Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label Deborah Kerr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deborah Kerr. Show all posts

049. The Innocents

Monday, February 4, 2013

049. (03 Feb) The Innocents (1961, Jack Clayton) 35



A shrill, labored Deborah Kerr establishes the tone for The Innocents. She's rarely an easy actress to watch, but her exhausting performance sets up an equally tiring film. Whenever the film attempts to be outright scary, it plays like a haunted attraction at an amusement park, full of loud noises and obvious images. It's horror at its most pedestrian, dressed up to look like a prestige picture. Only the film's light, mysterious first act works.

The End of the Affair (1955).

Monday, October 1, 2012



The End of the Affair(1955). Directed by Edward Dmytryk. Cast: Deborah Kerr, Van Johnson, Peter Cushing and John Mills. It is based on the novel The End of the Affair by Graham Greene. It was filmed in London, around the Chester Terrace. Gregory Peck was offered the male lead.

After Maurice Bendrix, receives an honorable discharge from the military and goes back to his writing. Soon after, Maurice, is invited to a party at the home of Henry Miles and his wife Sarah. Henry suggests that Maurice interview Sarah for his new book.

 

 A couple of days later, Maurice meets with Sarah and over a short period of time they fall deeply in love, meeting often at a cozy country inn. Maurice, becomes extremely jealous of her.

In London, Sarah meets Maurice at his apartment and the couple are attacked by German "buzz bombs". Maurice suggests they go below to the shelter, but Sarah worries about his landlady seeing them together. Maurice goes downstairs alone and is caught in the explosion and buried under a pile of rubble.

After regaining consciousness, Maurice goes back upstairs and to find Sarah kneeling by the bed praying, as she believed him dead. Sarah tends to Maurice's injuries and then quickly leaves.

Over the next several days, Maurice recovers from his injuries, but.. is unable to find Sarah. Maurice, believes Sarah used the bombing to break it off with him. Maurice, decides to leave London and does not return for a year.

Maurice, is walking home in the rain when he sees Henry, who invites Maurice to his home and after learning that Sarah was not there, Maurice agrees. Where, Henry shares his concern about Sarah's long absences and was considering hiring a detective. Maurice, volunteers to look into it for him, but.. Henry refuses.

The next day, Maurice visits the Savage detective agency and hires them to follow Sarah.

Later, Maurice meets up with Sarah in front of her house and asks her why she broke it off with him, but Sarah.. offers no reason.

The next day, Maurice meets the Savage agency representative, Albert Parkis, and is surprised to learn that his report was about Maurice's own meeting with Sarah.

A few days later, Parkis calls on Maurice to watch Sarah show up at Richard Smythe's, home whom she has visited several times.

Later, Parkis says that he has befriended the Miles's maid and shows him a love letter written by Sarah. Maurice contacts Henry and tells him what he has learned about Sarah's meetings with Smythe and the letter. But... Henry refuses to believes him.

That evening, Parkis gives Maurice Sarah's diary and tells him that Sarah has been ill. Maurice, begins reading the diary: During their affair, Sarah is concerned that, Maurice's jealousy will ruin their relationship. During the night of the "buzz bomb" attack, Sarah finds Maurice buried beneath the rubble and believes him dead. Sarah promises to God, to give up Maurice if he is allowed to live. When she realizes Maurice's is alive, Sarah must keep her promise and on her way home stops at the church and confesses to Father Crompton. Soon after, Sarah begins seeing Smythe, who says that there can not be a God. Because, he would not allow the war to continue. Having a hard time believing him, Sarah continues to see Father Crompton.

The day that Parkis and Maurice follow Sarah to Smythe's, where she plans to break it off with Smythe telling him that his hatred for God has only proved of his is existence.

Returning home, Sarah writes a love letter to Maurice, apologizing and promising to return to him, but then destroys the letter. Henry, arrives home and begs Sarah not to leave him and she unable to keep up the fight agrees.

After finishing the diary, Maurice goes to see Sarah, who refuses to see him. He shows up anyways, Sarah leaves the house running in a rainstorm. Maurice catches up to her and makes her promise to return to him. But.... will she be able to keep her promise to him?

This love triangle film has many plot twists and turns. Just when you think that the movie is over it goes into a flashback to show you what really happened. The acting by, Kerr, Johnson and Peter Cushing, will keep you in your seat until the unexpected ending.

Nora Swinburne (24 July 1902 – 1 May 2000) was a British actress, born Leonora Mary Johnson in Bath, Somerset, daughter of Henry Swinburne Johnson and his wife Leonora Tamar (née Brain). She married English character actor Francis Lister in 1924, actor Edward Ashley-Cooper in 1934, and actor Esmond Knight in 1946. Her stepdaughter is the actress Rosalind Knight.

She was educated at Rosholme College, Weston-super-Mare and studied for the stage at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. As a member of Clive Currie's Young Players in 1914, she appeared at the Grand, Croydon, Court and Little Theatres, during that year. While still a student at the Academy she appeared at the New Theatre on 11 April 1916 as The Wild Flowers in Paddly Pools; appeared at the Comedy Theatre, September 1916, as a dancer in the revue, This and That; and in October 1916 appeared in Samples at the Globe Theatre (now the Gielgud Theatre). She also appeared at the Globe in March 1917 as Gabrielle in Suzette.

Other early roles included Lulu in Yes, Uncle! at the Prince of Wales Theatre in December 1917, and Regina Waterhouse at the Strand Theatre in December 1918. At the Apollo Theatre in 1919 she played the title role in Tilly of Bloomsbury "for about six weeks" according to her personal notes in Who's Who in the Theatre, followed by the role of Roselle in The Betrothal at the Gaiety in January 1921, concluding the year with what she charmingly called "several cinema plays".

Vacation from Marriage (1945)

Monday, August 6, 2012

***½
Country: UK
Director: Alexander Korda

During the Second World War, few films with a contemporary setting were made that didn't deal in one way or another with the war and its effects. The main subject of the picture didn't even have to be military training or combat or even holding down the home front. Comedies, melodramas, crime dramas, musicals—virtually all genres were touched in some way by the war. In the last year of the war, a charming British film was made that showed how the war experience caused a fundamental change in the personalities and outlooks of its two main characters, a married couple named Robert and Cathy Wilson, played by two of the most endearing British actors of the time, Robert Donat and Deborah Kerr. The film, called Perfect Strangers in Britain and Vacation from Marriage in the U.S., isn't well known today but after its release in the U.S. in 1946 was well enough regarded to win its writer, Clemence Dane, an Oscar for best original story.

Vacation from Marriage opens in London in 1940 on the morning of the last day before Robert Wilson ships out for training as a seaman in the Royal Navy. Watching Cathy prepare Robert's breakfast and see him off to work—he works as a bookkeeper in an investment firm in the City—shows us two emotionally numb people living a life of astonishing dullness. Each day proceeds according to an unvarying routine. They rise at the same time every morning, eat the same things for breakfast, Robert catches the same bus for work, and so on right up to the time they go to bed. Every August they spend two weeks' holiday in the same place, the staid seaside resort where they spent their honeymoon. Has there ever been a screen couple more conventional and boring?

The war is about to change all this, though.

Right after Robert leaves to begin his training, Cathy decides to make her own contribution to the war effort by joining the Wrens (WRNS, Women's Royal Naval Service). As the film alternates between Robert's experiences in the Royal Navy and Cathy's in the Wrens, the experiences of each parallel those of the other. At first both find the training program dispiriting, and for a while it looks as if they won't make it. But in the end both do, in the course of their training undergoing a process of self-discovery and finding a strength of character and self-confidence that at the beginning of the film neither appeared to have.

Both Robert and Cathy also experience a brush with romance that awakens in them an emotional passion that was completely lacking in the repressed, lifeless couple we were first introduced to. Robert develops a close friendship with a young nurse named Elena (Ann Todd) when he spends several weeks in a military hospital in Tunis after his ship is sunk in the Mediterranean. Cathy has her own near-romantic relationship, with the cousin of her best friend in the Wrens, a naval architect with none of the timidity and limpness of Robert.

When after a separation of three and a half years the two are finally to be reunited on leave, Cathy can't face the prospect of returning to Robert and her former life and decides to demand a divorce. It's during this part of the film, about its last half hour, that everything comes together and the film really soars. When Robert and Cathy finally come face to face, each has undergone such a radical psychological and physical transformation that they literally don't recognize each other. The "helpless kitten" Robert saw in Cathy, and the "clockwork mouse" Cathy saw in Robert, no longer exist. Now that each is confronted with a radically altered spouse, will these strangers learn to accept the changes in each other, or will their newfound strength of will lead to incompatibility and divorce?

Vacation from Marriage was originally to have been directed by Michael Powell when he and Deborah Kerr were involved in a romantic relationship. When they split over career differences—she wanted to go to Hollywood, where MGM was anxious to develop her as their next big female star; he wanted to stay in England—Powell went on instead to make I Know Where I'm Going, which he initially had envisioned as a vehicle for Kerr. Vacation from Marriage then ended up being directed by Alexander Korda, the esteemed producer, director, and founder of London Films. Korda, his brother art director Vincent Korda, and cinematographer Georges Périnal were masters of the studio film, and that mastery shows in Vacation from Marriage, particularly in the scenes set in Tunis and, at the end of the picture, in bombed-out London.

Alexander Korda directed some of the biggest British stars of the time—Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, Laurence Olivier and Viven Leigh, Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester—so it's not surprising that he gets exemplary work from the cast in this film. This was the last picture the lovely Ann Todd made before her breakout starring role in The Seventh Veil, and she brings a gentleness and wistful sadness to the small part of the nurse Elena, a war widow with whom Robert nearly has an affair. Roland Culver invests in Richard, the man who romances Cathy, the charm and refinement he was known for in his more than fifty years as a character actor in British films and television, where he appeared in everything from Dead of Night and Thunderball to Rumpole of the Bailey and The Avengers. The real standout in the supporting cast, though, is Glynis Johns (above) as Cathy's fellow Wren, the kooky Dizzy. She becomes not only Cathy's best friend but also her role model and mentor, encouraging Cathy to break out of her meek, drab prewar personality.

Still, it's undeniable that Vacation from Marriage is given that extra lift which makes it something special by its wonderful stars, Robert Donat and Deborah Kerr. In playing Robert and Cathy, each must portray a person who undergoes a metamorphosis, someone who starts out with a defined personality, whose personality gradually changes under the influence of their experiences in the film, and who emerges transformed into someone essentially different from the person they started out as. This kind of acting must be extraordinarily difficult to do in movies, which are typically filmed out of sequence. Donat, having played characters like Mr. Chips and the Count of Monte Cristo, was an old hand at this sort of thing, but at this point Kerr had made only a few movies and had never done anything quite like this before. Yet she matches Donat at making us really believe in the character, and at making the before, during, and after stages of the metamorphosis wholly convincing.

Technical skill aside, both Donat and Kerr, as always, have screen charisma to spare. Donat, who was nearly forty years old when the film was made, was more than fifteen years older than Kerr, but that actually works to the film's advantage. In the early scenes he looks prematurely middle-aged, which suits his stolid character perfectly. In later scenes he looks, and acts, positively rejuvenated. Kerr, in the early scenes playing without makeup and in frumpy outfits, seems almost like a rather plain schoolgirl. After her transformation she seems to have matured and ripened, with a femininity and sexuality that are unmistakable and a newly independent, assertive personality that makes it plain she won't be willing to go back to being the obedient "little woman" Robert is accustomed to.

When I say Vacation from Marriage really comes into its own during its last half hour, that's because Donat and Kerr finally get to play directly off each other as the film focuses on the battle of the sexes between Robert with his conservative view of a woman's place and Cathy with her war-liberated feminist outlook. To watch these two consummate performers act out the conflict this charming film has so cleverly and entertainingly set up is nothing short of pure pleasure.

Vacation from Marriage plays on Turner Classic Movies on Monday, August 13, as part of TCM's Summer Under the Stars salute to Deborah Kerr. Check local listings for times. This post is part of the TCM Summer Under the Stars Blogathon, which runs the entire month of August. For details check the sites of co-hosts Sittin' on a Backyard Fence and ScribeHard on Film, or visit the blogathon's Facebook page.

065. Young Bess

Sunday, February 26, 2012

065. (25 Feb) Young Bess (1953, George Sidney) 39



Jean Simmons determines that she'll be an iconic Elizabeth I in Young Bess, but her overwrought, unconvincing performance says otherwise. Having seen Vanessa Redgrave in Anonymous in recent months, it's interesting to see another person approach Elizabeth I in such a baffling way. While Redgrave went for senility, Simmons goes for brattiness. She really doesn't have a singular moment that distinguishes her as a capable actress, though she's clearly been great in other things. It doesn't help that this finds Elizabeth in one of her least interesting phases of life profiling her romantic interest in Thomas Seymour.

The print on TCM looks clean, so I'm fairly certain this was restored recently. Some of the brighter colors pop, but for the most part this is absurdly dingy. It makes this a peculiar nominee for Art Direction and Costume Design. Most of the costumes are downright dowdy, albeit detailed. Those from The Virgin Queen from two years later put them to shame. The sets regularly look like typical sound stage fare. Only a couple banquets are particularly noteworthy.

The Rosza score is about as subtle as a slap to the face. (That's a nod to a hysterical scene where Simmons laughs at Stewart Granger while he insists she stop where it becomes clearer and clearer he'll slap her to make her stop.) The only saving graces here are Deborah Kerr as a genial Catherine Parr and Charles Laughton reprising his Henry VIII.

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?

Deborah Kerr in Separate Tables

Deborah Kerr received her fifth Oscar nomination for playing Sybil Railton-Bell, a shy spinster in the Best Picture nominee, Separate Tables. This was the fifth unsuccessful nomination for Deborah but I don't think she even had a prayer of winning that year. Susan Hayward (as I said) was almost a sure thing plus Liz Taylor and Rosalind Russell were both stronger contenders and bigger names than Deborah Kerr. I'd say that Deborah might have got ahead of Shirley MacLaine who was just becoming a major star. What if is a very interesting question of 1958. What if Susan Hayward hadn't been in contention? I'd say Elizabeth Taylor would have won because her performance was a surprisingly deep one and she was the hottest star plus she had the sentiment on her side because of the death of her husband. I guess Deborah would have lost anyway.

Separate Tables is not really talked about nowdays, unfairly, I might add as it is a pretty good movie. I wouldn't say it's my pick for Best Picture but I enjoyed it. It's a real ensemble picture, full of great, world-famous actors who give very good performances. Rita Hayworth stands out the most, I think and I feel that she might have deserved a nomination though I'm not 100% sure. David Niven gives a very good performance but I feel that Sidney Poitier or Paul Newman deserved to win more (I usually switch my vote for 1958 and 1963 between them). Wendy Hiller dismissed her own Oscar win. Although I agree with that she wasn't amazing, I still think she was the best of the weak nominees that year and she was pretty great this way, too.

Deborah Kerr (as you might know) is not one of my favorite actresses. Some go for her dignified, subtle acting style but I'm not one of those. I prefer highly emotional performances with lots of fire and music. That's me. Of course, that doesn't mean that I cannot respect certain works of Ms. Kerr, I just don't think that she's the greatest. It's fun, though, that she was born on 30th September like me (and Marion Cotillard). I know that I said it last time but I'll say it again and again.

Separate Tables is really an ensemble piece so it takes a very special performance to stand out. And as such, we cannot really talk about leading characters, in my opinion. Everyone is either leading or supporting. However, back then category placement was a matter of vanity and not competition. I guess, nowadays an actress with Deborah's role would go immediately supporting and would have an excellent chance of winning. And that's really something that I admire about the actresses of Old Hollywood. They weren't desperate enough to humiliate themselves by going supporting just to ensure the win. That is certainly very positive pride.

It takes a special performance to stand out in an ensemble movie, as I said but Deborah Kerr's work as Sybil is, unfortunately, not special at all. It's not even the best or most significant part of Separate Tables. Actually, I'm quite shocked that she was recognised over Rita Hayworth. Not because Rita was miles better (she was actually) but Deborah's role is not showy and (apart from one scene), it's very quiet and she's mostly in the background sitting without a move.

Sybil is a shy spinster who's probably in love with the major played by David Niven. Sybil has to put up with her awful, bossy and very snobbish mother (Gladys Cooper, reprising her role from Now, Voyager) and she wants to gain some freedom. However, she's too afraid to take action and things get very ugly for her. She has to be disappointed in the major and she's more and more under her mother's influence. Deborah shows Sybil as a mentally unstable, very sensitive woman who's screaming inside and wants to have a better life. It's shown very well by Deborah and I most certainly want to praise her for making Sybil such a sympathetic character. I really did want her to be happy and I think Deborah portrayed the necessary emotions really well. I was most certainly impressed by that. Also, she quite carefully developed this character and none of the changes seemed forced or unrealistic.

There's one serious problem about Deborah. She doesn't get enough spotlight and since her role is not the best of the movie, she gets stuck too much in the background. When I saw her and Rita Hayworth, it was so hard to focus on Deborah as Rita was so great and Deborah seemed a little bit dreary compared to her. However, the breakdown of Sybil was played excellently by Deborah and I was really touched by those scenes.

So I can say that 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.

I gave a 4 to Shirley, too, so I'll give it to Deborah.

What do you think?

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?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1957

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

1957

So the much anticipated ranking:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

The Next Year

Monday, March 14, 2011

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?

King Solomon's Mines (1950)

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

“King Solomon’s Mines” (1950) is a splendid adventure film, as well as a beautiful travelogue of African sights and sounds. It was one of the most popular films of 1950 and it holds up well today.

The story is simple enough. Allan Quatermain (Stewart Granger), a hunter and safari guide in colonial Africa, is hired by Elizabeth Curtis (Deborah Kerr) to take her and her brother John (Richard Carlson) into an unexplored part of Africa to follow the trail of her husband, who was seeking the fabled diamond treasure of King Solomon. Quatermain initially refuses, but the promise of a 5,000 pound payment quickly changes his mind. The party treks across hundreds of miles of uncharted territory to come upon the treasure, and the fate of Elizabeth’s husband.

M-G-M spared no expense in bringing the famous tale to the screen. The entire cast and a Technicolor camera crew went on location to Africa to film the famous tale. The scenery is breathtaking, and gives a good account of the various types of geography that make up the Dark Continent. Every kind of animal is on display, as are various African tribes.

The story of “King Solomon’s Mines” emerged from the fervid imagination of British novelist H. Rider Haggard. It was one of the first of the “lost kingdom” adventure stories and was an instant success upon population in 1885. Haggard’s main character Allan Quatermain, a hunter and safari guide in Africa, proved one of his most popular characters, so much so that Haggard wrote more than a dozen other novels and stories featuring the character.

In junior high, I read quite a bit of Haggard, but “King Solomon’s Mines”, probably his most famous book, eluded me. In the 1940s my mom had given her brother a set of beautifully illustrated Haggard novels, but he didn’t want them, so she kept them. I read them and was quite enthralled. I loved “She” (the other great Haggard masterpiece), and “The People of the Mist.” I was amused to read in one of Ray Harryhausen’s autobiographies that he long wanted to do a film version of “People of the Mist” but he couldn’t find a copy of the book anywhere! He could have called me, I have a copy sitting on my shelf.

My favorite H. Rider Haggard novel was “Eric Brighteyes” a lusty Viking saga full of battles, romance and lots of supernatural elements. An absolutely marvelous read which would make a great movie if anyone had the foresight to film it. There are so many great books written through the years that would make good movies, instead of the rash of remakes and retreads of old TV shows we’re getting now.

Back to “King Solomon’s Mines.”

I was surprised at how modern the film is, in many ways. Atypically of so many films of the era, there is no musical score. Rather, native songs, chants and drumming make up the musical accompaniment. It’s interesting, but the film could have benefited from a full-blooded musical score. There are long stretches of film showing the safari hiking through Africa where music would have moved things along. M-G-M staff composers Miklos Rozsa or Bronislau Kaper could have added some marvelous musical color to the proceedings. In fact, Rozsa scored the “King Solomon’s Mines” trailer, and gives a good idea about what he could have brought to the film.

Also, Quatermain is respectful of the natives. He does not talk down or condescends to them. He respects them as equals. The final action scene is a duel between two warring chieftains, and though our sympathies are with the deposed king, Quatermain and his party do not interfere, but merely act as bystanders. No white man saving the black man here.

Quatermain is also an ecologist. He doesn’t kill for sport, but for survival. In an early scene showing his prowess as a hunter, he prevents one of his paying customers from needlessly shooting an elephant.

Kerr is marvelous of course, as she always is, and Granger is fine. In fact, it’s likely his Allan Quatermain is probably his best role under his M-G-M contract. But he was never one of my favorites. He lacks the warmth and zest that Flynn and Fairbanks brought to their adventure roles. I always found him too smug for my taste. He never looks like he’s enjoying himself. However, in the marvelous John Wayne western comedy “North to Alaska” (1960), he’s a lot more relaxed, and I wish he had bought some of that sense of fun to his 1950s swashbucklers. (Compare his “Prisoner of Zenda” to Ronald Colman’s and you’ll see what I mean).

Still, there’s so much to enjoy here, especially the scenery. I won’t soon forget the fleet of natives in their canoes carrying the safari upstream, the marvelously staged animal stampede sequence, or the simple loveliness of Deborah Kerr washing her hair in the African sunlight.

Rating for “King Solomon’s Mines”: Three and a half stars

The Sundowners

Monday, August 6, 2007

I’ve never made a list of my 50 favorite films, but if I ever do, “The Sundowners” (1960) would certainly make the final cut.

This is one of the best family films of all time, a warm and absolutely wonderful film set in Australia in the 1920s. It concerns a family of “sundowners”, those people that don’t have a home and travel by wagon from place to place, wherever the sun goes down. There’s the father Paddy Carmody (Robert Mitchum, sporting a dead-on Australian accent), wife Ida (Deborah Kerr) and teenage son Sean (Michael Anderson, Jr., later the youngest of the Sons of Katie Elder). Ida and Sean are eager put an end to their nomad existence and settle down, but Paddy doesn’t want to, not wanting to be tied down to any one place and the responsibilities that entails.

The movie doesn’t really tell a story in the traditional sense, but instead shows the trials, joys and heartbreaks of living on the road. Paddy and Ida have been together for almost 15 years and remain deeply in love, though they have very different ideas about what they want out of life. The brusque and macho Mitchum and sensitive Kerr were great friends in real life, and had the greatest respect for each other’s talents. They play beautifully together.

Along the way to drive a herd of sheep to market, they pick up a drover, played by Peter Ustinov, who decides to stick with them ever after the sheep are delivered. They have adventures while on the road, including a dangerous brush fire, and the accidental purchase of a race horse. They stop at a shearing station for several months, where the highlight of the film occurs, a shearing contest between Paddy and an elderly gentleman from a rival shearing station.

The film was exquisitely shot in location in the Australian Outback. Director Fred Zinneman doesn’t overdo it with fancy camera angles or obtrusive editing. He lets the story breathe, and lets the actors inhabit their roles. I’ve seen this movie several times, and never get tired of it. It reminds me in some ways of another classic family film, “I Remember Mama” (1948). After about 10 minutes, I forget I’m watching a movie, and feel like I’m actually there, watching events in real time unfold before my eyes.

I’m not sure why the film isn’t better remembered today. It was certainly well regarded at the time, earning Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Director, Actress, Supporting Actress (Glynis Johns) and Adapted Screenplay. Maybe it’s because most people would blanch at the idea of watching a family of sheepherders set in 1920s Australia. Maybe it’s because the words “Robert Mitchum” and “family movie” don’t normally go together.

Whatever the reason, “The Sundowners” is an absolute gem, and one of the finest movies ever made. They don’t get better than this.

Rating for “The Sundowners”: Four stars.
 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading