Double Feature: Twelve O'Clock High (1949) & Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

Twelve O'Clock High - ****

In this classic World War II drama, Gregory Peck plays General Frank Savage, who is assigned to the 918th Heavy Bombardment Group, after the previous commander becomes unable to lead his troops. This flying outfit specializes in daytime bombing, which was unheard of at the time. When he takes charge of the unit, Savage is a tough leader, and the flyers under his command don't take to his less than genial demeanor. Savage's goal is to get the men working efficiently, pushing them to achieve results in the field and become a more productive outfit. To do this, he will have to win the men over with the help of a crafty officer (Dean Jagger), the ex-commander (Gary Merrill), and the mens' elected representative (Robert Patten). The group slowly improves, but an important final mission could prove disastrous for Savage, as he and his men are tested beyond in the heat of battle.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (Dean Jagger), and Best Sound. It won Oscars for Jagger and the 20th Century-Fox sound department.

Trivia: This film is still shown in leadership training sessions for the Navy and Air Force, as well as civilian courses.

Witness for the Prosecution - ****

Billy Wilder's 1957 film features Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power, and Marlene Dietrich in solid performances. Based on Agatha Christie's short story and play, the film is one of the best courtroom dramas ever made. Laughton is Sir Wilfred Roberts, a barrister with a heart condition and no room for exciting cases. When Leonard Vole (Power) presents his case of being wrongfully accused for murder, Roberts takes the case, to the chagrin of his strict nurse (Elsa Lancaster). The trial begins, and everything is going as planned. Complications arise when Vole's wife (Dietrich) takes the stand. What follows is the stuff spoilers are made of. In lieu of giving it away, there are twists and turns that lead to a surprising (to me, at least), upbeat ending. It's rarely mentioned with Wilder's best films, but it's another great film from the celebrated director.

Though the film did not win any Oscars, it received nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Charles Laughton), Best Supporting Actress (Elsa Lancaster), Best Film Editing, and Best Sound.

Trivia: This is one of three films Wilder directed in 1957 - the others being Love in the Afternoon and The Spirit of St. Louis.

12 Angry Men (1957) **1/2

In director Sidney Lumet’s first feature film, 12 Angry Men (1957), one juror asks another, “What kind of man are you? Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life?” The duty of a juror is to judge the evidence presented without prejudice or sympathy and render a verdict. The problem is every person who sits in a jury box has their own personal views regarding race, class, and gender, as well as their own personal problems. Reginald Rose’s Oscar-nominated screenplay (adapted from his stage play) does an excellent job of showcasing these very issues in this taut, dramatic film.  Aided by brilliant cinematography, outstanding editing, and stellar acting, 12 Angry Men is an inspiring look at one of the most disliked and avoided duties of American citizenship. 

Our jury is deliberating a first-degree murder charge involving an 18-year-old minority boy from the slums who is accused of stabbing his father to death.  If convicted, the mandatory sentence is the death penalty.  On the surface, it appears to be an open and shut case of guilt, but one juror, played by Henry Fonda, has doubts.  As the lone holdout, he takes it upon himself to make the other eleven jurors (all men, hence the title) reluctantly (and in some cases belligerently) reexamine the evidence.  Along the way we learn there are other contributing reasons for why they think the boy is guilty: racial and class prejudice, familial issues, and indifference.  It is a searing analysis of what actually influences jurors to make the judgments that they do. 

While I have a particular issue with the fact that all of the jurors are men (women could vote and thus serve on juries in 1957!), that does not damper my appreciation for how Lumet and cinematographer Boris Kaufman shot the film.  I’m not sure whether they chose to use black and white film to accentuate the viewpoints of the jurors (everything is seen as either black or white) or because it was cheaper, but it works. The beginning of the film is shot with wide-angle lenses and at an above eye-level perspective. This cleverly depicts how distant the jurors are from one another on many levels.  It also provides the viewer with the ability to observe the idiosyncrasies of each juror.  As the story progresses and becomes heated as jurors start changing their verdicts, the film is shot from much lower angles and closer shots.  These techniques heighten the drama and create an almost claustrophobic atmosphere.

With over 365 camera sets-ups and multiple angle shots, it is obvious that cinematography played a vital role in the overall production, but without clear, decisive editing it would have been useless. Having worked for several years on dramatic productions for television, Lumet knew the value of editing, and he and Carl Lerner expertly and concisely cut 12 Angry Men to create a smooth, cohesive feel.  While there are a lot of panning shots, the film is appropriately cut at crucial moments.

All twelve actors give fine performances, but three stand out to me. Fonda is obviously the star, and he plays his calm, rational Juror No. 8 well, but he serves more as a moral compass than anything else.  I’ve seen him play this part before in The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) and Young Mr. Lincoln (1939), so while he’s good here it’s not what I consider one of his standout performances.  No, when I think of the jurors I remember Ed Begley (Juror No. 10), Lee J. Cobb (Juror No. 3), and George Voskovec (Juror No. 11).  Begley plays his rude, bigoted part with just the right amount of anger and callowness.  By the end of the film, when almost every man turns their back on his poisonous prejudice, he does an excellent job of conveying his character’s resigned realization that no one respects him or his views.  Cobb’s Juror No. 3 is violently vitriolic and difficult to forget. His vehement agitation serves as the actual pulse of the movie.  And, finally, I think Voskovec’s turn as a naturalized citizen with an appreciation for the American justice system deserves to be recognized.  His dealings with both Cobb and Begley are memorable, but it is his confrontation with Jack Warden’s Juror No. 7 that hammers home the importance of the jury system. 

Overall, 12 Angry Men is an intelligent look at an important element of the American justice system.  It benefits from creative cinematography and editing, and has an outstanding cast.  It is a tad overdramatic at times, but that does not lessen its overall effect.

Cover Girl (1944) vs. Pal Joey (1957)

Both of these classic musicals feature bombshell Rita Hayworth. Find out the winner after the cut. (SPOILERS)

 

Cover Girl

The rap sheet.

Cover Girl has a 90% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received 5 Oscar nominations, and won for Best Musical Score. Pal Joey has a 75% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. It received 4 Oscar nominations, and Frank Sinatra won a Golden Globe for his performance.

Winner: Cover Girl

The setup.

In Pal Joey, a night club singer (Sinatra) falls in love with a chorus girl (Kim Novak), but he must deal with the jealousy of his new club's benefactor (Hayworth). In Cover Girl, a chorus girl (Hayworth) becomes an overnight sensation as a cover girl, when her boyfriend and fellow performer (Gene Kelly) is against it.

Winner: Pal Joey

Pal Joey

The execution.

Both films have various musical numbers and flashy costumes. Cover Girl has a bit more stylish flare, with a scene where Gene Kelly dances with himself. Seriously, there are two Gene Kellys dancing! Pal Joey has more likable characters and better pacing. It's the longer film, but it goes by a lot quicker.

Winner: Pal Joey

The ending.

In Pal Joey, the singer and the chorus girl walk down the street, planning their new stage act as soon-to-be Mr. and Mrs. In Cover Girl, the chorus girl runs out on her big shot fiancé at their wedding, and she goes back to her old boyfriend.

Winner: Pal Joey

The wild card:

Cover Girl has a scene-stealing performance from Phil Silvers as Hayworth's and Kelly's best friend. Along with better songs, Pal Joey has this little fella below.

"Fluffy" from Pal Joey

Winner: Pal Joey

Pal Joey

Winner: Pal Joey beats Cover Girl 4-1

Ratings: Cover Girl - **1/2, Pal Joey - ****

The Bridge on the River Kwai

The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
Directed by David Lean
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 7
Up Against: Peyton Place, Sayonara, 12 Angry Men, Witness for the Prosecution

Sorry for the hiatus, friends! It's crunch time at school as I write my final exams and finish up my college education in 2 weeks! But I found a little free time to watch a long movie. So here we go!

The Bridge On the River Kwai is set in WWII. It's the story of British soldiers who surrended to the Japanese army and are now in a prisoner of war camp in Burma. When the Japanese Colonel Saito commands that all the British prisoners ("not soldiers!") participate in building a bridge over the River Kwai, which would be an addition to the Burma-Siam railway and help advance the war by feeding the Japanese soldiers. He commands that the Officers are also expected to participate in the manual labor. Captain Nicholson flat-out refuses. The Geneva Convention (which he pulls out a copy of) states that Officers should not be used for manual labor in POW camps. Saito uses the Geneva Convention against him and slaps him with it, and puts him in a tin hut ("the oven") where he sits for days and weeks until Saito, who knows he will have to commit hari-kari (ritual suicide) if he fails to build the bridge in time, realizes he needs Nicholson and his officers to help boost the working pace of the prisoners, who are not working quickly at all. After this, Nicholson takes on this project obsessively. He and other officers take over the bridge project, moving it down stream after they realize the original bridge is in a very bad location, as it's too muddy. Clipton, a military doctor, suggests that others may think they are committing treason, and aiding the enemy by building this bridge as best they can, but Nicholson insists they are setting an example. And he does it for his own pride, forgetting the larger picture that they are, in fact, helping the Japanese, and hurting their own side. Additionally, we get the story of an American soldier named Shears, who, by a miracle, escapes the camp and is enlisted by the British Army (after spending time in a medical center to recover) to return to the camp to blow the bridge up with several men, and we see their journey into the jungle, with Asian women aiding them, in their plans to attack.

This movie is an interesting one. It's so different from all the other WWII movies I've seen. It's not action packed nor is it bloody or violent. It had an interesting message. And it's quite a unique story. Colonel Nicholson is played by the brilliant Alec Guinness. It's a war epic of a different kind. While the story was drawn it, it never felt too long or boring. Interestingly I was kind of enraptured in the story, having no bloody clue how anything would end.

Colonel Nicholson, from my perspective, was a bit of a crazy guy. He was rigid and an old-school soldier. He believed in integrity, and for standing up for what is right. When approached about escape plans, he uttered that they shouldn't because they had surrendered so technically they would be breaking some sort of war/prisoner rules, even though they all knew they would die in this camp.

And then we have Colonel Saito. He is just as rigid and stubborn. He refuses to cave into Nicholson's requests, and the two are constantly going head-to-head, and both are quite mad. Saito insists all the officers work. He is to commit suicide if this bridge fails or isn't complete on time. And that scares him. We also see a scene of Saito weeping privately after Nicholson and his Officers take over the project, in which he was directly in charge of. He is ashamed.

This plot becomes ever complex as we realize what building this bridge means, and how much pride Nicholson takes in it. We feel so many mixed feelings as Shear and the 3 other soldiers arrive to blow up the bridge and the ammunition train.

Alec Guinness is fantastic in the role, and rightly won an Oscar for it. Japanese actor, Sessue Hayakawa, who played Saito, was also nominated, though did not win. The 2 had fantastic adversary chemistry, and were fantastic enemies who come to understand each other in a way. They were fantastic in their respective mad characters.

Additionally, this cinematography was fantastic. There were some great shots, and it showed off the jungle landscape so well, and really hit all the right spots. The costumes were great, and it overall had a great look. The music was used very sparsely, but what we did hear was very good too. Honestly, there's not much to complain about in this movie. I can't really think of much at all. WWII have been incredibly overdone in the past 75ish years since it concluded, with stories about German soldiers, British soldiers, Americans, Canadians, etc, etc. And while this story did include British and Americans, it took a look at the Japanese soldiers, and the name Hitler was not uttered once. Nor was Germany spoken about.

The movie was an interesting look at 2 different people, who were, at the same time, quite similar. Saito comes from a country where you cannot dishonor your family. You should kill yourself rather than bring shame. He strives for excellence so as to not bring shame, and to appear great. Conversely, Nicholson does not come from a country that upholds honor in the same way, though he comes from an Upper Class society (being a colonel), and wants to uphold the laws and regulations that his society holds up. Both want to maintain their reputations and neither will break. But eventually both do.

The ending is so interesting, and really made me think. I won't spoil  it for you, as it's so unique. But it made me think, what's more important: your personal pride and accomplishments, or the country you're fighting for and the pride and duties to your army? I'll leave it there.

Thinking I was going to find this movie boring, I was surprised when I actually loved it. My 3 choices of movies were Braveheart and The Best Years of our Lives (both war movies, the latter also about WWII soldiers), I was glad I chose this one. It was a thought-provoking and truly epic masterpiece. It was never too long, too boring, or cliche. It struck things in all the right places, and made for an interesting and insightful watch into a different aspect of WWII. Something other than Hitler.

8/10

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1957

1957

So the much anticipated ranking:

5. Lana Turner in Peyton Place

Lana's performance mostly consits of sleepwalking and sitting in the background. I believe that had Turner been given some more to do, she would have been able to pull of a great performance as Constance. The screenplay always underlines how frigid this character is and it doesn't really let Turner do wonders with it. The overall effect is disappointing.

4. Deborah Kerr in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

there isn't a thing about Deborah Kerr's performance that you could be passionate about. You can't love her, can't hate her and the whole thing becomes very standard and uninteresting. I know that many love this work but I just wasn't able to warm up to it. Deborah Kerr is quite good as Sister Angela but she doesn't go beyond good.

3. Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve

Despite my dislike for the acting of Joanne Woodward, this is quite a good job by her. Although it's not groundbreaking by any means and the emotional part of it is a bit lacking, the technical department is just excellent. Woodward made very wise decisions with these characters (despite being relatively new to the craft) and she put on a very good performance.

2. Elizabeth Taylor in Raintree County

This performance is a bit mixed. On the one hand, Liz's accent andmannerisms are incredibly annoying and she fails with the technical. On the other hand, there are also some great moments that I just cannot ignore. As I said, Taylor is not really amazing, but there's something in her that stays with me. It's still quite good work and something keeps resonating with me.

1. Anna Magnani in Wild is the Wind

You may consider me overenthusiastic and too lenient with performances but I was just blown away by Anna, from the beginning to the very end. Anna Magnani creates this beautiful, wonderful character and single-handedly makes the movie. It might be a bit much for many. For me, it worked and I consider this an astonishing performance.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Anna Magnani

in

Wild is the Wind

Why do I have to compete?

Omissions:

• Giulietta Masina in The Nights of Cabiria *My Pick* (oh come on, too easy)

Final thoughts: A really weak year. Yes, I was a bit overenthusiastic but Anna was a shining light in this extremely weak year. So she was the clear winner. Joanne was quite good though a bit dry. Elizabeth Taylor, whom we tragically lost on the day I reviewed her performance, gave a mixed but haunting performance in Raintree County. Deborah was simply good, Lana was not bad. Again, a truly weak year. Still, I'm happy that I did it as I was so interested in Anna's performance, which was really astonishing though the movie dragged her down a bit.

Semi-congrats to Louis, who had it right with his original predictions but changed his mind in the last minute. :)

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1969
2. 1974
3. 1989
4. 1959
5. 1964
6. 1939
7. 1977
8. 2010
9. 2009
10. 1980
11. 1941
12. 1963
13. 1966
14. 1973
15. 1990
16. 1978
17. 1954
18. 1948
19. 2002
20. 1957
21. 1940
22. 1998

About the next year: You cannot imagine the misery, torture and suffering that I went through to do the next year and get all the films. It's a really interesting one though I've only seen 2 performances but they are both given by two of my all-time favorite actresses (and the others are great performers, too, all three of them previous winners). Clue:

• I can't give you a real clue as I keep forgetting and losing everything ever since that new insurance I have. ;)

What do you think?

Deborah Kerr in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

Deborah Kerr received her fourth unsuccesful Best Actress nomination for playing Sister Angela in John Huston's movie, Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison. I'm quite certain that Deborah Kerr was the second in 1957 and Joanne Woodward only barely edged her out. But why really? I think that the Academy also noticed that Deborah was overdue for an Oscar though there was always someone who was more overdue (Susan Hayward, Elizabeth Taylor), more popular (Elizabeth Taylor, Ingrid Bergman, Audrey Hepburn) or gave a big performance (Olivia de Havilland, Joanne Woodward) or all of them combined (Hayward again). Poor Deborah, she was nominated always at the wrong time.

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison is a pretty lukewarm movie. There's not much going on, the whole thing is pretty boring and I am 100% sure that I will forget it in at least three days. It's very much like African Queen though it's much less funny and entertaining. I guess John Huston's producers wanted to make more money and they knew the perfect recipee for a succesful movie at the time. Robert Mitchum was a really great actor, a truly unique presence who gave excellent performance but this one is definitely not his best work.

Deborah Kerr is an actress very much like Annette Bening. There's so much to respect about her and yet I just don't feel that she's that special. Apart from out joint birthday, there is no connection between me and Deborah Kerr. However, I have never been disappointed by her as I always get from her what I expect. A very proper, ubtle performance. I expected it this time too and I got it.

Not that it is groundbreaking in any way. Although Deborah must have had a great chance of winning the Oscar that year, this is not the role that people remember her for. This one is actually quite forgotten and rarely talked about nowadays besides Oscar bloggers. Had I been an Academy member in 1957, I would have considered nominating Deborah for An Affair to Remember. It's not that it's better, it's just much more of an Oscar movie than Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison.

In Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison, Deborah plays Sister Angela, a nun who's marooned on a South Pacific island along with an American marine played by Robert Mitchum. I think the most curcial thing about movie is the great chemistry between the leads. Whenever there are just two characters that you see, they really have to work together fabulously as collaboration is just inevitable in these cases. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen here. I always felt that there wasn't much of a sexual tension between these two characters and it should have been there. They give good performances on their own, but their work together is nothing special. Therefore, both actors failed on this very important level.

However, as I said, Kerr is very good on her own. She has quite a radiant presence on the screen but unlike Elizabeth Taylor (RIP) in Raintree County, this presence doesn't make up for the flawed rest. Kerr didn't have a star charisma and no matter what people say, that can also elevate a certain, not-so-strong performance.

Everybody keeps talking about Sister Angela's dark side but that's really something that I hardly noticed in Kerr's performance. She always remains this benevolent nun who's very quiet and dignified. Just like the movie, Kerr also remains very lukewarm and she doesn't really shine. That's a pity, actually. I would have loved this performance much more, had she given more fire and soul to this character. As I said, the whole thing is very charming but nothing mindblowing, really. There isn't a moment when I was just blown away (even Lana Turner had some) and Kerr constantly plays Sister Angela very one-note. Kerr's very proper and I dare say dull acting is very visible in this work and that's not a positive thing.

As you see, in this review, I said nothing about Deborah Kerr's performance because there isn't a thing that you could be passionate about. You can't love her, can't hate her and the whole thing becomes very standard and uninteresting. I know that many love this work but I just wasn't able to warm up to it. Deborah Kerr is quite good as Sister Angela but she doesn't go beyond good. Unfortunately.

What do you think? (no oficial predictions now but you can share your thoughts)

Elizabeth Taylor Raintree County

Elizabeth Taylor received her first Best Actress nomination for playing Susanna Drake, a Southern belle marrying a yankee in Raintree County. Taylor was a huge star in the fifties and the sixties, so I really think that she received a couple of votes and was fourth or even third in the race. This was a typical first nomination for a star. She did not have a great role like Woodward and that's what gave Joanne the edge over the others. Liz won the Laurel award, though (just like she did every time when she was nominated for an Oscar, except for BUtterfield 8).

Raintree County is a really boring and meaningless Gone with the Wind wannabe. First of all, it's overlong. I mean, I get that it wanted to be an epic but somehow I wasn't that fascinated. Not even the technical part. I liked it more than some others, though. This movie is only famous for the tragic accident that happened to Montgomery Clift, which probably ruined his remaining short life. Sometimes, you can notice that his face sometimes is really stiff and he talks quite weirdly. Anyway, that's not the only reason why this one isn't his best performance.

I admit, I don't really like Elizabeth Taylor. Sure, she's beautiful but apart from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, I cannot say any other performance of hers that really impressed me. Taylor's first three Oscar nominated performances are pvery much alike, if you look closely. There's a troubled, beautiful woman, who cries and screams sometimes and there's one huge, teary-eyed, hysterical monologue to secure the nomination. That's why Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was such a surprise to everyone. It's so shocking and brutal compared to these sugary roles. Taylor proved there that she had real talent but filmmakers couldn't really find her real brilliance, I think. That's why her earlier performances might seem to be overacted and hammy.

Speaking of which, in Raintree Country, Liz gives a bit overacted and exaggerated performance as Susanna Drake. First of all, Susanna is not a particulary interesting character. She's such a cliché and it's up to the actress to inject some star power into it. Actually, Liz succeeded that way. Although this is not an amazing performance by any means, you just cannot take your eyes off Taylor. It can be her beauty but I think that there's something magnetic about her presence.

It's the technical part that is messy about her performance. Usually, I don't really care about the technical part and I prefer emotional acting but this time I just couldn't overlook her obvious flawed decisions. Liz uses all the clichés of this kind of character, the Southern belle (heavy, rather ridiculous accent, overacted mannerisms). Because of these weaknesses, you just simply cannot take this performance seriously. Even when she could be very good with emotions, her accent and mannerisms drag the scene down.

Susanna tricks Montgomery Clift's character into marrying her and when the truth about this is revealed, there's nothing happening. They are like "OK" and that's it. I would have wanted to see much more conflict between them because of this. The chemistry between Clift and Taylor is not that strong, either. It's visible that they like working together but there's no tension between them that could have set the screen on fire. They both become the movie. The filmmakers wanted to show so much and therefore, nothing is properly worked out in it.

Still, as I said, Taylor has her scenes in this movie. For instance, the one where they are looking at the remains of Susanna's old home. Taylor is actually quite strong there. For a while, her accent wasn't that annoying and there was some depth in this movie. And (as I said earlier in this review) there's the huge breakdown scene with the tears. Although it's not a really great one, it's worth mentioning because it was handled very well by Taylor. And she is also quite good when Susanna is at an asylum but that's nothing very special either. However, Liz is quite simply great in the end. Everything bad about this performance disappeared for a while and that was so great.

Still, this performance is a bit mixed. On the one hand, Liz's accent andmannerisms are incredibly annoying and she fails with the technical. On the other hand, there are also some great moments that I just cannot ignore. As I said, Taylor is not really amazing, but there's something in her that stays with me. It's still quite good work and something keeps resonating with me.

I decided for a 3.5 after all.

What do you think? Time for your last predictions! :)

Anna Magnani in Wild is the Wind

Anna Magnani received her second and final Best Actress nomination for playing Gioia, an Italian woman marrying her dead sister's husband in George Cukor's movie, Wild is the Wind. I don't know what to think about Anna's chances of winning her second Oscar. I don't think she had much of a chance of winning as she had just won plus she was a foreign actress. Moreover, her movie was not big and showy enough. I think she must have been fourth or fifth after all. Joanne, Liz and Deborah were battling it out, in my opinion.

Wild is the Wind is not as bad as some may say. Actually, it's quite good and enjoyable thanks to the great performances. It's pretty mediocre, that's true but not as bad as some might say. It doesn't have the typical flaws of a 50s movie though it doesn't mean it's totally flawless. Mr. Sugar*, George Cukor was a great director but this one is one of his lesser efforts. Same for Anthony Quinn: he was an exceptional performer but this one is not his best performance. However, Anthony Franciosa is sometimes laughably bad.

Well, Anna Magnani. You know, it's honor itself just write about her. That woman! That actress! OK, I might be a bit influenced as she's my dad's favorite actress and I've seen many of her Italian movies beforehand which made me also fall in love with her work. She's (very much like Sophia Loren and most of the great European actors) a natural talent who doesn't have to learn acting, it's in her bones, in her soul and it's just a way of expressing herself. She doesn't have to time her tears, practice accents and do method acting. She knows it from her instincts. There's so much fire and music in Anna that I always feel that while she's acting, there's a volcano erupting with the music of Jaws. Anna Magnani was brilliant, quite simply and her talents shines through time and her work lives on.

It's kind of a cliché to say that Hollywood did not get the best out of Anna. I think it's a dumb, stupid thing to say, since anyone who's seen either of her Oscar nominated works is simply astonished by her extraordinary talent. She's very unusually beautiful (she IS beautiful, I think) and she has a very great sense of humor and she adds a lot of that even to her most serious characters. Gioia is a mysterious woman. We don't know anything about her yet Magnani tells thousands of stories with her eyes and face and we just keep wondering about Gioia.

At the beginning of the movie, Gioia feels like a fish out of water because of her bad English and the aggressively kind welcome to America. The dinner scene is a chaos, however, Anna is able to come out of it. Her performance almost failed in the beginning but Anna was wonderfully in control of Gioia. It's an amazing scene when we see her with her stepdaughter/niece under a tree. She's just brilliant there and from that time on, her performance doesn't stop and it really becomes roller coaster that doesn't stop until the very end. It's so intense and extremely gripping. Even when my interest for the movie died down, I still couldn't take my eyes off the screen and that's only because of Anna.

Anna's chemistry with Anthony Quinn is simply marvelous. Although Quinn is not that great, Anna really gets the best out of the both of them. Quinn actually said that despite her dislike for Anna, he loved working with her. I can easily believe that. Anna's talent is so inspiring and stimulating and I guess her co-stars must have felt the very same way. They don't have the usual "loud Italian rows" but they have some great arguments like the one in the kitchen (which is probably one of the most amazing scenes of Anna). There are so many emotions coming out of Magnani that really blow the viewer away.

Her scenes with Franciosa are also excellent. Although he's giving a really bad performance, Magnani holds all the scenes together and she really carries them on her shoulders. Even the most tender moments are quite great and all thanks to Anna. Their last scene together becomes so heartbreaking with Anna's loud screaming. That being said, Anna's acting is indeed loud and very emotional but I think that's the way it should be with this character. Whenever Anna is looking at the sky and putting her hands on her face, we feel that it's natural and it's not la Susan Hayward-like yelling. Anna always remains natural and that's why it works. She has this mentality in her blood. It's interesting that Anthony Quinn uses the same mannerisms as Anna and yet it doesn't work for him. It's like when Penélope Cruz tries to walk like Sophia Loren. No, there are things that work for Anna Magnani or Sophia Loren, but it's for them, exclusively.

Also, Magnani interacts so beautifully with animals in this movie. The scenes with the horses are just so brilliant and heartbreaking. The wild horses might be the symbols of Gioia's desire for freedom and true love. Gioia is stuck in a marriage where she should replace her dead sister (she also has to deal with her memory) but still, in a way, they love each other with Quinn's character. Or do they? I don't really know but it makes the whole case even more interesting.

So, you may consider me overenthusiastic and too lenient with performances but I was just blown away by Anna, from the beginning to the very end. My overall opinion must also be influenced by her brilliant singing scene but I don't care as this is truly haunting and fantastic work. Anna Magnani creates this beautiful, wonderful character and single-handedly makes the movie. It might be a bit much for many. For me, it worked and I consider this an astonishing performance.

What do you think?

I think my opinion about her was pretty predictable but she's really so great.

Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve

Joanne Woodward received her first Best Actress Oscar and only Oscar to date for playingly, Even White/Black and Jane in The Three Faces of Eve. I think Joanne Woodward did not have an easy win though it's perfectly understandable. I feel that only Deborah Kerr was a real threat for her as she was overdue (was she?) and won the New York Film Critics award. Still, it's a very perplexing race with an obvious winner.

The Three Faces of Eve is a very short and weird movie and I really did not like it that much. There's no real drama, everything just happens and it failed to have any effect on me. It just went by rather fast and it wasn't particularly boring. Actually, it's very far from being a true story (no matter what the narrator says at the beginning) because the real Eve, Chrisitine Costner Seizmore had like 26 personalities. So that's about the credibility of this whole movie. Lee J. Cobb who's one of my favorite supporting actors gives an incredibly standard and one-note performance which I really didn't like.

Joanne Woodward is an actress who has almost always failed to really impress me. I really dislike her acting style and sometimes she can just annoy me to hell. She lacks a real emotional depth in most of her movies. I like her voice very much, though but I am not really in awe of her. However, when I first saw her in The Three Faces of Eve, I was blown away by her. Therefore, I really did not know what to expect from her this time. I wanted to forget that she's Joanne Woodward but I also wanted to forget my first reactions to this performance. As a result, I was now right between amazed and bored.

These roles seem to be quite baity on paper (apparently, after Orson Welles read the script he said that anyone who played Eve would win the Oscar). This is really a part to kill for but once you actually think about it, it's really not very showy. It certainly has its big scenes but not huge ones. There's that breakdown towards the end but not as big as they usually like at the Oscars. Things should be bigger, showier and more emotional.

I feel that Woodward deals with the technical part quite great. She delivers everything extremely well, she knows when to do what, her timing is just excellent. And that's really all that this movie requires. As it doesn't go deep, Joanne doesn't have to go really deep either inside this character. I feel that she could have but I never really saw any real efforts to do so.

Joanne's performance as Eve White is supposed to be very heartbreaking but instead, Joanne let some opportunities slip away. It's true that Eve White is not a really fascinating character but she still could have made her a bit closer to the viewer. It's like attending a soccer game that turns out to be boring and you just remain a spectator and watch the goals scored but you're not really happy about it. That's really the case with Joanne here.

Joanne's the best in her scenes as Eve Black. Naturally, it was supposed to be the best part of this role and it certainly is. I felt it was the only character that was played as it should be. She's seductive, attractive and very delicious. She did what she has to. However, that wasn't really a great accomplishment either. There wasn't very much missing from it, it just wasn't totally mindblowing. She's still quite great as Eve Black, doing the right things at the right time.

The third personality, Jane becomes rather insignificant even though she's really the most interesting personality for me. She's really a plain Jane (no pun intended) but it would have been fun to see more of her. As a result, she doesn't really get a real depth.

However, as I said, her the technical part is just fantastic. That above mentioned breakdown scene is handled pretty well by Joanne and it was just terrificly played. That scene under the house is also quite memorable. In these moments, I really felt the depth that really should have been there in the whole performance.

So, despite my dislike for the acting of Joanne Woodward, this is quite a good job by her. Although it's not groundbreaking by any means and the emotional part of it is a bit lacking, the technical department is just excellent. Woodward made very wise decisions with these characters (despite being relatively new to the craft) and she put on a very good performance.

What do you think? Wow, this year hasn't been very strong so far.

Lana Turner in Peyton Place

Lana Turner received her first and only Best Actress nomination for playing Constance MacKenzie, a cold single mother in the Best Picture nominee, Peyton Place. Lana Turner admitted in her autobiography that she thought that she did not deserve this nomination but was very happy about it. I don't think that there was really anyone who threatened Joanne Woodward's win that year. However, I'm sure that Lana's stardom helped her get some votes. Still, I think she was either fourth or fifth.

Peyton Place is a modestly entertaining but extremely long movie. Although it was very enjoyable sometimes, I felt like I was watching a whole season of a soap opera and it was unbearable after a while. It's much less sentimental than I would have imagines but it's still a bit much. Had it been a bit shorter, it would have been much better. Less is more sometimes. It received five acting nominations. Well, I feel that the supporting players might have deserved to be nominated (though I have some doubt about Arthur Kennedy and Diane Varsi). However, Russ Tamblyn and (especially) Hope Lange give good performances. I might even give my vote to Lange in that weak year.

I don't really know what to think about Lana Turner in general. She's made some iconic movies (The Bad and the Beautiful and The Postman Always Rings Twice) and she is a legendary beauty with a messy private life, which quite often outshone her work as an actress. Therefore, no one is really convinced that she was a really great talent. And this is not an Oscar nomination that's a proves her gift as this is much more of acknowledging a great star.

First of all, I must say that Peyton Place is really an ensemble picture and if there's a lead, than it's Diane Varsi and not Lana Turner. There are a lot of storylines that are not properly worked out and Varsi is loose connection. Lana Turner represents one of these storylines and she doesn't even have the most emotional or significant one. She has the most shallow material to work and as a result, she cannot do wonders with this part. Out of the two and a half hours of this movie, she's on the screen for about 40 minutes. Constance is really a supporting character and it's only Lana's star power that makes this one more than a boring stock role.

The fact is that Lana Turner gives quite a one-note performance but strangely it works and it serves her very shallow movie quite well. Somehow, I was impressed by her. Minimally, but I was impressed. The role of Constance asks for another actress. For instance I could much more easily imagine Jane Wyman or Olivia de Havilland (the original choices for the part) as Constance. Constance is the origin of the strong female leads in soaps of the 1980s. There's a (bit has-been but still) great star who plays the powerful matriarch or female character. Lana Turner was the best at playing mysterious, beautiful femme fatale in film noirs and this frigid single mother doesn't seem to be her cup of tea. As I said, her performance work as she was able to make Constance her own character.

There's this storyline about Constance's love affair (if that's a proper word for that) with the school's new principal, Michael Rossi (played by whats-his-name). Unfortunately, there's absolutely no chemistry between the two and that's a bit shocking considering that we're talking about Lana Turner. Who could you NOT have chemistry with her? The very mediocre story wanted to say so much (it's a chaos) and it did not give time for the most important storylines. This love between the two becomes so useless after a while and it's not even ended properly. There's that Christmas scene and so what? I would have liked to see more (though I might withdraw that, I did not want to see more of this movie).

However, Lana's scenes with Diane Varsi are excellent and are probably the highlights of the performances of both actresses. They have two big confrontation scenes and they are handled excellently by Lana. Especially the first one, where Constance says that she wants much more for her daughter than this stupid town. There is some real emotional depth in that scene unlike the rest of the movie and it is really extremely memorable. The second one is also very well-played (as I said) though it's not even close to the first one.

The rest of Lana's performance mostly consits of sleepwalking and sitting in the background. That's too bad. I firmly believe that had Turner been given some more to do, she would have been able to pull of a great performance as Constance MacKenzie. The screenplay always underlines how frigid this character is and it doesn't really let Turner do wonders with it. There are memorable scenes but the overall effect is a bit disappointing.

There's something to love about her.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1957

So the nominees were:

• Deborah Kerr in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
• Anna Magnani in Wild is the Wind
• Elizabeth Taylor in Raintree County
• Lana Turner in Peyton Place
• Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve

It is said to be a weak year but I've only seen Joanne previously, so it's going to be an interesting one to explore. I can't wait to see all the movies.

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

Le Notti Di Cabiria (The Nights of Cabiria) 1957 **1/2

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

Cabiria (Giulietta Masina) is spending a day with her boyfriend, Giorgio. When they approach a river, Giorgio snatches Cabiria’s purse and pushes the woman into the water. Cabiria is saved from drowning by several locals, but, refusing to believe that Giorgio has simply stolen her money, she returns to her home to find him. Such is the life of Cabiria, who earns her living as a prostitute. She endures hardship and heartbreak, maintaining a firm grasp on the notion that one day she will find a true companion, a generous and selfless man who will shower her with love.

Federico Fellini’s Nights of Cabiria (aka Le notte di Cabiria/1957) is sometimes viewed as a bleak, often depressing film. Cabiria suffers through life’s adversities, which is not always easy to watch, compounded by the fact that she seems naive and so desperate for affection. She encounters men who are disrespectful or self-centered. She wanders into situations which ultimately leave her embarrassed or humiliated. There are times when Cabiria is alone, inside her small house or walking the barren land just outside the city, and a sense of loneliness will betray the woman’s confidence.

But what makes Fellini’s movie anything but a tragedy is Cabiria herself. Despite a childlike exterior, Cabiria is undoubtedly experienced and intelligent. Rather than let herself become overwhelmed with sadness, she retains hope with a smile and a spring in her step. Soon after Giorgio’s treachery, Cabiria is on the streets with others in her profession, dancing to music. Even after another woman insinuates that Giorgio is her man and Cabiria attacks her, the woman’s fury does not linger, and before long, she’s once again dancing in the street. She sees the beauty in so many things, a woman who is proud of the tiny house that she owns and whose happiness cannot be washed away in the pouring rain. The title is certainly appropriate: as the night blankets everything in darkness, Cabiria stands there, forever shining brightly.

Masina, who was married to the director for many years until his death in 1993, was a tremendous actress and provides Nights of Cabiria with a beautiful and unforgettable performance. Many of Fellini’s films either contained a circus or were reminiscent of one, with a motley assortment of characters, each with his/her own distinctive qualities and in a world that had no choice but to embrace every single person. Masina, quite suitably, was much like a clown. She could move from comedy to tragedy with the greatest of ease, and her face was incredibly expressive. Her grins radiate with joy, and her frowns are shrouded in sorrow. Her character in an earlier Fellini film, La strada (1954), played a clown, but that attribute is clear even without the makeup.

In 1998, Nights of Cabiria was restored by Rialto Pictures and was re-released in theaters. In addition to improving the overall quality of the film’s images, a seven-minute sequence with a character usually referred to as “the man with the sack” was included. The previously cut scene involved Cabiria, walking home alone in the early morning, seeing the man pull up in his car. Curious, she watches as he brings food and clothing to people living in what looked to be holes (translated in the subtitles as “caves”). It enhances the film greatly, as Cabiria meets a charitable man who seems to represent what she desires. Likewise, one of the people in the caves is a former prostitute whom Cabiria recognizes, and the woman, once wealthy from the spoils of her profession, is the embodiment of what Cabiria fears.

Nights of Cabiria won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, and Masina was awarded the Best Actress prize at the Cannes Film Festival and the Zulueta Prize at the San Sebastián International Film Festival held in Spain. Fellini was awarded the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar three additional times, for La strada, 8½ (1963), and Amarcord (1973). His actress wife was also nominated for a BAFTA for both La strada and Nights of Cabiria.

Nights of Cabiria editor Leo Catozzo, who had worked on other films with Fellini, designed and patented the CIR-Catozzo Self-Perforating Adhesive Tape Film Splicer (sometimes called the CIRO and/or guillotine splicer). He was awarded an Academy Award for Technical Achievement in 1990.

Federico Fellini had begun making films during the movement known as Italian Neorealism, which can essentially be defined as social commentary presented in a realistic manner (e.g., shooting on location, amateur performers, etc.). Certainly later in his career, Fellini moved beyond neorealism, with 8½ as a clear turning point, much more surreal than based in reality. However, even Fellini’s earlier movies rejected the notion of realism. There was a poetic and spiritual quality to his films, and this is prevalent in Nights of Cabiria. The film concludes with a violation of the fourth wall, a lyrical moment which gives the movie bittersweet closure, and just a little more sweet than bitter.

Wild Strawberries (Smultronstallet) 1957 **1/2

(This article is from guest contributor Sarkoffagus and first appeared at The Classic Film & TV Cafe.  The rating in the title is my own.)

Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström), an aging physician and widower, is to receive an honorary degree from his alma mater, Lund University. After having a disconcerting dream of a lonely street, a clock with no hands, and a horse-drawn carriage (transporting a coffin with the professor’s lifeless body inside), Isak leaves for the ceremony earlier than planned, much to the dismay of his sassy but nimble housekeeper, Miss Agda (Jullan Kindahl). Traveling by car, Isak begins his journey with his daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin), stopping at the summer home from his childhood and encountering a trio of youngsters, including a girl who reminds him of his first love (both named Sara and both played by Bibi Andersson). Plagued by more dreams, Isak’s trip becomes a catharsis, as he must comes to terms with his apathy towards others, his estranged son, and his despondent marriage.

Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman was known for his somber movies, such as The Virgin Spring (1960), Hour of the Wolf (1968), and Cries and Whispers (1973), many of them wrought with misery and tortured characters. Considering this, the director’s 1957 Wild Strawberries (original title: Smultronstället) is refreshingly optimistic. Isak’s dreams are unmistakable representations of his fears: loneliness, his impending death, and his days of elation to forever remain distant memories. Once on the road, Marianne ruthlessly informs the professor that his son hates him, reminding Isak of the cold manner in which he allowed his daughter-in-law to stay with him (insinuating that problems between the couple were not his concern) and a loan that his son is slowly paying back (Marianne believing that the wealthy professor does not need the money). Isak is also forced to remember that his deceased wife, Karin, was an unhappy woman, which she blames on the man’s detachment and passivity.

Notwithstanding the dismal dreams and recollections of a rueful life, Bergman’s film is encouraging, for the simple fact that Isak is acknowledging that his uncaring behavior is a character flaw. Furthermore, he is experiencing an emotion he has likely never previously felt: guilt. Perhaps for the first time, Isak is seeing how his dispassion has affected the people in his life. When Isak and Marianne visit his mother, the professor sees the coldness in his mother that he has shown to his wife, his son and his daughter-in-law. The elderly lady rummages through a box filled with items of the past, her memories nothing more than keepsakes. It’s a sad scene, but one in which Isak recognizes that he does not want souvenirs of his youth but rather the happiness associated with it. More importantly, he does not wish upon his son memories of sorrow and pain.

There are a number of uplifting moments in Wild Strawberries. The young Sara is not simply an expression of Isak’s carefree childhood, but, with her genuine enthusiasm over seeing the professor awarded his honorary degree, she likewise represents happiness that remains within reach. In one sequence, the group stops at a gas station, where the attendant (Max von Sydow) fondly recalls Isak, who once had an office nearby. The man so admires the professor that he refuses payment, and as he praises the man’s kindness to his wife, the typically doleful Marianne flashes a bright, honest smile.

Wild Strawberries was awarded the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival, won for Best Film and Best Actor at the Mar del Plata Film Festival, and won a Best Foreign Film Golden Globe (Samuel Goldwyn International Award), along with four other films that year. It was also nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.

Thulin, Andersson and von Sydow were frequent collaborators with Bergman, appearing in a number of the Swedish director’s movies. Sjöström was a prominent film director in Sweden during the silent film era and directed a number of U.S. films (under the Americanized name of Victor Seastrom). He only made a few talkies before focusing his efforts as artistic director of the production company, Svensk Filmindustri, in the 1940s and acting in theatrical productions. This was the final film for Sjöström as either actor or director. He died a little more than two years later in 1960.


Although not an official remake, Woody Allen’s film, Another Woman (1988), borrows several thematic elements from Wild Strawberries and is generally considered an homage to Bergman’s movie. Similarly, the very basic plot to Allen’s film, Deconstructing Harry (1997), resembles both Wild Strawberries and another Bergman film, Through a Glass Darkly (1961). This is typical of Allen’s movies, as he often makes what can be considered his version of an European film, including yet another Bergman movie, 1955’s Smiles of a Summer Night (Allen’s 1982 A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy), as well as films from Italian director Federico Fellini (e.g., Allen’s 1980 Stardust Memories being his take on Fellini’s 1963 8½).

It is abundantly clear by the film’s end that Isak wishes to make a change in his life and hopes that it will spark changes in other people’s lives as well. The interaction between Isak and Miss Agda is pleasantly droll, but the most rewarding relationship in the film is the one between the professor and his daughter-in-law. They are the two characters who develop the most throughout the film, both stubborn people who gradually find contentment, shared and personal alike. The title refers to the wild strawberries growing in a field near Isak’s childhood home, but it is not merely a hint of childhood and nostalgia. The strawberries are wild because they are free, unburdened by regret and not restrained by old-world ways and traditions or fearing what is to come. They find their peace in simple existence.