewart's Jeff is very reluctant to marry Kelly's Lisa who is a wealthy socialite.

Stewart is in every scene of this film even if it drifts from him it still is in Jeff's point of view as he glances out his window and witnesses the various events in the lives of the people outside his window. Stewart does something in the role that is important early on which is that he portrays Jeff's only real reason for doing what he does is boredom. Stewart never portrays there as any sinister quality in his voyeurism, he simply has nothing better to do with his time and his broken leg, and as well Stewart conveys the natural curiosity in the photojournalist Jeff.

As usual Stewart does indeed have his bountiful charm on display here as usual that is at least in some way able to make his relationship with Kelly believable. In the same way though Stewart though mutes his charisma just enough to really shows the way sitting around and doing nothing has taken a bit of a toll on Jeff. Jeff is a man who is always seeking something to do constantly, always looking for some sort of excitement, so it is fitting that Stewart so well portrays the fact that Jeff instantly hones in on the first thing outside that might rid himself of his boredom in some way.

Stewart is very effective as well in the personal scenes where Jeff argues with Kelly's Lisa over his lack of commitment which stems from the fact he believes she would not able to take the sort of lifestyle that he desires. Stewart is able to be convincing in his near rejection of her, by really conveying well that it is all part of his own weaknesses. Unlike in so many of Stewart's pre It's A Wonderful Life performances there is a distinct lacking in Jeff, and there is a great deal of hesitation Stewart pulls into Jeff that creates the insecurities that creates the rift that leave the two unfulfilled.

Although hesitant in his personal life Stewart does not show the same hesitation within Jeff when he is coming up with his theory about a murder across the courtyard. Stewart is interesting here in that there is not quite that same old Jimmy Stewart passion you might see in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, as this is a darkly comic piece by Alfred Hitchcock. There is the same clear insurance of the fact that he is right though that is always unshakable but Stewart here always manages to be actually more casual regarding the whole thing easily adding more comedic lines along with his theories about what happened to the man's wife.

Stewart is incredible as we follow him through as he subtly suggests in the slightest glance, or look that Jeff's internal workings has deciphered a part of the plot, and he is easy to go along with the whole way done his voyeuristic journey. He is always a man of reactions and Stewart nails everyone perfectly being a very real person in the situation that usually mirrors are own reactions to certain moments during the film. I would say his very very best moment in his performance though comes late in the picture when Lisa goes over to the supposed killer's place and he returns home while she is still inside.

Stewart simply is perfect in this pivotal and most suspenseful scene as he reflects are own reaction. All of the horror of the scene is made genuine through Stewart's heart wrenching as Jeff watches helplessly from the distance. Stewart's brings to life the moment as he squirms in fear over seeing the terrible event transpire in front of him. This great part of Stewart's portrayal pretty much sums up the whole of his performance. Stewart manages to provide a realistic portrait who we can easily go along through the sometimes quite seedy world of being a voyeur. He hones the film in and grounds it throughout.

Alternate Best Actor 1954

Saturday, July 28, 2012

And the Nominees Were Not:

James Mason in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea

Charles Laughton in Hobson's Choice

Ray Milland in Dial M For Murder

James Stewart in Rear Window

Toshiro Mifune in Seven Samurai

Of Human Hearts(1938).

Thursday, July 5, 2012


Of Human Hearts(1938). Directed by Clarence Brown.Cast: Walter Huston, James Stewart and Beulah Bondi. Bondi was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.

The story begins when Rev. Ethan Wilkins moves his family from a wealthy parish in Maryland to an impoverished village on the banks of the Ohio River. His wife Mary understands but their son Jason cannot adjust to their new life. He looks up to Dr. Charles Shingle, a alcoholic physician and resents it when Ethan refuses to let him accept the magazines that Shingle wants to give him.  Mary, trying to keep peace in the family sells her silver spoons to buy Jason a subscription to Harper's Monthly, Ethan finds even that magazine inappropriate.

Ten years later, the now-grown Jason is still resentful of his father. Later Ethan, insists that his son join him on a backwoods tour of older parishoner's cabins, Jason refuses to wear a shabby second-hand coat that an elderly woman gives to him. Jason, who had enough of this lifestyle leaves home and goes to study medicine in Virginia.

Over the years, the broken-hearted Mary sells all of her family's treasures to send money to Jason, but she never complains, nor does Ethan, who is now very ill. Mary writes to her son that Ethan is dying, but by the time Jason returns home, his father has already died. Now, Mary must take in sewing to survive. 

One Christmas, Jason writes to say that he is coming home, then sends another letter saying that he must stay in Virginia during the holidays and needs more money. Mary sells her gold wedding ring, to greedy general store-owner George Ames in order to send Jason the money. When Dr. Shingle finds out, he convinces Ames that he needs a "bleeding" and slips the ring off Ames' finger and gives it back to Mary.

As the Civil War marches on, Jason is called to duty and stops writing to his mother. He later receives a summons to the White House, where he meets President Abraham Lincoln, who tells Jason that his mother Mary, had written to him because she believes that he must be dead. Lincoln, makes him promise to write to his mother every week.

After, Jason returns to his post, he sees his old horse Pilgrim and finally realizes his mother must be very poor to have sold their beloved horse. When Jason saves the arm of his superior, Captain Griggs, his reward is a leave to see Mary. Jason then rides home on Pilgrim and is reunited with his mother.




This is a very emotional story about the relationship between father and son. A must see for John Huston and Jimmy Stewart fans, maybe one of Stewart's best performances.


Beulah Bondi (May 3, 1889 – January 11, 1981) began her acting career on the stage at age seven, playing the title role in the play, Little Lord Fauntleroy in a production at the Memorial Opera House. She graduated from the Frances Shimer Academy (later Shimer College) in 1907, and gained her Bachelors and Masters degrees in oratory at Valparaiso University in 1916 and 1918. She made her Broadway debut in Kenneth S. Webb's, "One of the Family" at the 49th Street Theatre on December 21, 1925. She next performed in, Maxwell Anderson's "Saturday's Children" in 1926.


 It was Bondi's performance in Elmer Rice's Pulitzer Prize-winning "Street Scene," which opened at the Playhouse Theatre on January 10, 1929, that brought Bondi to the movies at the advanced age of 43. Her debut movie role was as "Emma Jones" in, Street Scene (1931), which starred Sylvia Sidney, and in which Bondi reprised her stage role, followed by "Mrs. Davidson" in Rain (1932), which starred Joan Crawford and Walter Huston. She was one of the first five women to be nominated for an Academy Award in the newly-created category of "Best Supporting Actress" for her work in The Gorgeous Hussy, although she lost the award to Gale Sondergaard. 


Two years later, she was nominated again for Of Human Hearts, and lost again, but her reputation as a character actress kept her employed. She would most often be seen in the role of the mother of the star of the film for the rest of her career, with the exception of Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) as the abandoned Depression-era 'Ma' Cooper. She often played mature roles in her early film career even though she was only in her early 40s.


Fun Facts: 


Bondi played James Stewart’s mother in four films: It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Human Hearts and Vivacious Lady. Beulah Bondi portrayed James Stewart's mother five times: In It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Human Hearts and Vivacious Lady, and once on his television series, The Jimmy Stewart Show.


Speed(1936).

Thursday, March 1, 2012


Speed(1936). Action film with James Stewart and Wendy Barrie. The film begins at Emery Motors, where the companies publicist Jane Mitchell, takes a tour of the factory with the plant's engineer Frank Lawson and test driver Terry Martin. There Jane learns that Terry is trying to build a better/bigger/faster carburetor with Clarence Maxmillian Haggerty, also known as "Gadget,".

Both and Frank and Terry invites Jane to the company dance, but she refuses at first saying that she has to work.. Frank tells her that he told Josephine that he couldn't go to the dance with her because he was taking Jane, she then agrees to go with him. At the dance, Terry is upset that Jane did not go to the dance with him.

Because of their hard feelings Frank and Terry find it very hard to work together. After the trials, Terry does not think the carburetor is ready, but Frank insists that everything is all right and Terry drives in the race.

Something goes wrong and Gadget is critically injured and Terry hospitalized with a concussion. Terry blames Jane, who now realizes that she is in love with him. He accuses her of only caring about the money and wants nothing to do with her.

Soon Terry, is well and ready to back to work, but no one wants to finance his project. Jane then secretly asks her uncle the companies owner to back Terry's project and he agrees. Later, at Medoc dry lake, everyone watches as Terry runs the first half of the course.

The rules of the contest say that he must finish within thirty minutes, which no one has done before. Frank and the others rush to the car and find Terry has almost been asphyxiated and Frank races him to the hospital. Will Frank's quick action save Terry's life?



Fun Fact:

Archive footage of an actual Indianapolis 500 race is included in the movie.

What is fun about this film is that it made before Jimmy Stewart became a star and he plays a character you would never expect from him.

Wendy Barrie (18 April 1912 – 2 February 1978). While still in her teens, she began pursuing a career as an actress, helped by her red-gold hair and blue eyes. Adopting the stage name Wendy Barrie (in honour of Peter Pan author J.M. Barrie, who was said to have invented the name "Wendy"), she began her acting life in English theatre then in 1932 made her screen debut in the film Threads, which was based upon a play.

Barrie went on to make a number of motion pictures for London Films under the Korda brothers, Alexander and Zoltan, the best-known of which is 1933's The Private Life of Henry VIII which starred Charles Laughton, Robert Donat, Merle Oberon, and Elsa Lanchester. Barrie portrayed Jane Seymour.

In 1934, she performed in the film, Freedom of the Seas and was contracted by Fox Film Corporation for a film directed by Scott Darling that was made in Britain. The following year, she moved to the United States and made her first Hollywood film for Fox opposite Spencer Tracy in the romantic comedy, It's a Small World, followed by Under Your Spell. Loaned to MGM, Barrie starred opposite James Stewart in the 1936 film Speed. In 1939 she starred with Richard Greene and Basil Rathbone in the 20th Century Fox version of, The Hound of the Baskervilles and with Lucille Ball in, Five Came Back. During the early 1940s, Barrie made several of The Saint and The Falcon mystery films with George Sanders. She made her final motion picture in 1943.

Great On Screen Couples: Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart

Friday, February 10, 2012


One of Hollywood's most beloved on screen couples has to be Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart. The pair made four films together: Next Time We Love (1936); The Shopworn Angel (1938); The Shop Around The Corner (1940); and The Mortal Storm (1940). I have seen the last two films and like them very much. Now just need to see their first two films.


The pair met in 1931 when Stewart stage-managed a touring play starring Sullavan. They even dated briefly during this time period. They did not act together until landing in Hollywood. Sullavan had already scored some hit films including Next Time We Love (1933). She requesting Stewart for their first film together, Next Time We Love. History says that Stewart was so inexperienced that he was about to be fired until Sullavan took it upon herself to rehearse each night with him, refining his acting skills. And it worked.


Their next film, The Shopworn Angel (1938), was intended for Jean Harlow. But Jean's untimely death opened the door for Sullavan, who once again requested Stewart as her leading man. This film showed that Stewart could be a true romantic star.


After the success of Angel, Universal got the pair together again for probably their most known and beloved film, The Shop Around The Corner. It is considered one of the greatest romantic comedies of all time. Certainly having Ernst Lubitsch as director did not hurt.

For their final film together, a somber and dramatic piece called The Mortal Storm. Audiences did not like this pairing as much as their previous films and would end their pairings. Stewart would enlist in the army while Sullavan would return to Broadway. But their place in history of greatest film couples is firmly entrenched.


Notes:

The Shop Around The Corner was remade twice. In 1949 with Judy Garland and Van Johnson called In The Good Old Summertime. And in 1998 with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan called You've Got Mail. For my money, the original is by far the best.


Norma Shearer was so impressed by Stewart's performance in The Shopworn Angel that she set her sights on him. They dated for six weeks.

While at Princeton, Stewart asked Sullavan to attend a school reception with him. Sullavan would later say that it was the longest, slowest, shyest but most sincere invitation she had ever received.

Notes provided by TCM's Leading Couples.



Deadly Obsession: Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo

Monday, January 9, 2012

****
Country: US
Director: Alfred Hitchcock


What's that old Oscar Wilde thing? "Each man kills the thing he loves . . ." That I think is a very natural phenomenon, really.
—Alfred Hitchcock, in a 1963 interview


In his fifty-five year long career in films, Alfred Hitchcock directed sixty-seven movies. At least a dozen of these are bona fide masterpieces, and about an equal number are excellent movies that fall just short of the masterpiece mark. By any measure that's an impressive record, one unequaled by any other filmmaker I can think of. Even more impressive is that Hitchcock's pictures are not rarefied works of art of interest mainly to aesthetes and film scholars, but full-blooded movies that appeal equally to ordinary filmgoers looking for accomplished entertainments and to cinephiles looking for an intellectually and artistically stimulating film-viewing experience. Of all Hitchcock's pictures, none managed to combine these two modes—entertainment and art—so skillfully, so intriguingly, and so pleasingly as his 1958 film Vertigo.

Most people are familiar with the plot of Vertigo. A retired San Francisco police detective, John "Scottie" Ferguson (James Stewart), psychologically traumatized after a rooftop chase to apprehend a criminal ends badly, is targeted as a dupe by his old college friend Gavin Elster, who exploits Scottie's crippling fear of heights to bring off an intricate scheme to murder his wife Madeleine (Kim Novak). The film's plot is a clever one and since this is a mystery thriller with hints of the supernatural (can Madeleine really be the reincarnation of her ancestor, as she believes?), neither the audience nor Scottie realizes what is really happening until quite far into the film. This allows the viewer's understanding of the situation to be manipulated, just as Scottie's is, to create a mood of suspense and, after the truth is revealed to the viewer about three-quarters of the way through the film, for that suspense to be prolonged as the film proceeds in a completely unexpected direction right up to its shock ending.

Such a narrative strategy requires that the viewer's reactions be precisely guided at every turn, and nobody was more expert at this than Hitchcock. Well known for his need for absolute control over all aspects of his films from conception to release, Hitchcock was by temperament the epitome of the film auteur, the director who puts his stamp on every element of his work. The way he accomplished this was by meticulous attention to detail. Because each shot was storyboarded in advance, the final film essentially needed no editing and thus was immune to tampering with by producers and studio executives. Like most filmmakers who began by directing silents, Hitchcock viewed cinema storytelling as essentially a visual process, with dialogue, music, and sound used to augment the film's imagery. Because the way he chose to show the action—placement and movement of the camera, the use of visual effects that form his famous set pieces, the exact way images succeed one another to form a spatial and narrative continuum—was the product of his own imagination, his films always seem expressions of a personal and very distinctive vision. Many directors have made movies in the Hitchcock style, but I can't think of a single one of those films that on close viewing could actually be mistaken for the work of the master himself.

Because of the convoluted and deceptive nature of its plot, Vertigo is even more dependent on Hitchcock's almost obsessive attention to detail as a means of controlling audience response than any other film he made. But in Vertigo he uses his working methods as much more than merely a practical means of telling a story in his own way. He amplifies his control-freak approach to directing until it becomes an all-encompassing aesthetic used to suggest a great deal more than is apparent in what at first seems little more than a deftly contrived suspense melodrama. It is this effect of using every device in his vast repertoire of cinematic tricks to evince the complex psychological and thematic undertones of the film that makes Vertigo Hitchcock's greatest achievement. It's a haunting film that can be watched again and again and still continue to entertain and thrill and deliver new revelations.

Perhaps the most powerful and resonant thing about the film is the way Hitchcock uses repetition to emphasize the idea of doubling. Elements in the first part of the film recur later in the film, and elements in the later part of the film mirror those in the first part, giving the film a strange pattern of symmetrical associations. Scottie seeks out places where he saw Madeleine in the beginning of the film and revisits them later in the film: the missions, the florist's shop, the museum, Ernie's restaurant. He watches Judy at her hotel window the same way he watched Madeleine at her hotel window earlier. His transformation of Judy into Madeleine exactly duplicates Elster's transformation of Judy to pass her off as his wife.

Near the end of the picture Hitchcock expresses the complete fusion of Madeleine and Judy, of past and present, of Scottie's memories and his dreams, in the most striking of several memorable set pieces in the film—a long, passionate kiss between Scottie and Judy after he sees her for the first time as the fully re-created Madeleine. The camera swirls, Scottie and Judy swirl, and the room appears to revolve around them. The background fades from Judy's room to the stable where Scottie and Madeleine kissed for the last time and finally back to Judy's room again, while Bernard Herrmann's glorious music—clearly inspired by Wagner's Tristan und Isolde—surges and pulses in unison with the intense emotions of the passage. It's the most rapturously erotic scene in a Hitchcock movie since the kiss in Notorious.

Hitchcock was famous for his lack of interest in the acting of his performers, and for saying that actors should be treated like cattle, that is, prodded into doing what he needed for the shot he was working on. This was perhaps a holdover from his silent days, when facial expressions, body language, and movement were more important than character development and line delivery because the director essentially created the performance visually, through the staging and editing of the film. This is one reason experienced theater actors often found working with Hitchcock such a frustrating experience. Yet for all this, in Vertigo he gets two remarkable performances from his stars.

It is well documented that Kim Novak was not Hitchcock's first choice to play Madeleine/Judy; Vera Miles was. But by the time he was ready to begin shooting, Miles was pregnant and so somebody else had to be cast. I have no idea how he hit on the idea of casting Kim Novak, but I did notice that just as Elster and Scottie transform Judy into the image of Madeleine, Hitchcock almost seems to transform Kim Novak into an uncanny image of Grace Kelly, right down to her hair and makeup, and her accent and diction. I can't help wondering if one of the reasons Vertigo seems to be Hitchcock's most personal film is his own understanding of the compulsion behind Scottie's Pygmalion-like behavior.

In any event, Novak, who under the right conditions could be a much better actress than she is generally given credit for, does a tremendous job as the mysterious, spaced-out Madeleine. But her more demanding incarnation as Judy is even more impressive. If Madeleine is an enigma, Judy is a fully defined character. Hitchcock and his writer, Samuel Taylor, make a daring narrative decision that happens soon after Scottie meets Judy. The conventional thing to do would have been to conceal the truth about the murder plot from the audience until the end then reveal it to the viewer and Scottie at the same time, in the kind of twist ending typical of films of this kind. Instead Hitchcock and Taylor devise a situation in which Judy writes a letter to Scottie explaining everything to him then impetuously tears it up before he sees it.

The audience is now aware of the true nature of events even if Scottie isn't, and the entire tone of the movie has changed. Now that we know the truth, the point of view shifts much more in Judy's direction. The crux of suspense is no longer what really happened, but how long will it take Scottie to figure it out and what will be his reaction when he does. What all this means for Novak's performance is that she can no longer play her character as an enigma, but must externalize the conflict Judy feels about what she has done to Scottie and the ambivalence she feels about his controlling attitude. Novak's role immediately becomes much more demanding, and she handles the requirements of those demands admirably. If only she looked less like a caricature of a rather common shopgirl!

But the real center of the movie is James Stewart's Scottie, a character who inspires Stewart to give one of the most remarkable performances of his career. We tend to think of the screen persona of James Stewart as that of an optimistic, boyish everyman. But in truth Stewart's characters often had a dark side to them, a willfulness that threatened to cause the passion of their emotions to spill over into obsession. We tend to forget this because until Vertigo, even though that dark side might threaten to take over whatever character Stewart was playing—George Bailey or even Jefferson Smith for Frank Capra or one of the revenge-driven men in the Westerns he made with Anthony Mann, for instance—at the end of the film his character always managed to pull back from the brink before he went over the edge. Hitchcock himself perceived the latent darkness in Stewart's screen image and used it as a sort of dangerous recklessness in the characters Stewart played in Rope and Rear Window. But in Vertigo, for the first and only time I can think of, Stewart's character is completely overcome by the darkness in him and propels the film to a catastrophic conclusion.

During the course of the picture, Stewart must convincingly go through a series of changes that illustrate the stages of the disintegration of Scottie's personality. At the beginning of the movie, he seems like the familiar James Stewart. He has experienced a traumatizing event, his life has been drastically changed by it, and he must live with his disabling acrophobia. But his resilience and sense of proportion intact, he seems able to cope with the changes in his circumstances and determined to overcome his handicap. As he reluctantly follows Madeleine, he finds his detective's curiosity about this mysterious woman aroused. Curiosity soon turns to fascination and then to passionate love. At this point he is already beginning to lose his objectivity as he desperately tries to rationalize Madeleine's delusional behavior.

After Madeleine's death, he is a broken man, a state he conveys in his scenes in the mental hospital through his dazed expression and total lack of affect. If he seems to have regained a precarious sense of balance after several months of treatment, he begins to lose it as soon as he first spots Judy. As he grows closer to her, he progressively loses control of himself until he has become an emotional juggernaut moving inexorably toward the annihilation of both himself and the object of his love. This idea that external and internal forces could collude in such a way to transform a person's ego into an unstoppable engine of destruction is a chilling one indeed.

By the film's conclusion, Hitchcock has carefully guided us to a place where he is at last able to make the point he has been aiming for all along: the fine distinction between passion and obsession, between real life and dreams, between creation and destruction. The death of Judy at the end makes real the fake suicide that was staged for Scottie's benefit earlier. What began as make-believe has taken on a terrible life of its own and become reality, a reality born of the destructive potential when love overpowers reason.

You might also like:
A Dedicated Man: An Appreciation of James Stewart
The Wrong Man (1956)
I Confess (1953)
Young and Innocent (1937): A Neglected Early Hitchcock Masterwork

This post is part of A Month of VERTIGO at The Lady Eve's REEL LIFE. Click here to learn more about the event and read more posts on Vertigo.

Firecreek

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

In any discussion of Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon A Time in the West” (1969) there is mention how shocked audiences must have been to see Henry Fonda’s outlaw character gun down a family in cold blood.

But audiences who saw “Firecreek” the year before probably weren’t surprised at all. In “Firecreek” Fonda plays another outlaw who shoots an unarmed James Stewart in the street and lynches a man in a barn. But “Firecreek” is no “Once Upon A Time in the West.”

“Firecreek” was the first pairing of long-time friends James Stewart and Henry Fonda, not counting a short skit in “On Our Merry Way” (1948). It’s odd that it took long for the two American icons to be cast together and even odder that they were cast as adversaries here.

Firecreek is the name of the title town, one of the saddest western towns I’ve ever seen. It’s more a collection of shacks and fallen down buildings – I’m not sure you can even call them buildings. The town doesn’t have a regular sheriff but farmer Johnny Cobb (James Stewart) takes over lawman responsibilities when needed, for an additional $2 a month.

He’s needed when a gang of outlaws led by Larkin (Henry Fonda) ride into town and rest for bit while Larkin recovers from a bullet wound. His gang includes familiar faces like Jack Elam, James Best and Gary Lockwood. They take great interest in the town’s women, and for such a small town, the town of Firecreek is home to more than a few attractive ladies, including Inger Stevens, Barbara Luna and Brooke Bundy.

There’s a lot of discussion about what worth’s fighting for. Sheriff Cobb elects to stand up to the outlaws to the dismay of several of the townspeople. Dean Jagger is the most cynical of the neighbors, calling Firecreek’s inhabitants losers, and such an unattractive town that it only attracts losers and no one else. To his credit, Jagger’s character includes himself in the loser category.

But in the great western tradition of a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, a tentative Cobb straps on his guns and orders the Larkin gang out of town or else.
It’s all pretty cynical, and it makes for a long 104 minutes. Despite my love of the stars and the genre, I had never seen “Firecreek.” It didn’t get good reviews when it came out, with many critics saying it was just another western. Sometimes time has a way of making the once ordinary seem extraordinary today, but alas, for me, “Firecreek” reeks of the routine.

It’s not a total washout. The supporting cast is strong. In addition to the fine folk above, there’s also Ed Begley and Jay C. Flippen, who are always a pleasure to watch. Cinematography is by the great William Clothier who always makes his westerns look gritty while still highlighting the great natural beauty of the countryside.

I was fascinated by that town though. I had to rack my brains to think of a drearier western town than this one, and it came to me, and to my surprise it was another Henry Fonda film. Burt Kennedy’s “Welcome to Hard Times” (1967) offers one of the most depressing looking western towns in movie history, but it’s a much better film than “Firecreek.” Fonda made both a year apart, and I wonder what he thought, going from one decrepit western set to another?

Director is Vincent McEveety, best known for his work on various live action Disney films. There was nothing here that made me notice his contributions. It’s adequate, nothing more.

I guess that’s the word for “Firecreek” – adequate. It passes the time adequately enough, but nothing more. I don’t think I’ll be returning to this one too often.

Stewart and Fonda would fare together a little better with “The Cheyenne Social Club” (1970), a moderately entertaining western comedy where cowboy Stewart inherits a bordello.

CMBA Hitchcock Blogathon: Rope

Monday, January 17, 2011


“Rope” (1948) concerns two young intellectuals who are also killers. Not just any kind of killers, but thrill killers. They see murder as an intellectual exercise. They want to not only experience what it feels like to murder someone, but to see if they can get away with it.

To see if they can get away with it. It’s similar to what Alfred Hitchcock tried to do with “Rope.” Like his thrill killer subjects, he wanted to try something new to see if he could get away with it.

Get away with what?

“Rope” was based on a 1929 play by “Gaslight” and “Hangover Square” author Patrick Hamilton. Hitchcock wanted the movie audience to feel they were watching a play. That meant no cutting. With this decision in hand, Hitchcock set forth to undertake one of the most audacious films in his long and illustrious career.

Authors Robert A. Harris and Michael S. Lasky explain in their book “The Films of Alfred Hitchcock” (Citadel Press, 1976): “He shot Rope with no actual cuts and instead filmed ten-minute takes, the maximum amount of film (one thousand feet) that a camera will hold. Planning was necessary in defining just how the camera would move and how to create the effect of no cuts. The latter was obtained by closing and opening each ten-minute take in close up behind an actor or object so that they would create a solid texture on the screen. The total effect of Rope was of one continuous shot, the length of the film being the actual time of the action in the story.

“The single setting for the production had walls and furniture with silent wheels which could be moved away quietly while the camera was moving from place to place. A color backdrop skyline of New York was realistic. Clouds, made of spun glass, would move and the sky turned from the orange of sunset to the black and twinkling lights of night.”

In addition to the film’s technical challenges, it was also Hitchcock’s first color film. An odd choice for a color debut, since it all takes place on one set. It was also the first of four films James Stewart and Hitchcock made together. It proved a most fruitful collaboration.

The film cost $1.5 million to produce, mainly because of the many technical problems the film engendered. Plus, Stewart’s salary alone was $300,000. But the film earned its money back and even made a small profit.

While the no editing approach is interesting, it is somewhat limiting. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever tried to repeat this one-take approach. In that regard, “Rope” remains a most singular achievement.

The film opens on a New York street and we see an eagle eye’s view of people (including our beloved director, in his cameo appearance) scurrying past an elegant apartment building. We then track to a window followed by a choked off scream. We then see two men with a third standing listlessly between them with a rope around his neck. At first glance it looks like a rehearsal of some kind (is Hitchcock playing tricks with us?), but no, its murder and the two men are then shown placing the body in a large chest.

The two are Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) who have just committed the murder just before hosting a small dinner party. Mrs. Wilson (Edith Evanson), their housekeeper and cook, is serving at the party.

Guest of honor is David Kently, a college classmate and friend of Brandon and Philip. Other guests include David’s father Henry (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), Henry’s sister-in-law Mrs. Atwater (Constance Collier), David’s fiancée Janet Walker (Joan Chandler), David’s former friend and Janet’s ex-boyfriend Kenneth Lawrence (Douglas Dick).

Late arrival is Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), the former teacher of the boys. Rupert is brilliant but has definite ideas of the superiority of some over others, and rationalizes killing the weaker elements in society.

Tension begins to rise at the party, not only at the guests’ repugnance at Rupert’s theories, but when the normally reliable David does not turn up at the party. The audience knows that David has been murdered by Brandon and Phillip and is now lying in a chest that’s being used as a buffet table for the dinner guests. Brandon finds this highly amusing and Phillip, who has shown doubts about the murder from the very beginning, begins to unravel over the course of the evening.
Rupert suspects something is up and after everyone has left, begins to bait the boys to get to the truth.

Running a crisp 80 minutes, the film is continually engrossing. Though based on a play, Hitchcock gives us two wonderful suspense sequences. Who but Hitchcock could squeeze suspense out of a stationary camera in a one-room setting with no editing?

In one, Rupert theorizes to Brandon and Phillip how the murder was committed. We don’t see the actors in the scene, only hear the actors as the camera tracks where the murder was committed, how the body was hid, how the furniture was re-arranged. The camera acts as a visual guide to Rupert’s remarks.

In the other, Mrs. Wilson cleans off the makeshift buffet table, removing the candles and dishes. The camera remains a stationary observer as she brings the dishes and food platters into the dining room in the background, and then returns with a stack of books brought from the dining room back to the chest. Running several minutes long, there’s no editing, but we hear the empty babble of a cocktail party conversation, and we wait in breathless anticipation for her to open the chest and put the books back in. It’s a marvelous sequence.

Because of the Production Code, any hint of homosexuality between Brandon and Phillip is buried, but astute viewers can figure out there’s something going on between the two, especially those viewers familiar with the Leopold and Loeb case, which helped inspire “Rope.”

Leopold and Loeb were two well-to-do students at the University of Chicago who in 1924 murdered their neighbor, 14-year-old Bobby Franks, in a desire to commit the perfect crime.

Both were homosexual and both subscribed to the Nietzschean philosophy of the superman – someone who has certain “superior” qualities inherent in themselves, and thus are exempt from the laws which govern “ordinary” men.

Brandon and Phillip think they’re above the law too, and I think Rupert does too. His realization that his theories have caused Brandon and Phillip to murder their friend is beautifully played by Stewart and is one of the most underrated bits of acting in his career.

Some think that Stewart is miscast here, and there may be some truth to that. Hitchcock wanted James Mason to play Rupert and I think he would have been marvelous. With that rich, plummy voice, I think Mason could make anyone feel inferior and not worthy of living. He’s so good in those kinds of roles.

But Stewart does well enough, and I think he’s good in the confrontational scenes with John Dall and Farley Granger. I’ve always liked Dall, ever since I first witnessed his magnificent sneering in “Atlantis, the Lost Continent” (1961) on Sunday afternoon TV.

“Rope” was adapted for the screen by Hume Cronyn, though the screenplay was written by Arthur Laurents. Laurents thought Jimmy Stewart was just playing Jimmy Stewart and someone like James Mason would have suggested a romantic relationship between the teacher and one, or both, of his students, thus giving the film even more of an edge.

Like a lot of Hitchcock movies, the ghoulishness is lightened somewhat by some dry comedy. The dithery Mrs. Atwater can never remember the names of plays or movies she’s seen, though she recently adored the movie she recently saw with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. I’m assuming she means Hitchcock’s “Notorious” (1946). And the alert Mrs. Wilson, with her snarky comments, shows she’s more on the ball than Brandon and Phillip think.

Atypical for Hitchcock, there’s no original score though a principal theme, “Perpetual Theme No. 1” by Francis Poulenec, is heard throughout the movie.

Despite its lack of editing, “Rope” remains a fascinating film. The wit of the script, performances, and Hitchcock’s unfailing visual eye make this one a winner.

There’s lots of good reading about other Hitchcock films in the Classic Film Association’s Alfred Hitchcock blogathon. Films and their sites are below. I’m looking forward to reading them and encourage others to do so as well, especially if you have a favorite Hitchcock title listed here.

1. The Birds – Classic Film & TV Café http://classic-film-tv.blogspot.com/
2. Dial M for Murder – True Classics: The ABCs of Film http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/
3. The Lady Vanishes – MacGuffin Movies http://macguffinmovies.wordpress.com/
4. Lifeboat – Classicfilmboy’s Movie Paradise http://www.classicfilmboy.com/
5. The Man Who Knew Too Much – Reel Revival http://reelrevival.blogspot.com/
6. Mr. and Mrs. Smith – Carole & Co. http://community.livejournal.com/carole_and_co/
7. North By Northwest – Bette’s Classic Movie Blog http://bettesmovieblog.blogspot.com/
8. Notorious – Twenty Four Frames http://twentyfourframes.wordpress.com/
9. The Pleasure Garden – Thrilling Days of Yesteryear http://www.thrillingdaysofyesteryear.blogspot.com/
10. Rear Window – Java’s Journey http://javabeanrush.blogspot.com/
11. Rebecca­ – ClassicBecky’s Film and Literary Review http://www.classicbeckybrainfood.blogspot.com/
12. Rope – Kevin’s Movie Corner http://kevinsmoviecorner.blogspot.com/
13. Shadow of a Doubt - Great Entertainers Media Archive http://greatentertainersarchives.blogspot.com/
14. The 39 Steps – Garbo Laughs http://garbolaughs.wordpress.com/
15. Three Classic Hitchcock Killers – The Lady Eve’s Reel Life http://eves-reel-life.blogspot.com/
16. Torn Curtain - Via Margutta 51 http://www.via-51.blogspot.com/
17. The Trouble with Harry – Bit Part Actors http://bitactors.blogspot.com/
18. Vertigo – Noir and Chick Flicks http://dawnschickflicks.blogspot.com/
19. The Wrong Man – The Movie Projector http://movieprojector.blogspot.com/

The Stratton Story

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


With no baseball to watch during the All-Star Game break, and with the White Sox happily, if tenuously, in first place, it seemed like a good time to watch “The Stratton Story” (1949), the bio pic starring James Stewart as White Sox pitcher Monty Stratton who waged a valiant comeback after having a leg amputated.

The strong message of overcoming a physical handicap struck a huge chord with post-WWII veterans who lost limbs during the war. “The Stratton Story” was one of 1949’s most successful films and earned an Academy Award for Best Writing, Motion Picture Story.

This is an absolutely wonderful movie, featuring one of Stewart’s best performances (which is saying something). It was, to date, Stewart’s biggest post-war hit. Don’t forget, “It’s A Wonderful Life” (1946) was not a success when it was first released.

Stratton himself served as technical advisor and was at Stewart’s side throughout filming, helping him with his pitching technique. Stratton said of the film, “Stewart did a great job of playing me, in a picture which I figure was about as true to life as they could make it.” Which I think is about the most you can expect from a Hollywood biography.

Monty Stratton is found pitching in a Texas league game by former catcher Barney Wile (Frank Morgan). An early scene between the two made me reverse the DVD several times to make sure I heard what I heard.

Wile asks Stratton if he’s ever thought about pitching in the majors. Stratton tells him it’s all he ever thinks about. Wile then says, “Hell, what are you wasting your time here for?”

I was pretty surprised to hear this (admittedly mild) expletive and reversed the DVD to make sure I heard it correctly. It sure sounds like that’s what Wile says. Wonder how that got past the Hays Office? Maybe they thought Wile said, “Well, what are your wasting your time here for?” Anyway, it sure sounds like “Hell” to me.

No matter, because Barney and Monty convince Ma Stratton (Agnes Moorehead, in a wonderful performance) to let Monty leave the Texas farm and travel to California to try out with the Chicago White Sox during spring training. She grudgingly agrees and the two set off.
White Sox manager Jimmy Dykes, playing himself (Dykes was the White Sox’s manager from 1934-1946), isn’t pleased to see Barney Wile, but grudgingly agrees to see the new prospect. There’s raw talent in Monty Stratton’s throwing arm, but it needs to be nurtured. He’s sent to the minor leagues in Omaha, where he meets future wife Ethel (June Allyson) on a blind date.

Stratton soon makes it to the Big Leagues, where he becomes the leading pitcher in the American League. In 1938 while hunting, Stratton accidentally shoots himself in the right leg. The leg requires amputation below the knee.

Stratton is bitter and angry, despite the devotion of his wife and mother. He finally comes around when he sees his infant son attempt to walk. The scene of the infant and Stratton learning to walk together is beautifully done, as is the later reconciliation scene between the formerly embittered Monty and Ethel. Stewart and Allyson were a popular screen team, also appearing together in “The Glenn Miller Story” (1954) and “Strategic Air Command” (1955), two of Stewart’s most popular pictures of the 1950s.
Walking again with an artificial leg, Stratton attempts a comeback in the minor leagues. This entire game sequence is riveting, as Stratton slowly gets his game back after a couple of bad pitches. With the game on the line, the opposing team really plays dirty and start bunting, knowing the crippled Stratton will be unable to get off the pitcher’s mound in time to throw out the batter at first base.

Director of “The Stratton Story” was Sam Wood, and this was his penultimate film. Wood gets a bad rap among serious film critics. I’m not sure how this started but I suspect there are a variety of reasons. He was the butt of a lot of Groucho’s jokes during the making of “A Night at the Opera” (1935). Groucho famously said, “You can’t make a director out of Wood.” I’ve read where many attribute the success of the marvelous “King’s Row” (1941) to production designer William Cameron Menzies and composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold and not to Wood. He was also an arch conservative, which doesn’t go over well with the liberal critical establishment.

But his name graces the credits of many great films, including “Goodbye Mr. Chips” (1939), “Kitty Foyle” (1940) (he and Ginger Rogers both won Oscars for that one) and the wonderful “The Devil and Miss Jones” (1941), among many others. In addition to “A Night at the Opera” he also directed “A Day at the Races” (1937). I know I’m suppose to prefer the Paramount Marx Bros. flicks, but I absolutely adore these two M-G-M films, and think they represent some of the Brothers’ best work.

It’s likely that Wood was assigned “The Stratton Story” since he also directed the other great baseball tearjerker, “The Pride of the Yankees” (1942) with Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig. Like that film, the sentiment in “The Stratton Story” is honestly earned, its strong emotions are rooted in reality, and the situations are never overplayed to maudlin excess. I think Wood is an underrated director, and “The Stratton Story” is one of his best.

Today, it remains a film that can be enjoyed by all. If it has any flaws, it’s that the exterior scenes on the farm are easily identifiable as being filmed on a soundstage, and some of the pitching scenes look like Stewart standing in front of a process screen. But when the performances are this good, the emotions so strong and that comeback game as breathless as a suspense sequence in a Hitchcock movie, I can easily forgive the flaws. This is the best movie I’ve seen in a long time.

And by the way, Go White Sox!

1962: Hollywood's Second Greatest Year? Part 3

Monday, November 9, 2009

Fact vs. Legend in the Old West

In my two previous posts on the great American films of the year 1962, I discussed a historical epic, Lawrence of Arabia, and two brilliant adaptations of stage plays, Long Day's Journey into Night and The Miracle Worker. The fourth American masterpiece released in 1962 was a Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Directed by the undisputed master of the genre, John Ford, the movie was at the time dismissed by most critics as a throwback, a relic of an outdated genre. Since then the reevaluation of the films of Ford and his recognition as one of the major American auteurs have led to the reevaluation of this movie. It is now rightly regarded as his last great work, and of the same caliber as his greatest Westerns: Stagecoach (1939), My Darling Clementine (1946), and The Searchers (1956).

The film begins with the arrival by train in the small Western town of Shinbone of a distinguished U.S. Senator, Ransom Stoddard (James Stewart), and his wife, Hallie (Vera Miles), who have returned to Shinbone for the funeral of an old friend—and onetime rival of Stoddard for Hallie—Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). Stoddard is known as the man who first gained fame for killing the notorious gunman Liberty Valance in a gunfight in Shinbone, an event that launched his political career. When newspaper reporters pressure Stoddard into giving an interview, he agrees in order to set the record straight about his own history and his friendship with Doniphon. Most of the rest of the movie consists of a flashback that begins with Stoddard's arrival in the town decades earlier as a recent graduate of law school.

It is on the stagecoach ride into Shinbone that Stoddard has his first encounter with Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin) when Valance and his cronies rob the stagecoach. Valance, a vicious sadist, not only robs the passengers but also humiliates Stoddard and vandalizes his most prized possession, his set of law books. With this irruption of violence and cruelty into the orderly world of Stoddard, the thematic concern of the movie is immediately established (and will be elaborated on in many variations for the duration of the film): the conflict between might, represented at this point by Valance, and right, represented by Stoddard, the enduring conflict between anarchy and the rule of law.

In the restaurant/saloon in Shinbone, Stoddard first meets his future wife, Hallie, who works in the kitchen, and Tom Doniphon, who comes there to visit her. When he hears of the encounter with Valance, Doniphon offers Stoddard a pistol and tells him, "Out here, a man settles his own problems." Stoddard refuses the gun. Amused by the naiveté of Stoddard and his idealistic belief in the power of the law, Doniphon nicknames him—half-affectionately, half-condescendingly—Pilgrim. Is he alluding to the self-righteous innocence of Christian Pilgrim in The Pilgrim's Progress, or perhaps to the Pilgrims of New England, who came to settle a new continent and encountered more difficulties than they had ever imagined?

Lee Marvin, James Stewart, and John Wayne

Embarking on a campaign to civilize and bring democracy to the Old West, Stoddard quickly gains many followers. He founds a free school in the town to teach literacy to both children and adults. He organizes a town meeting to discuss the territorial convention to petition Congress for statehood. He befriends the local newspaper editor, the alcoholic Dutton Peabody (Edmond O'Brien), and persuades him to write articles and editorials in support of statehood.

But Liberty Valance is hired by the big cattle ranchers, who feel threatened by the regulation that statehood would bring to their industry and by the Constitutional rights that the people of the territory would gain. The school is destroyed, the newspaper editor Peabody savagely beaten after he writes in support of statehood, and the town meeting disrupted. The cattle barons and their hired gun, Liberty Valance, have set themselves in opposition to the most hallowed institutions of democracy: the rights to universal education, free speech, a free press, and free elections.

This is all too much even for a pacifist like Stoddard, who declares, "When force threatens, talk's no good any more," arms himself, and goes looking for Valance. It is this decision that leads to the nighttime showdown between the two men in the streets of Shinbone. It seems certain that Stoddard, no match for a practiced gunman like Valance, will be killed, but he miraculously manages to shoot Valance dead. In the rowdy town meeting that follows, Stoddard, treated like a hero, is elected to be the town's representative at the territorial convention.

At the convention Stoddard, whose reputation as the man who shot Liberty Valance has preceded him, is nominated to present the convention's petition for statehood to Congress. However, appalled at being lionized for committing an act of violence, an act that in retrospect he feels went against his conscience, he declines the nomination and walks out of the convention. Outside, he finds himself face to face with Doniphon, who has followed him, and who drops a bombshell: It was he, hiding in the shadows, who actually shot Liberty Valance, and we are shown the true version of events in flashback from Doniphon's point of view, Rashomon-style. Stoddard is at first stunned and then, relieved at last of the guilt he felt over killing Valance and becoming a celebrity for committing an act that violated his personal ethics, he returns to the convention and accepts the nomination.

As the film returns to the present, Stoddard has finally told the truth to the newspapermen and acknowledged that it was actually Doniphon who was the hero. He is unprepared for their reaction. They refuse to print the story, preferring to preserve the false version of history that has become accepted as the truth. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," they tell Stoddard, a line that itself has become almost legendary.

The truth behind the legend

One of the reasons this movie was dismissed when it was released is that much of the black-and-white picture was shot in the studio and very little on location. Because of this it lacks the pictorial grandeur of Ford's other Westerns shot in the Monument Valley and Moab, Utah, an essential element of those movies and one of the things that give them their distinctive character. But to make up for its lack of spectacular scenery, Liberty Valance has a far greater emphasis on theme than any of Ford's other Westerns. In his last great movie, Ford chose to explore larger issues than the character-centered conflicts of his earlier Westerns, specifically the question of the proper role of force in a democratic society. One critic, Richard Brody, writing about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance in a recent issue of the New Yorker (Oct. 26, 2009), went so far as to call it "the greatest American political movie."

Doniphon's revelation at the territorial convention causes Stoddard to modify his position on the use of force. Stoddard learns that where force is concerned, things are not as simple as he thought. He learns that force is in itself neither right nor wrong, but that it is the application to which force is put that makes it right or wrong. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance Ford suggests that force is necessary to create and maintain order, that force and the rule of law must work together to defeat anarchy and deflect destructive violence. Without force, the rule of law is powerless, but the controlled use of force and the rule of law working together can create an environment in which democratic institutions are able to flourish and civic stability is assured.

And Ford the storyteller seems to argue that the element of meaning created by mythology is just as important in forging a sense of community and civic identity as the facts of history. No matter how an individual viewer reacts to Ford's views—if indeed this is Ford's view, for equating the ideas of Ford with the ideas expressed by the characters in his movies can be a risky thing for a viewer to do—he makes a reasonable case that at the least must be given serious consideration. And as Peter Bogdanovich, perhaps the greatest Ford scholar and interpreter, points out, in Liberty Valance Ford does expose the facts behind the mythology, and one could argue that the idea that the facts don't always correspond to the myth is actually another important theme of the film.

In casting John Wayne and James Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Ford achieved a real coup. The familiar screen persona of each makes him the ideal embodiment of the attitude his character represents. As the embodiment of force, the ultra-masculine Wayne is the ideal Tom Doniphon, a realist, a stolid loner who lives outside society but uses his strength to protect its most cherished values. As Doniphon's opposite, the embodiment of the rule of law, Stewart (the man who played Destry, the sheriff who refused to carry a gun) is the perfect Ransom Stoddard, an idealist who longs to establish and become part of a community based on order and democratic values.

Each man represents one of the elements essential to the maintenance of a civilized community: the power of reason sustained by the power of physical strength. And perhaps most important, by the end of the movie each man comes to see the philosophy of the other as complementary to his own and to incorporate in his own philosophy.

In the next installment of this series, I'll be examining the final American masterpiece of 1962.

Have Yourself a Merry Lubitsch Christmas

Monday, December 15, 2008

A number of years ago, while visiting relatives for the Christmas holiday, I took advantage of their cable TV, with its several Los Angeles stations, to watch movies. One night a movie that I had read about called The Shop Around the Corner (1940) was playing. I had never seen a film directed by Ernst Lubitsch, although I had heard much about the "Lubitsch touch," nor had I ever seen the actress Margaret Sullavan in anything, although I also knew of her. I fell in love with this movie as I watched it. One of my first reactions was to ask myself why, when the last part of the film takes place during the Christmas season, wasn't it as well known as those two other holiday perennials Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life. The Shop Around the Corner is every bit as good as those two Christmas favorites and, having fewer serious overtones, is in many ways even more likable.

The Shop Around the Corner, set in Budapest and based on a play by the Hungarian playwright Miklós László, is about two people working in the same shop who loathe each other but unknowingly are secret pen pals conducting a romance by mail. The premise was so successful that it has since been recycled several times. It was Americanized and musicalized by MGM for Judy Garland and Van Johnson as In the Good Old Summertime (1949). In 1963 it was returned to its original setting as the Broadway musical She Loves Me, with music and lyrics by Sheldon Harnick and Jerry Bock, the team responsible for Fiddler on the Roof. In 1998 the story was then updated for the Meg Ryan-Tom Hanks movie You've Got Mail, with snail mail replaced by e-mail.

In the original version, the leads are played by James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, and I cannot praise their performances highly enough. Alfred Kralik (Stewart) is the chief salesperson in a shop owned by Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) that seems to sell high-end gifts and trinkets. Although Matuschek owns the store, Kralik is its de facto manager. Stewart plays Kralik as an intelligent man with a naturally shrewd business sense and quick, infallible business judgment. While Matuschek sequesters himself in his office brooding about the possible unfaithfulness of his attractive, frivolous, and apparently younger wife, Kralik runs the store, making all the business decisions and managing the staff, while officially deferring to Mutscheck's final judgment in these matters.

Kralik is as good with people as he is at merchandising. Secure enough in himself to be that rarity, an egoless staff manager, he enjoys friendly relations with everyone working in the store, all of whom recognize and respond to his wisdom and modest self-confidence. Only the vain and self-important Ferencz Vadas (Joseph Schildkraut), a clerk of lesser abilities but greater ego and ambition than Kralik, a man disliked by the rest of the staff for his cold personality, fails to respond to Kralik but instead behaves like an envious rival.

Kralik is a lonely man longing for romance, which is why he first answers a notice in the newspaper placed by a young woman seeking a pen pal. Kralik soon finds a soul mate in his anonymous correspondent, someone that he bonds with intellectually and eventually falls in love with. When a jobless young woman, Klara Novak (Sullavan), comes into the store one day looking for work, Kralik not only has no job to offer but also takes an instant dislike to the forthright Klara. This is one of the few times his instinctive good judgment about people fails him, for it is soon revealed that she is his anonymous soul mate. When Klara talks herself into a job in the store by demonstrating her very capable sales ability to Matuschek, who is taken with her charm and good looks even though he doesn't need another salesperson, the stage is set for much droll dramatic irony, with Kralik and Klara bickering and feuding in person at work and romancing each other by mail in their spare time.

At the time this picture was released, Stewart was at a high point in his career. In 1939 and 1940 he gave the four best performances of his early career: in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (for which he received the New York Film Critics award as Best Actor), Destry Rides Again, The Philadelphia Story (for which he received an Oscar), and this movie. In each of these roles he shows the same outward gentleness and inner strength that would characterize his screen personality for the next fifty years.

The great character actor Frank Morgan, fresh off of playing the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz, plays the owner of the store, Matuschek, and he is simply wonderful in what is my favorite of his many fine character performances. His impersonation of this overwrought, insecure man driven to distraction over the infidelity of his wife is a marvel—funny and pathetic at the same time. As a businessman, the blustering Matuschek is hopelessly inept, and it is clear from the imprudent business decisions he makes on his own or when he capriciously overrides Kralik's judgment that without Kralik the business would be lost. Morgan makes this bumbling, frazzled nervous wreck of a man not only humorous but ultimately quite touching as well.

Margaret Sullavan, who plays Klara, was one of the most unique movie actresses of the 1930's and 1940's. Between 1933 and 1943 she made sixteen films then seemed to fade from the screen. Four of her movies also starred James Stewart, with whom she had acted in a stock theater company before coming to Hollywood. Sullavan had a fey, eccentric quality that is difficult to describe and projected an odd combination of vulnerability and resolve, whimsicality and earnestness. She had a breathy voice and a manner of delivering her lines that was alternately rushed and halting. She was as idiosyncratic as Katherine Hepburn without being quite so quirky. (Interestingly, Sullavan was cast in the lead in Stage Door but was replaced by Hepburn when she became pregnant.) All of these qualities, in addition to a well-honed sense of comic timing, come through in her Klara. She works exceptionally well with Stewart, and when together onscreen they make it easy to see how the same qualities in their characters that appeal to each other in their letters—their seriousness, intelligence, outer self-confidence, and inner yearning for connection—are exactly the qualities that cause such a clash of personalities when they are at the store.

Much has been written about "the Lubitsch touch," and the terms most often used to describe it are chic and sophisticated. It is true that many—perhaps even most—of Lubitsch's films concern royalty and aristocrats, the very wealthy, suave conmen and conwomen, artists, and playboys. They generally have a Continental setting—Paris, London, the French Riviera. Yet none of this applies to The Shop Around the Corner. While not uneducated or unintelligent, these men and women are petit bourgeois who work in a shop, far from the rich and sophisticated people in movies like Trouble in Paradise and Design for Living. Even its Budapest setting lacks the romance and glamor of the settings of most of Lubitsch's other movies.

"In the well-mannered, good-natured world of Ernst Lubitsch," wrote Andrew Sarris in The American Cinema, "grace transcends purpose." Roger Ebert, giving his own definition of the elusive "Lubitsch touch," wrote that "the comic material is given dignity by the actors." This prizing above all else of dignity, good manners, and grace is for me the constant in Lubitsch's movies—including The Shop Around the Corner—no matter what the setting or the social station of the characters. To Lubitsch the most important thing in life is to maintain grace, self-composure, and mannerly behavior in even the most trying circumstances. When the personal relationships among the three main characters in Trouble in Paradise fail to work out, all accept the situation with dignity and manage to forge an accommodation to their changed circumstances. In Design for Living, Gary Cooper and Fredric March react to their treatment by Miriam Hopkins—her refusal to commit herself to one or the other, her playing them against each other, and her ultimate rejection of them for an older millionaire—in a similarly graceful and civilized way and in the end reach a most unusual accommodation with her.

In Lubitsch's world view, both communism (Ninotchka) and fascism (To Be or Not to Be) are enemies of dignity and grace. The glacial Ninotchka is a flawed person because she mistakes asceticism for dignity. When she thaws out and permits herself to learn about pleasure, she acquires genuine dignity, and her rigid formality is transformed into relaxed gracefulness. The cruelty and inhumanity of the Nazis in To Be or Not to Be are also antithetical to Lubitsch's values. For him grace is linked absolutely to kindness, forgiveness, and acceptance of the imperfections and inconstancy of human nature.

One of the most difficult and frustrating experiences in life is to be helpless in the face of unjust accusation. For Lubitsch the proper reaction to this situation is the nearly impossible one of acceptance and the maintenacnce of grace under stress. In The Shop Around the Corner, Kralik's equanimity is tested when he is placed in just such a situation. When the private detective Matuschek hires reports that the person with whom his wife is having an affair is one of the employees of his shop, Matuschek mistakenly jumps to the conclusion that the culprit is Kralik (it is actually the arrogant Vadas) and fires him. Kralik reacts to his unjust treatment by Matuschek—in a sense, a betrayal and rejection by a father figure—with disappointment but also with grace and good manners, not outrage or anger, as most people would. He doesn't protest his innocence or indulge in self-pity, and Stewart makes this uncomplaining acceptance of injustice seem completely believable.

Kralik is further tested when later in the film Matuschek impulsively tries (unsuccessfully) to commit suicide and is hospitalized for a nervous breakdown. It is Kralik who immediately goes to his bedside and then loyally returns to run the business and conceal the truth about Matuschek's suicide attempt to protect his reputation. The importance of grace in Lubitsch's—and Kralik's—world view also explains Kralik's disapproving reaction to Klara, for it is Klara's brashness and her less than gracious attitude towards Kralik that initially cause him to dislike her. This intolerance of the lack of grace in others is perhaps the one flaw in Kralik's own devotion to that quality. It is only when he is able to perceive Klara's inner grace, a trait openly expressed only in her letters, that Kralik is able to accept her and acknowledge his love for her.

One of the most delightful things about The Shop Around the Corner is the way Lubitsch creates in the atmosphere of the shop and the interaction of its employees the feeling that these people are in a way a large family. Matuschek is the father, Kralik the wise and faithful son, Vadas the ungrateful and disloyal prodigal son, the errand boy Pepi the impudent but endearing youngest son, the other salespeople in the store kindly aunts and uncles, and Klara the orphaned young woman adopted by the family. Roger Ebert noted about the people in Lubitsch's films that "you find that you believe in these characters and care about them." The family dynamic of The Shop Around the Corner, applied to a closed group of people who are enacted by enormously appealing performers, draws the viewer in and creates tremendous emotional investment in the problems of these people and their ultimate resolution.

When all the disparate elements of a movie slot together flawlessly to provide a fully satisfying and entertaining experience, that to me is a definition of movie greatness. The Shop Around the Corner is just such a movie, an impeccable example of the unpretentious artistry that the best Hollywood studio movies and the best studio directors like the great Ernst Lubitsch were capable of achieving. Add to its other virtues a strong Christmas component, and you have a perfect holiday movie.
 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading