Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label Susan Hayward. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Susan Hayward. Show all posts

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1955

Monday, December 5, 2011

1955


So the much anticipated ranking is:

I would be lying if I said I wasn't really moved by this performance. To some, this work of Jennifer Jones would be flat and uninteresting, but I really enjoyed every minute of it. Although it's not a grand achievement by today's standards, it's an incredibly moving and loveable piece of work. Jennifer excels at showing Suyin's humility and pure emotions. Again, this is nothing fantastic but something really lovely.

In a role that's the least Oscar-baiting of her category, Katharine Hepburn excels. It takes some time to fully realize her greatness as Jane Hudson, but the outcomes are simply astonishing. Kate injected an incredible amount of charm into the character that made extremely loveable. And eventually, it's Kate's charisma and fascinating personality that makes her completely irresistable here. 

Eleanor Parker's vibrant, wonderful performance as Marjorie Lawrence is a real treat to watch. She approached this character in a very odd way (for her time) and the result is something endlessly charming and impressive. She does way more than I expected her to do and gets the most out of this showy, interesting part. A really pleasant surprise coming from a hard-to-find movie.

An unbelievably great performance, which I (sort of unexpectedly) loved from the very first minute. Susan is simply marvelous at showing Lillian's pain and struggle with alcohol and makes her film extremely disturbing and hard to watch. However, she also makes an unforgettable impression that hits you really hard in your guts. In her signature role and personal favorite work, Susan Hayward is fantastic. And she sings, too!

Anna Magnani is all around brilliant as Serafina Delle Rose. The intensity of her work is just amazing and you can't take your eyes off her. Her scene in the church alone deserved an Oscar, not to mention her whole work. She's highly emotional, over-the-top and theatrical and yet it all feels brilliant because of her extraordinary talent. Magnificent, unforgettable performance.

So I can proudly announce
that the winner is...
Anna Magnani 
in 
The Rose Tattoo
Anna has a hard time believing it... :)

Final thoughts: A great year with two amazing performances. Deciding between the two was incredibly difficult. My mind said Susan, my heart said Anna so I went with my heart. :) I was surprised by how great the others were. Yes, Jennifer is the weakest link but she was also really lovely. I've never really warmed up to Kate so after a few days my appreciation for her work cooled down a bit. Eleanor was, however, so wonderful but I need to be less generous with the grades. So the ranking was not that difficult in the last 3 places. 

About the next year: All I can say is FINALLY! A year with at least two iconic quotes, one iconic character (or even more) and at least four brilliant actresses. I've been hunting (literally, well, almost) for one film for a long time and now I have it! I almost gave it up, my mind constantly said "Snap out of it!" but then the year said to me "I'm not gonna be ignored, Dan." 

What do you think?

Susan Hayward in I'll Cry Tomorrow

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Susan Hayward received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing troubled alcoholic singer Lillian Roth in  the movie based on Roth's autobiography, I'll Cry Tomorrow. As you may or may not know, Anna Magnani was so convinced that she would lose the Oscar that not only did she refuse to attend the event, but she also refused to believe that she won. I guess Anna must have thought she didn't have a chance in hell of beating Susan Hayward's huge, over-the-top performance. If that battle between the two actresses took part nowadays, Susan would easily win the Oscar, with many people praising her work in this part. However, Anna was the clear front-runner based on the awards but I feel that Susan came really close to her. 

I'll Cry Tomorrow is a very interesting movie, very much unlike the other films of that era. It's really dark and doesn't have a moment of real relief for the audience. Even when things seem to turn out to be right, the whole atmosphere becomes quite sinister. First, the fact that the movie was edited so unusually that you don't see the ending of the scene bothered me a little bit but I got used to after a while and I felt it was essential for the movie. Jo Van Fleet (I suppose) won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar also for this performance, too not only her shallow, one-dimensional job in East of Eden. 

Although Susan Hayward is an performer who could be made fun of and criticised in a really hilarious way, I feel she's a really terrific actress. Sure, she liked to go (sometimes too much) over the top but I guess that's her trademark and also the best thing about her. Many are comparing her to Melissa Leo, which is just as justified as its inaccurate. Sure they have a very deep and strong voice and both of them like to chew the scenery, however, in Susan's case, I can rarely say that she's hammy (unlike Melissa who never seems to find the perfect balance between over-the-top and overacting). That being said, Susan is a stormy and huge presence on the screen and yet she doesn't destroy the movie. For sure, she took on very baity, typical Oscar roles and it's no wonder that she often played alcoholic and/or suffering women. She could display fear and anger like no one else and I'll Cry Tomorrow is arguably her finest hour. 

Everything is given in Lillian that equals Oscar nowadays (and did even back in the 50s). Personally, I don't have a problem with Oscar baiting if the performance is really convincing and it's a great acting achievement besides being pure bait. Lillian is a wonderfully complex character whose layers are very difficult to reveal. She requires an actress who has very strong presence and can show emotions in a bit exaggerated but accurate and believable way. Really I can only think of the 30s Barbara Stanwyck who could have played Lillian besides Susan (and I would have probably loved her even more than Susan). However, under the circumstances, Susan was the obvious choice and this part became her signature role that she herself considered to be her finest work on the screen. And for a reason. 

Susan took a wonderfully modern approach to Lillian and also alcoholic women. During the studio era, audiences mostly saw cheerful, male drunks and alcholics and in that case it was the source of amusement and light entertainment (though some like Thomas Mitchell in Stagecoach were able to add depth to such characters). And then came The Lost Weekend, where Ray Milland redefined what it meant to be an alcoholic. Along came a young actess called Susan Hayward who rocked in Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman and it must have been a real shock to people in Hollywood. The movie was, naturally, a flop though it managed to gain enthusiastics nods and even an Oscar nomination to Susan Hayward (Loretta Young, the eventual winner, actually admitted voting for Susan). I guess it's I'll Cry Tomorrow that gives the essence of Susan Hayward's now legendary "drunk" performances, which are, by all means, revolutionary in the way women are represented in Hollywood films. 

In I Want to Live!, we see Susan Hayward as Barbara Graham, who's walking to the gas chamber. In I'll Cry Tomorrow we can observe Lillian Roth walking to an AA meetin for the first time. Two very different situations in life but two similarly breathtaking and chilling scenes acted to perfection by Susan Hayward. However, it takes Lillian Roth a long journey thtough booze, tons of husband and suffering to get to that point. And right there I asked myself like Diana Barrie after losing the Academy Award "Was I hit by a bus?"

I'm mostly impressed by the actual existence of great character development, however, in this case I was mostly mesmerised by the "how". Susan sort of roughly showed the changes  in the character while being completely accurate and firm, too. She does it in a very tricky way and I almost didn't even notice it until I saw a broken-down addict instead of a cheerful, talented young woman. She shows the inner battles and traumas of Lillian in a very disturbing (because of how believable she makes it) and she completely disappeared in the pain of the character. It was just painful to see her being inconsolable after the death of her fiancĂ©, David and how this tragic event started to ruin almost her whole life. The first scene where Lilian has booze is just unforgettable: Susan showed her like a child before taking the medicine that will later ease her pain. First, she's a bit hesitant and in a second, she begins her downfall. 

Another fantastic aspect of this performance is how gradually we can see Lillian destroying herself. First it's just a bit of partying and enjoying herself and eventually, she lies unconsciously in front of a grocery shop. It's an indescribably painful journey that Susan takes you along with her and it's just as intense as a ride on a rollercoaster. Her eventual healing is as cathartic and uplifting as it gets and her final song at the end of it is simply a thrill. The wonderful (and sort of unexpected) thing is that we actually never see her say the lines "My name is Lillian and I'm an alcoholic." We just feel that Lillian has healed and she's going to do what she's supposed to. 

And I haven't even mentioned Susan's wonderful chemistry with Jo Van Fleet and how awesome and wonderfully intense their scenes are. Although that aspect of the film is not emphasised enough, the two actresses were able to make their scenes extremely effective.

All around, this is an unbelievably great performance, which I (sort of unexpectedly) loved from the very first minute. Susan is simply marvelous at showing Lillian's pain and struggle with alcohol and makes her film extremely disturbing and hard to watch. However, she also makes an unforgettable impression that hits you really hard in your guts. In her signature role and personal favorite work, Susan Hayward is fantastic. And she sings, too! :) 

What do you think?

The Next Year

Friday, November 11, 2011

1955


So the nominees were:

  • Susan Hayward in I'll Cry Tomorrow
  • Katharine Hepburn in Summertime
  • Jennifer Jones in Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing
  • Anna Magnani in The Rose Tattoo
  • Eleanor Parker in Interrupted Melody

What an interesting, rarely talked about year, just the way I like it. I only saw Anna before so four performances will be completely new to me. :) I can't wait!

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1958

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

1958


So the much anticipated ranking is:

Somehow I feel that Roz Russell's performance as Auntie Mame is quite lacking and not a really great one. There's something really off-putting about it and I feel she could have tried harder to elevate the material. It might be that she didn't impress me because I don't go for this type of performance. I don't know why I didn't like her but the point is that I wasn't impressed at all.

Although it's true that Shirley MacLaine gave a great performance as Ginnie Moorehead but she was trapped in a movie that's constantly working against her, plus she didn't have enough time to develop the character as well as she could have/should have. Still, I applaud Shirley for making Ginnie loveable and being the best part of her movie.

I liked Deborah Kerr in Separate Tables, despite the fact that she didn't give the best performance of the ensemble an she was too much outshone by some of the fellow members of the cast. If we look at her performance out of its context, it's a pretty great one. It just pales in the context of the movie and the rest of the performers. Still, good job that works well.

It's no wonder that Hayward won the Oscar for this performance. Although I have some problems with her work here, I can say that she's indeed fantastic at showing all of Barbara's emotions. It's a very realistic portrayal of a desperate woman who wants to live. Hayward made this character much more complicated and layered than most actresses would have.

This is a wonderful performance that (at least to me) lives up to its reputation. Elizabeth Taylor is really fantastic as Maggie, the Cat, creating a fascinating, complex, multi-layered character. The fierce emotionality Liz added to Maggie is just brilliant. You can so easily identify with this character thanks to Taylor's greatness in this part. Fantastic work.

So I can proudly announce
that my 30th winner is...
Elizabeth Taylor
in
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
And my first double winner. :)

Final thoughts: A so-so year. I didn't give any 5s but I guess a year can be great if I don't give any 5s. It wasn't the problem here. This ranking surprised me though I was almost sure that Liz would win. There was only one really fantastic performance (Liz), Susan was "just" fantastic. I had my problems with the others. Roz was quite much for me, Shirley was very good but she was robbed of enough screentime, so it couldn't have worked anyway. Deborah is not my favorite actress but I really liked her in Separate Tables.

The ranking of the reviewed years:
  1. 1944
  2. 1969
  3. 1974
  4. 1989
  5. 1959
  6. 2006
  7. 1996
  8. 1964
  9. 1939
  10. 1977
  11. 2010
  12. 1997
  13. 2009
  14. 1980
  15. 1941
  16. 1972
  17. 1963
  18. 1966
  19. 1973
  20. 1983
  21. 1937
  22. 1990
  23. 1978
  24. 1954
  25. 1958
  26. 1948
  27. 2002
  28. 1957
  29. 1940
  30. 1998
About the next year: I don't have any idea yet, I still want to save 1967. Originally, I wanted to do that but I want to save the great years. I'll think about the next year but I'd be glad to have requests. :) It's your turn. I don't want to make a poll because that usually turns out bad and I'm rather superstitious.

What do you think?

Susan Hayward in I Want to Live!

Monday, June 13, 2011

Susan Hayward received her fifth nomination and her overdue Academy Award for playing Barbara Graham, a woman who's sentenced to death because she took part in killing a paralyzed old lady in the movie I Want to Live!, which is based on a real life case. Last time when I was writing about Greta Garbo, I mentioned a locked Oscar win. That was certainly the case with Susan Hayward. Everybody wanted her to win, she won every award. It really was her time in every possible way: she had an extremely baity role, she played a controversial real-life character, she was way overdue plus she was a beloved superstar. No surprise that she won and the audience applauded enthusastically.

I Want to Live is actually a much better film than I remembered. Although it starts out very oddly, it turns out to be a very effective piece of work that was more than worthy of a Best Director nomination (I'd not even complain about a win). It's a very intense and exciting experience and I loved the fact that it minimalised the clichés of the movies about capital punishment. So if you watch it, don't expect a cheesy drama with tears and such. It's actually a very tough movie that is sometimes really nerve-wreckingly exciting.

Susan Hayward. I really cannot say much about her as I've only seen one movie in which she starred and that's her Oscar-winning role in I Want to Live! I haven't seen her roles as alcoholic women in Smash-Up and I'll Cry Tomorrow. True from what I can see, she seems to be an actress who went for really baity roles. In fact, some even consider her the one who invented Oscar baiting (though I would argue with that). All in all, I have the difficulty of not being able to compare this one to her other works and therefore, I may not even be able to properly evaluate her.

Just like the movie itself, Hayward's performance also starts out a bit out of tune and it seems very odd and weird. We get to know Barbara Graham as a very immoral, careless woman, whose credo is "Girls just wanna have fun." That being said, this character is not a saint and she doesn't come off as a very likeable person. The only thing that really bothered me about Hayward's performance is in connection with this. I felt that she was quite hammy in the beginning and somehow I was turned off by her line readings. And I became quite confused: is this the character or did Susan exaggerate Barbara's personality? In the end, I reached a decision about it: I think it's both. Although Barbara is indeed a character who's quite over-the-top, Hayward was a little bit too much at the beginning of the movie.

Still, that's the only bad thing I can say about Susan as apart from that. she gives an incredible performance as Barbara. Maybe not incredible but at least fantastic. I loved the way Susan developed Barbara. She both changes and remains the same. On the outside, Barbara is raging and then she's in peace but inside, she remains the same wild girl whose instincts can take her over. She has very loud outbursts and meltdowns, she's crying, screaming and so on. This might seem way too much but for me, it all worked. I can't say why, I was just really impressed by her.

The courtroom scenes are also handled extremely well by Hayward. We see Barbara fighting for her justice/freedom and all the emotions that Hayward shows are really impressive. She swears on everything possible, cries and screams (again) and it's so understandable. I can totally imagine the real Barbara acting this way.

What quite probably won Hayward this Oscar was the emotionality of this performance. We really feel sorry for Barbara even though we're never certain if she was really innocent. We are sorry for her when she's hysterical when they want to take her baby away and we're feeling really awkward when she goes to her own execution. Her last scenes are incredibly effective and one just keeps wondering about what she whispered to the priest in the end. Did she say "I did it?" Hayward brilliantly added all the shades and layers to this character and it's obvious that Barbara knows much more than she says.

So to sum up, it's no wonder that Hayward won the Oscar for her performance as Barbara Graham. Although I have some problems with her work here, I can say that she's indeed fantastic at showing all of Barbara's emotions. It's a very realistic portrayal of a desperate woman who wants to live. Moreover, Hayward made this character much more complicated and layered than most actresses would have.

A strong 4,5.

What do you think?

Note: Dear Readers, you seem to be quite inactive with this year. Are you so uninterested in this year? I could use 1 or 2 comments. :)

The Next Year

Sunday, June 12, 2011

1958


So the nominees were:
  • Susan Hayward in I Want to Live!
  • Deborah Kerr in Separate Tables
  • Shirley MacLaine in Some Came Running
  • Rosalind Russell in Auntie Mame
  • Elizabeth Taylor in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Wow, an interesting looking year but I don't have any idea how my ranking will look like. At the time, a whole country wanted Susan Hayward to finally win and her triumph was one of the most applauded ones (if not the one) in history. Many people are still talking about that year with sweet memories, so we'll see if I go with America's pick of the time or somebody else.

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions?

Demetrius and the Gladiators

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

This year’s Easter viewing was “Demetrius and the Gladiators” (1954), a more than respectable sequel to “The Robe”, which had come out the year before.

It’s one of the better sequels, in fact, and offers more action and visual splendor than “The Robe.” Now, I’m a big fan of “The Robe”, but I won’t deny that’s it an exceedingly talky film, odd for a film that introduced the splendor of Cinemascope to audiences. As if to make up for the static quality of “The Robe,” the sequel is loaded with action.

“Demetrius and the Gladiators” opens with a recap of the last scene of “The Robe”, where Richard Burton and Jean Simmons are ordered to their deaths by Roman Emperor Caligula. Jean Simmons gives The Robe (the cloth Jesus was wearing when he was crucified) to an onlooker, saying, “For the Big Fisherman.”

Big Fisherman is Peter (Michael Rennie), who returns in this movie. So does Demetrius (Victor Mature), the freed Greek slave who witnessed the crucifixion and is one of Christianity’s first converts, and Caligula (Jay Robinson, even nuttier than in the first film).

Caligula thinks The Robe has magic powers, and has sent spies to look for it and bring it to him. He also becomes convinced he’s a god.

New characters include Caligula’s uncle Claudius (a non-stuttering Barry Jones), Claudius’ wife, the scheming temptress Messalina (Susan Hayward), and Lucia (Debra Paget), a young Christian woman who is in love with Demetrius.

All I can say is if more Christians looked like Debra Paget, the religion would have spread a lot faster than it did. (That will likely add some time in Purgatory for me, but I couldn’t help think it while watching the movie. But then I’ve always had a thing for Debra Paget.)






Demetrius undergoes a crisis of faith when he mistakenly believes Lucia is killed by mauling gladiator Richard Egan. Demetrius becomes not only a champion gladiator, killing his foes left and right in the arena, but the latest lover of Messalina, all before Peter again brings him back to the fold to spread the word of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

The production is handsome to look at and there’s all sorts of familiar faces on hand to keep us entertained. One year before winning a Best Actor Oscar for “Marty”, Ernest Borgnine wields the whip as Strabo, the head of the gladiator school. Fox contract players Richard Egan and Anne Bancroft are on hand for a couple of scenes. Future Catwoman Julie Newmar is easily identifiable as a dancer.

A pre-“Blacula” William Marshall is very impressive as Glycon, a king in his own country who is forced into the gladiator ring. Marshall had one of the greatest speaking voices ever and it’s just a pleasure to listen to him.

Censorship requirements of the time meant the fight scenes in the arena weren’t particularly bloody, but I would imagine audiences were still pretty impressed, and considered these scenes something of a novelty. We know them now thanks to “Spartacus” (1960), “Gladiator” (2000) and countless Italian-made spectacles of the 1960s.

But up to then, I don’t think audiences saw a lot of gladiator action. “Quo Vadis” (1951) had arena scenes, but they were mainly limited to Christians being fed to the lions. DeMille’s “The Sign of the Cross” (1932) boasts some of the most salacious and violent arena scenes ever filmed, but when the film was re-issued in the 1940s it was minus many of those scenes.

RKO’s “The Last Days of Pompeii” (1935) had Preston Foster as blacksmith turned gladiator in several exciting scenes, and because the film was constantly re-issued, usually on a double bill with “King Kong” (1933) or “She” (1935), its likely audiences got their gladiator thrills from it.




But “Demetrius and the Gladiators” gave audiences gladiator thrills in color and wide screen. Still, I couldn’t help but notice how small-scaled the arena was. It doesn’t look that big, and its audience seems to be Roman senators, Caligula’s court and members of the Praetorian Guard. I wonder if it was more of a personal arena for the Roman court, rather than one for the populace. Still, the combat sequences are very well done, and by golly, there’s real tigers taunting Demetrius in the arena, unlike those in “Gladiator” where they are obviously CGI.

(Aside: I think “Gladiator” is the worst Best Picture Oscar winners ever. “Cimarron” (1931) or “The Greatest Show on Earth” (1952) usually get the nod, but I’ll take either of those any day over Ridley Scott’s snooze fest, not only dramatically inert, but ugly and cheap looking to boot. End of aside).




The cast is all fine. Susan Hayward looks like she’s having a ball as Messalina, twisting the men in her life around her little finger, scheming and (unknowingly) letting them do all the dirty work for her. She’s a pleasure to watch.

I like Victor Mature as Demetrius, though I think he’s better in “The Robe.” I think he gives the best performance in “The Robe”, even better than Jean Simmons and Best Actor nominee Richard Burton. He’s very sincere in that role and brings a working man’s honesty to the film that helps ground it.

He’s not so subtle in the sequel, but he gives it his all and he’s always fun to watch. He never took himself seriously, but he should have, as he never gave a bad performance, and was, from what I’ve read about him, a pretty good guy off camera.

In the 1950s, my mom worked for a man who served on a submarine with Mature during World War II. He said Mature had no airs or pretensions about him. He thought Mature was one of the greatest guys he ever knew.

We have a family friend who is a huge movie buff and has been collecting autographs for decades. He would obtain the star’s address and send him or her a photo with a stamped, self-addressed envelope, so all the person would have to do is read the letter, sign the picture and return it in the envelope at no expense.

Occasionally, he would not get a response but usually the picture would be returned signed, sometimes with a nice note. He did this with Victor Mature and waited and waited but never got a response.

About a year later an envelope arrived in the mail. Inside was an autographed picture with this inscription: “Dick, Sorry about the delay. Had a fire. Best wishes, Vic Mature.”

Now THAT’s an autograph.

Director of Demetrius was Delmer Daves, who is a great favorite of mine, and who rarely made a film I didn’t like. Even when some are clunkers, like “Parrish” (1961) or “Youngblood Hawk” (1964) they are always watchable.

In “Demetrius and the Gladiators” he and screen writer Philip Dunne nicely balance all of the films themes and situations: violence and piety, court intrigue and torrid romance scenes.

No mention of the film can’t be made without mentioning Franz Waxman’s majestic score. He incorporated themes from Alfred Newman’s score for “The Robe” because he thought so highly of it. Waxman actually resigned from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences when the Music Branch neglected to honor Newman’s score for “The Robe” with a Best Score nomination. (If he thought the Academy was tin-eared then, what would he make of today’s scoring nominees? He would probably flee the country.)




One last thing, and I don’t think I’m giving anything away here with the ending. The Christians have been promised protection by new emperor Claudius as long as they don’t ferment any discord. The film concludes with Peter, Demetrius and new convert Glycon walking through the Roman palace, backed by Waxman’s truly gorgeous choral finale. But Glycon is holding The Robe, and I’ve always thought it interesting that the black character holds The Robe, rather than Peter or Demetrius. A pretty bold statement in that pre-Civil Rights era.

Rawhide

Monday, June 2, 2008

“Rawhide” (1951) is a taut and terrific hostage drama that happens to take place in the Old West. It’s lean and mean, and runs a trim 86 minutes without a wasted scene (thank you, director Henry Hathaway). Good performances abound, especially Jack Elam as a particularly nasty bad guy who offers a piece of violence that possibly wouldn’t get past nervous studio executives today.

The film’s first several minutes are deceiving. The title music is the rousing march that Alfred Newman composed for “Brigham Young, Frontiersman” (1940), hardly indicative of the drama to follow. Then we get several minutes of footage about the importance of the Overland Mail, and how it helped transform the West. Sequences of stagecoaches traversing the countryside, while full-blooded orchestrations of “Oh Susannah” play in the background, leads one to think we’re in for one of those “transportation winning the west” epics like “Wells Fargo” (1937) or “Union Pacific” (1939).

But soon the mini-history lesson disappears, and we’re ready for the story to begin.

“Rawhide” takes place at a stagecoach station, a stopping point for passengers to stretch their legs and have a meal while the horses are changed. The station is an isolated one, a tiny spot amidst the towering mountains. Four escaped convicts, led by Hugh Marlowe, take over the station to hijack a gold shipment coming in the next day. Caretakers Edgar Buchanan and Tyrone Power need to act normal for the other stages that stop by, while passenger Susan Hayward and her infant niece are held hostage. Buchanan is killed trying to resist, and Power and Hayward knowing they will be killed since they witnessed Buchanan’s slaying, attempt to forge an escape plan before the next day’s stage arrives.

Good stuff on display here, and like I said, not a minute of wasted footage. It’s an atypical role for Power. No heroics here, just a scared greenhorn trying to stay alive. Hayward is always a pleasure to watch and she’s particularly well photographed here.
Marlowe initially appears to be a little too civilized, a little too “nice” to be the leader of outlaws, until it’s revealed that he’s the black sheep of a prominent banking family, so his good breeding becomes more understandable.

But bug-eyed Jack Elam easily steals the show. He’s scary good here. He can’t resist pawing Hayward despite continual threats from Marlowe. You just know he’s going to explode one day.

In the film’s climax, Power and Elam are shooting it out when Elam sees the infant girl walking innocently through the courtyard. Elam begins shooting at the little girl to draw Power out into the open. It’s an agonizing scene to watch as the little girl screams with her arms up in the air, turning this way and that way while the bullets hit the ground at her feet. I don’t think that would occur in a big budget studio film today. (I’m not talking about cartoon, CGI-inspired violence like last year’s “Shoot Out”, which boasted a coming attractions trailer so loud and stupid that I couldn’t see myself paying to support it. I understand there’s a baby in distress throughout the whole movie, but when people are flying through the air, twirling around and shooting guns while defying the laws of physics, all credibility goes out the window. The baby was probably CGI anyway.)

I’m a sucker for thrillers set in isolated settings or in confined areas, like an airplane, train or ship. “Rawhide” combines the two, contrasting the isolation of the stagecoach station and the majesty of the surrounding mountains. The film was shot in Lone Pine, California, a famous locale for westerns, and its beautiful, if desolate, countryside. Even if Power, Hayward and baby escaped from the outlaws, there’s really no place to escape to.

Alas, the coming attractions trailer shows the film’s climax, proving that Hollywood’s penchant for giving too much away in trailers is nothing new. Due to the film’s paucity of action, its likely 20th Century Fox sold the film as a traditional western shoot ‘em up rather than a tense suspense drama. Still, I can’t believe westerns fans who went to see “Rawhide” would go home disappointed.

Rating for “Rawhide”: A strong three stars.
 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading