240. (07 Oct) Homage to Chagall (1977, Harry Rasky) 19
This is for professional scholars of Chagall and not, in any regard, for a layperson. I willfully admit my ignorance of his work and can say definitively now I'm not impressed. In any case, Homage to Chagall is close to impenetrable since it takes such a nonlinear approach to his evolution and inspiration as an artist. Pretentiously spouting Bible verses between montages of his art, even James Mason's spirited, melodramatic narration can't breathe life into this.
James Mason (15 May 1909 - 27 July 1984). While he was attending Marlborough College studyingarchitecture, he also began performing in stock theatre companies for fun.
After Cambridge he joined the Old Vic theatre in London under the guidance of Tyrone Guthrie and Alexander Korda. In 1933 Korda gave Mason a small role in, The Private Life of Don Juan but fired him three days into shooting.
From 1935 to 1948 he starred in many small British film and became popular for his brooding anti-heroes in the Gainsborough series of melodramas of the 1940s: The Man in Grey (1943) and The Wicked Lady (1945).
He also starred with Deborah Kerr in, Hatter's Castle (1942). He then took the lead role in, The Seventh Veil (1945). He followed it with, Odd Man Out (1947) and his first Hollywood film, Caught (1949).
Mason's distinctive voice gave him the opportunity to play a menacing villains as well as leading man. His roles include Brutus in Julius Caesar (1953), Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel and The Desert Rats, the amoral valet turned spy in Joseph Mankiewicz's 5 Fingers, the declining actor in the first remake of A Star Is Born (1954), Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (also 1954), Bigger Than Life (1956), North by Northwest (1959), Journey to the Center of the Earth (also 1959), Lolita (1962), Lord Jim (1965), the evil Doctor Polidori in Frankenstein: The True Story (1973), Salem's Lot, and Yellowbeard (1983).
One of his last roles, was that of corrupt lawyer Ed Concannon in, The Verdict (1982), earned him his third and final Oscar nomination. His final screen-work was playing the lead role in Dr. Fischer of Geneva as the eccentric wealthy businessman who played games with the Swiss upper class, such as offering gifts to his guests if they accepted some humiliating ritual activity (such as wearing a child's bib at the dinner table).
In 1975 he played Falconhurst plantation owner in the film, Mandingo. In the late 1970s, Mason became a mentor to up-and-coming actor Sam Neill. Late in life, he served as narrator for a British television series on the films of Charlie Chaplin, Unknown Chaplin, which was aired in the U.S. on PBS.
5. Charles Laughton- Charles Laughton has a fairly simple role but he is consistently amusing in his performance.
4. James Stewart in Rear Window- Stewart manages to provide a realistic portrait who we can easily go along through the sometimes quite seedy world of being a voyeur.
3. Toshiro Mifune in Seven Samurai- Mifune gives a very big but also a very striking performance of a swordsman driven mad by his past.
2. Ray Milland in Dial M For Murder- Milland gives a strong performance by both bringing to life the fierce some hidden motivation of his murderer, but as well as easily adding an appropriate degree of humor in the role as well.
1.James Mason 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea- Mason gives a great performance of an iconic character by always bringing to life both the wondrous qualities to his portrayal in equal measure with his more violent aspects.
James Mason did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a pretty entertaining rendition of the Jules Verne novel about three men who end up on a submarine which has been destroying ships for some time and is at first believed to be a monster.
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is unique for a Disney live action film for the time with its several high profile actors of the time appearing in it such Paul Lukas as the inquisitive professor Arounax, a charming and enjoyable Kirk Douglas as the harpooner Ned Land, as well as a very likable Peter Lorre in a very unPeter Lorre like role as the Professor's assistant. The most important of all though is James Mason as the Captain of the underwater submarine Nautilus who seems to be clearly as brilliant as they come, but the only problem is he might also be just about as mad as they come as well.
Live action Disney films certainly can have some hokey acting just watch Maurice Chevalier's performance in In Search of the Castaways for evidence of that, this is one film though where there is none of that certainly not in the lead performance of Nemo by Mason. James Mason is easily one of my favorite actors and one of the reasons why is he almost always seems to put his all in his performance no matter what the film he showed in his more Oscar favorable fair with his nominated performance in A Star is Born, yes and I do know that this film in fact won more Oscars than that one but I mean in terms of Oscar favored acting, and he shows the same conviction in this performance.
James Mason makes a great impression of the very first scenes where Captain Nemo appears. Mason with an absolute ease conveys the mystery of the character. Mason unique extremely refined persona and voice is perfect for Nemo. Although it is rather easy to argue that Nemo is the villain of the film, Mason never does portray him for a moment as one. Mason actually delves deeper into the character always trying to bring to life the motivation of the man rather than just his actions as a lesser performance might have done. Mason always makes Nemo a man rather than a monster.
Mason makes Nemo into a fascinating anomaly of a man. In the way he speaks about his discoveries and his knowledge about technology that can only be fathomed at best by others at the time. Mason is excellent in conveying the wondrous nature of Nemo's own mind and that he is very much a man of discovery. There though at the same time is an undercurrent of menace, the sort of menace only James Mason could convey so quietly yet so effectively. Mason is able to even in his moments of speaking about his vast accomplishments, is able to bring to life so well the darker undercurrent behind the character.
The dark undercurrent is of course his own origin which involved death and brutal torture in his past. Mason especially excels here as he shows the incredible hate that is always weighing on Nemo's mind. It is really this hate for the inhumanity of man. Mason effectively portrays it as something that Nemo merely cannot shake, by creating a haunting quality within his performance that conveys that Nemo never can forget what has happened to him, and it is that drives his violent passions behind his current mission. Mason never makes this anger a simple evil, but actually a very humanizing element to Nemo.
In the most pivotal moments really of his performance Mason is able to bring to life perfectly the drive that creates the hate in Nemo. Although most of the time it is, as I said, something that is always a part of him but not something he likes to dwell on too much that is except for one scene where Nemo crashes purposefully through a ship from the country that had previously enslaved him. Mason is excellent here as he in a silent scene for Nemo shows the full extent of bitterness in Nemo. It is a striking moment for Mason because all of the proper gentlemanly aspect of Nemo goes away for a moment, and we see the true humanity in Nemo through his anger.
I should also really say that Mason also gives a very entertaining performance that goes hand in hand with his surprisingly character driven performance. Mason is always an extremely likable actor, and it really is just a joy to watch him particularly in a few of the smaller scenes of conversation. Mason here has again a great wit in the role that is extremely well utilized. He of course never hammers it in or very tries to be funny when it is not required. In fact Mason never really appears like he really is trying to be funny, Mason though is able to be humorous in just the right moments of this performance that never once compromise the heavier moments in his performance.
This is a truly great performance by James Mason that is able to bring to life every aspect of the character to the screen, and I must imagine do far more with the role than perhaps the filmmakers even expected. I have to say that I find he is even better here than even in his strong work in his Oscar nominated role from this year. Mason is simple incredible and just fascinating in every one of his scenes in this film. He is able to take an iconic character like Captain Nemo and basically create his very own form of that icon through his performance. In what easily could have been a corny performance, Mason once again shows his strength of an actor by seeming to make the most out of any role he is given.
5. Mako in The Sand Pebbles- Mako gives a good realistic performance. His role is limited, and his character is frankly cut off just when he is becoming interesting.
4. James Mason in Georgy Girl- Mason although has a thankless role in many ways gives a charming, and dryly comic performance, that manages to turn his character into an actual man and not just a creep as he easily could have been.
3. Robert Shaw in A Man For All Seasons- If I was giving the award to my favorite actor Shaw would take this, with close competition from Mason. Nevertheless Shaw gives a strong performance in only two scenes realizing Henry VIII's distinct personality marvelously.
2. George Segal in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?- Segal has an extremely thankless role especially compared to the flashiness of the performances around him, but Segal stays true to his part and creates an effective realistic portrait of a man in the strange situation of the film.
1. Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie- Walter Matthau stands on top for this with his consistently hilarious performance. Matthau never wastes a moment as his shyster lawyer deriving comedy from every facet of his character and makes the film.
Deserving Performances: Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly John Hurt in A Man for All Seasons
James Mason received his second Oscar nomination for portraying James Leamington in Georgy Girl.
Georgy Girl is about a young woman Georgy (Lynn Redgrave) who tries to avoid the romantic intentions of her father's employer as well as be part of the swinging life of her selfish roommate (Charlotte Rampling).
James Mason is one actor I have yet to see a performance by him that I did not like. Mason perhaps since he took almost any role he was offered genuinely loved acting, and maybe it is that joy of performance that comes through in his performances aids in this. Mason just has a unique charming presence, and something wonderful I find about him is that despite the fact he is well spoken especially classy this could easily come off as just acting superior, but Mason always has a certain likability which works perfectly for his performance as James Leamington in Georgy Girl.
James Leamington is a rich man who constantly is trying to convince his employee's daughter, who he has supported and believes she owes him, to become his mistress. Leamington certainly as written is very much a creep especially sense he considers Georgy almost as a daughter before he wishes to have a relationship with her. Mason though with his unique style some how manages avoid this and some how manages to make Leamington likable. Mason manages to show that, even in his scenes where he is upset with Georgy, that his character really has an honest enthusiasm love for her, and even more importantly he never forgets to find the humor in his character.
Mason never lets a moment slip to bring in a little dry humor into his portrayal. There is something almost endearing about Leamington simply because of the way Mason always pokes fun at his character. Mason though is perfect at this because he never winks toward the audience in any way he is invested in his character at all times, yet he finds just the right way to make fun of him at the same time. He is always very serious in all his scene, yet he stays so serious throughout everything it is actually quite funny. This is especially true when he offers his affair agreement to Georgy. He takes such a business like approach to the whole affair that i could be taken as excessively cold, but Mason brings humor to the scene because he never once shows that Leamington has the slightest sense of what he is doing and how he is doing it.
Mason's part though mostly are these short scenes of repetition with Leamington always looking for Georgy even though she is trying her best to avoid him. Later in the film though he does have a dramatic moment. The moment actually comes a little out of nowhere, but it does force Leamington to face the effects of his strange decisions. The scene is rather quick, but Mason nails it. His reaction could not be a better reaction of complete shock, as well as some grief. Yet magically Mason still even has a bit of humor in this scene as his surprised look still suggests his character naivety, as Mason's face seems to suggest that Leamington only just realized that anyone even really existed in his world beside him.
Mason only real problem is the fact that the film does not really care much for his character in the least. He is only a side character at first, and that he almost seems dispensable later on in the film when the film becomes far far more interested in Georgy's dealing with her roommate and her boyfriend. If it weren't for the ending one would wonder why it continued to cut to Leamington during the latter half of the film. Mason is always good, his best scene comes from this cutaway, but the way the film is set up it makes his character almost seem superfluous. The reason for Leamington comes in the end though in a quick scene where fulfills his role in the story. Mason is good in the very short final scene as he shows a changed man, sort of. Mason does convey enough that Leamington seems to have finally seen a way not to be completely selfish, it is quick change but naturally handled by Mason.
This is actually technically speaking a very good performance by Mason it could have been an utter failure in so many ways, but Mason does find the right way to portray the part to make the character of Leamington work, as well as actually make the ending sort of work. If Leamington had been portrayed completely without humor he would have been an awful character, and would have hurt the film and certainly would have ruined the ending. Luckily Mason does not fail with the part, and even though it is far from his greatest performance it is a challenged fulfilled.
East Side, West Side(1949). Melodramatic/crime film. Cast: Barbara Stanwyck, Ava Gardner in one of her earliest roles, James Mason and Van Heflin. Based on a novel by Marcia Davenport and a screenplay by Isobel Lennart, the film was directed by Mervyn Leroy.
Late one night, Jessie Bourne, is homealone, while, her philandering husband Brandon, is out drinking at the Del Rio night club, with model Rosa Senta. Rosa, later asks Brandon, why he cheats on his wife. Brandon says, "just because a man has one perfect rose at home, doesn't mean he can't enjoy the flowers of the field."
It is not long before Brandon's, former mistress Isabel Lorrison, just back from Paris, shows up forcing Rosa to leave. Isabel, is hoping to pick up where they left off, but Brandon, is ready to move on, telling her that.. "he is now faithful to his wife".
Later, as Brandon is leaving the club, Alec Dawning, who knows Brandon's reputation, knocks him unconscious. Rosa, takes Brandon to her home, where he spends the night.
When Brandon, arrives home he tells Jessie that he was attacked by a bum, which she does not believe.
Soon after, Helen Lee reminds Jessie about her party for ex-police officer Mark Dwyer, whose book Helen's husband Owen is trying to get syndicated in his newspaper. Jessie, then confides to Helen, that she is afraid of what will happen to her marriage now that Isabel is back in town.
After, seeing a picture newspaper picture of Rosa and her husband, Jessie finds Rosa and speaks with her about the picture. Rosa, explains what really happened and the two become fast friends. Jessie, offers to take Rosa to the airport to pick up her boyfriend.
By coincidence, Rosa's sweetheart is th ex-police officer Mark Dwyer, who seems more interested in Jessie.
On the day of Helen's party, Isabel, manages to keep Brandon, from attending the party. Jessie goes to the party alone and is taken home by Mark, who stays with her until Brandon returns home.
The next day, Isabel tells Jessie that she is going to steal husband from her.
Later, Mark while giving Jessie, a tour of his West Side neighborhood, he confesses his love for her. When Jessie returns home, she finds out that Isabel has been murdered.
She and Mark, rush over to Isabel's apartment, where police Lt. Jacobi is interrogating Brandon. Mark, finds a clue that leads him to the Del Rio club, where he finds Isabel's killer, who turns out to be..
Both Stanwyck and Gardner are well matched in this film. Mason, is such a creep that you, hope that everyone, will kick him to the curb by the end of the movie. Loved, the New York scenes and Costumes, were beautiful. I would watch this film again..
Gale Sondergaard (February 15, 1899 – August 14, 1985), studied acting at the Minneapolis School of Dramatic Arts before joining the John Keller Shakespeare Company.
She later toured North America in productions of Hamlet, Julius Caesar, The Merchant of Venice, and Macbeth. Her younger sister Hester Sondergaard was also an actress.
Sondergaard made her first film appearance in, Anthony Adverse (1936) as "Faith Paleologue" and became the first recipient of the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance.
Her career as an actress flourished during the 1930s, and included a role opposite Paul Muni in The Life of Emile Zola (1937). During pre-production of MGM's classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), an early idea was to have the Wicked Witch of the West portrayed as a glamorous villainess in a black sequined costume, inspired by the Wicked Queen in, Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). Sondergaard was originally cast as the witch in "Oz" and was photographed for two wardrobe test. One was as a glamorous wicked witch, and another as a conventionally ugly wicked witch. After the decision was made to have an ugly wicked witch, Sondergaard, believed it could damage her career, withdrew from the role, and it went to character actress, Margaret Hamilton. Sondergaard was, later cast as the sultry Tylette (a magically humanized, but devious, cat) in 1940s The Blue Bird.
In 1940, she played the role of the exotic and sinister wife in, The Letter, with Bette Davis. She received a second Academy Award nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her role as the King's principal wife in, Anna and the King of Siam(1946).
Sondergaard was first married in 1922 to actor Neill O'Malley; they divorced in 1930. On 15 May 1930, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, she married her second husband, Herbert Biberman, a theater director then associated with the Theatre Guild Acting Company; he became a film director and died in 1971. They had two children, Daniel Hans Biberman and Mrs. Joan Campos.
Sondergaard's career was damaged during the Red Scare of the early 1950s, when her husband was accused of being a communist and named as one of the Hollywood Ten. (In the 2000 movie One of the Hollywood Ten, Sondergaard was portrayed by actress Greta Scacchi while Jeff Goldblum was cast as Biberman.) She supported her husband during the production of Salt of the Earth (1954). Highly controversial when it was made, and not a commercial success, its artistic and cultural merit was recognized in 1992 when the National Film Preservation Board selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.
One of the Hollywood Ten (2000) chronicled Sondergaard's relationship with Biberman and her role in the making of, Salt of the Earth. The Bibermans sold their home in Hollywood shortly after they completed Salt of the Earth and moved to New York, where Sondergaard was able to work in theatre.
Claude Chabrol's Madame Bovary seemed too tame, but it's delightful watching Vincente Minnelli try to sneak in as much scandal as possible into his version. It requires that he literally put Gustave Flaubert on trial in a subplot, but it permits him to make Bovary a full-fledged, arresting trollop. When Emma and Rodolphe go riding for instance, he simply hints that they're more than riding by showing her hat on the ground. It's a simple insinuation that's just smutty enough that the censors couldn't find it too objectionable.
Jennifer Jones's transformation from a wide-eyed innocent to a petulant misanthrope is occasionally delightful. Whenever she's being the slightest bit miserable, she gives the film a weight it would lack without her coldness. It's irresistible hearing her remark, "Do you know why that clock strikes, Charles? To announce the death of another hour."
Unfortunately, she's not so good at conveying other emotions. When she's showing her ruthless ambition, she feels insincere or loony. I've seen Jones try to stretch her limitations before in Duel in the Sun. There's melodramatic territory here she simply shouldn't tread into and she does, on more than one occasion, embarrass herself.
She does come off well by being at the center of the film's clear highlight. It's a marvelous scene where Madame Bovary steals the show in a ballroom. She spectacularly waltzes despite insisting she doesn't know how; Minnelli captures the lightheaded wonder of the moment by spinning the camera in a dizzying fashion. How the numerous enormous gowns missed a Costume Design nomination is inexplicable. The Art Direction, at least, is spectacular in this and almost every other scene and deservedly got a nod.
Chabrol's version is decidedly tighter and more entertaining. Minnelli's film may be stylish and sometimes effective, but the overall film he makes is neutered and episodic. He does what he can to create an accomplished adaptation, but this was plainly the wrong era for a Madame Bovary.
5. Charles Durning in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas- Durning although may be the best part of the film, still does not make a particularly substantial impact with his small amount of screentime, that is mostly made up of a very unspectacular musical number.
4. Robert Preston in Victor Victoria- Preston gives a standard Preston performance which most certainly is charming but also not particularly special. It is not even the best case of Preston doing Preston.
3. Lou Gossett, Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman- Gossett is convincing and capable as an intense drill Sergeant, he also is very good in inserting subtle indications of the more humane characterizations of the man.
2. John Lithgow in The World According to Garp- John Lithgow never overacts in his role as a transsexual and instead gives a nicely heartfelt performance.
1.James Mason in The Verdict- This win easily goes to James Mason who thoroughly proves his strength as an actor in the role of the ace attorney in this film. He gives an excellent quietly dominating performance that creating the perfect sort of adversary in the film.
Deserving Performances: Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner Charles Durning in Tootsie
James Mason received his third and final Oscar nomination for portraying Ed Concannon in The Verdict.
In the supporting actor category Mason was not the first actor to be nominated for portraying an the adversary attorney in a court room drama as George C. Scott was also nominated for a similar role in 1959 for Anatomy of a Murder a performance that earned my win for that particular year. What I like is to see these two talented actors taken such different approaches to what are very similar character in that they are both there just to win their case, there really is not a personal life mentioned or anything else, yet they still managed to be Oscar nominated.
Well it is most certainly true that one can be nominated for an entirely unimpressive and unsubstantial performance, Mason though as with Scott managed to show how a great actor can make the most out of just about any sort of role if they actually bother to try. It is just interesting to look at the differences and similarities between Scott and Mason in the ways they both managed to succeed in their roles, and make a substantial impact in their film despite the technical limitations of their part.
Where Scott was more demanding, and intense as his prosecutor, Mason portrays his slick attorney as a relatively quite man but one who like Scott's character is absolutely always in control of his situation. Mason though always presents Ed Concannon as an always prepared man who examines every situation so he doesn't need to get loud or angry, he is in charge because he has determined that he is in charge. Mason always shows with cold efficiency that there is a calculated procedure Concannon takes to everything involved with a case.
Mason has such a great ease in his performance that it makes him a more than just a rival to Paul Newman's Frank Galvin, but in fact makes him seem like his legal superior. Mason for most of the film has complete control in his scenes, and so calmly lays down plan and actions in every scene with just the right degree of smug superiority. Mason never shows Concannon to be an idiot when it comes to his superior manner and tone, but rather something he has earned his right to use from his long standing history as a lawyer.
Mason is particularly excellent in his scenes of cross examination, since he really does not have a harsh intense attitude, but rather is always polite, even though Mason shows almost a fiendish quality in this calm approach that through his slowly but eloquently put questions he is always carefully tearing into them. I particularly like when Concannon basically harasses a witness, and accuses her of lying, yet he does it with such calm reserve he actually seems even more piercing because of this.
Mason is terrific in every moment he needs to show just how smart, and effective Ed Concannon is creating an almost overwhelming obstacle for Galvin to fight, but my favorite moment in his performance is when he is at a loss for words in a single scene. Mason's reaction is absolutely perfect when Concannon finally is truly surprised by something he hadn't planned for, and Mason shows a vulnerability in this single scene where it Concannon can barely understand that there something has occurred that he has not planned for, simply a terrific moment that perfectly shows a sign of weakness in Concannon.
This is a great performance by Mason who takes what he has an makes the absolute most of it. It would have been very easy to actually have had Concannon be an nonentity in the film, but instead just like George C. Scott in Anatomy of Murder he turns Concannon into a formidable court room villain. His performance here puts to shame other performances that just settle in their roles and never attempt bring more life to the part. This is a brilliant realization of what an actor can do with a character even when the character is limited.
As Bigger Than Life opens, we see the long horizontal façade of a school building stretched across the huge CinemaScope screen. A bell rings, and elementary school students come pouring through the doorway, walk toward the camera, and separate to the left and right as they reach it. Among the last children to leave are three sets of twins—two boys, two girls, and finally a boy and girl—who walk toward the camera without separating. What an appropriate beginning for a movie that is essentially Nicholas Ray's 1950s suburban version of Robert Louis Stevens's classic doppelgänger tale Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, beautifully restored and newly released by Criterion.
The main character is Ed Avery (James Mason), a teacher at the school. With a modern two-story house, attractive wife (Barbara Rush), and son about the same age as his students, he seems to be living the kind of middle-class life found in television sitcoms of the time. But all is not well with the Avery family. Ed is having difficulty making ends meet on his teacher's salary and must supplement his income by working on the sly three afternoons a week as a dispatcher for a local taxi company. More distressingly, he is suffering some kind of major health problem, from time to time clutching his stomach in severe pain, having headaches and dizzy spells, and occasionally even blacking out. When his wife finally persuades him to see a doctor, Ed is diagnosed with Periarteritis nodosa, chronic inflammation of the arteries, a severe condition that if untreated will kill him within a year. Fortunately, a newly released "wonder drug," the steroid cortisone, deals successfully with his symptoms and offers him a hopeful prognosis.
What Ed doesn't realize is that the drug can have severe psychological side effects. He soon begins acting erratically, swinging between euphoria and moodiness. Within weeks he has become a full-blown madman—behaving impulsively, erupting into sudden rages, and exhibiting symptoms of extreme megalomania and paranoia. Subjecting his students and family to tyrannical whims and edicts, he institutes a fanatical reign of terror in his classroom and at home. He pompously tells members of the P.T.A. that their children are spoiled and backward, with the mental development of gorillas. He forces his son to endure a merciless regimen of physical and mental training. He finally announces to his wife that she is his intellectual inferior, that he has "outgrown" her, and that he is leaving her to embark on a lifelong project to write a book that will revolutionize education. The wonder drug has transformed the affable school teacher and loving husband and father into a human monster.
James Mason confronts his monstrous alter ego in the bathroom mirror
Two things lift Bigger Than Life above its occasionally trite plot and its pat conclusion. One is the amazing performance by James Mason, who also produced the film, as Ed Avery, a performance that alone makes the movie well worth seeing. Ed's startling change from a reserved, rather meek man dedicated to his profession and his family into a pill-popping psychotic wracked by delusions of grandeur is unnervingly convincing. As his life spins more and more out of control, he alternates between obliviousness to the behavioral changes taking place in him and, in moments of lucidity, horrified awareness of his rampant mental deterioration. It is a chilling, expertly calibrated performance, one of Mason's very finest and almost certainly the most ambitious of his notable career.
Also impressive is the vision of this suburban horror story created by director Nicholas Ray. Ray studied architecture before turning to a career in films, and strongly evocative interiors are often an important part of his movies. In Bigger Than Life the contrast between the innocuous, rather bland middle-class interior of Ed's house, where much of the film takes place, and his extravagant behavior is a striking one. Yet there are subtle indications of Ed's already existing subconscious dissatisfaction with his conventional life. The distorted shape of the CinemaScope screen, especially noticeable in these interior segments, suggests a personality that already senses the need to expand to fill the empty spaces in its life. The walls of the house, covered in framed maps and travel posters of places like Rome, Paris, and Florence, hint at a desire by Ed to leave behind the ordinariness of his present life for something more fulfilling. The images of doors and doorways that fill the movie echo this same sense of entrapment in present circumstances and the repressed longing to break free. There are literally countless shots of people opening or closing doors, coming through doorways, standing in open doorways or in front of closed doors, or simply photographed from a distance through doorways of all sizes and types. Ray uses all these things to intimate that the changes in Ed's personality are not so much metamorphosis as the unleashing of unconscious urges previously held in check.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the movie is that it is based on an actual case history recounted in the New Yorker by Berton Roueché (1910-1994), a journalist who worked nearly fifty years for the magazine, writing for its "Annals of Medicine" section. The true medical mysteries that form the basis of his articles are fascinating stories of people with mystifying symptoms—many of whom are dismissed as hypochondriacs or told that their problems are psychological and referred to psychiatrists—whose illness is finally diagnosed through the perseverance of an individual doctor or researcher. The several collections of these articles Roueché published are highly recommended, as compellingly readable as the best mystery fiction.
“The Boys from Brazil” (1978) is a terrific thriller, feature a pair of powerhouse performances courtesy Gregory Peck and Laurence Olivier. Add the great James Mason to the mix, and it’s triple the enjoyment. I caught it on TCM a few weeks ago, and liked it so much I went out and bought the DVD. I had forgotten how good it was.
No need to go into the story, based on a novel by Ira Levin, but I think everyone knows that The Boys from Brazil refers to Hitler clones. Dr. Josef Mengele (Gregory Peck), a real character, is among the refugee Nazis in South America busy hatching a diabolical scheme for a Fourth Reich using the clones. Ezra Lieberman (Laurence Olivier), an elderly Nazi hunter, gets wind of the scheme and tries to put a stop to it.
I remember when the movie came out and critics and audiences were pretty evenly split on the lead performances. Some thought Peck was laughably miscast as Mengele, while others thought the casting of good guy, All-American Peck in such a role was chilling and effective.
I can remember Peck appearing on “The Tonight Show” one night and pulling out clips of reviews from his pants, quoting the raves his performance had received from some critics. Apparently the barbs he took did not sit well with him.
For myself, I think Peck is quite good in the role. Not great, but better than I would have thought. It’s as amoral a role he ever played. Mengele was one of the great monsters of the 20th century, and Peck wisely does not try to humanize him.
Some found Olivier’s performance as Lieberman to be embarrassing and one-note, accusing him of doing an Albert Basserman impression. Others found him brilliant, and the Academy awarded him a Best Actor nomination that year.
I think Olivier is absolutely dazzling in the role. By turns warm and sarcastic, cynical and caring, aloof and tender, this is multi-dimensional character. It’s one of my all-time favorite Olivier performances. He lost the Best Actor Oscar to Jon Voight that year for “Coming Home.” I would have given it to Olivier, or Gary Busey for the wonderful “The Buddy Holly Story.”
Critics who didn’t like the movie made jokes about Peck and Olivier during their final fight scene, but let’s face it, the characters are old men, and they’re not going to be throwing each other across the room like Sean Connery and Robert Shaw. I have no problems with the scene as it plays out.
There’s some eerie imagery on display here. Mengele is not above genetically experimenting on the locals in his jungle compound, and the sight of those brown skinned, blue-eyed natives is chilling without being over the top. One of my favorite scenes occurs when Mengele returns to his old laboratory and he flashes back to his cloning experiments. No dialogue here, but the chilling operation scenes and the scenes of the mothers in the maternity ward are greatly helped by Jerry Goldsmith’s ominous music.
I love the score to “The Boys from Brazil.” Love it, love it, love it. The main waltz is one of Goldsmith’s great themes. It’s like another character in the movie. About 15 years ago I saw Goldsmith conduct the Milwaukee Symphony in a concert of his music and they played the waltz as part of a suite. It was wonderful to hear this music live. What a thrill that was.
(For my birthday following my initial viewing of the movie, my dad surprised me with the LP recording of the soundtrack, because he knew how much I liked the music. There aren’t many fathers who would have encouraged their son’s strange listening habits.)
Goldsmith’s score was nominated for an Oscar that year. but lost. So did John Williams’ score to “Superman.” Who did they lose to, but Giorgio Moroder for “Midnight Express.” In full disclosure, I’ve never seen that film or heard the score, so maybe it is a masterpiece. But I sure thought “Superman” was going to take the Best Score Oscar that year.
I can vividly remember the first time I saw the film. It seems like it was only yesterday.
My dad and I went to see the film on a Friday night at the Dolton, the second-run theater in my home town where I spent a large portion of my youth. It was the second show of the evening, and we were standing in the lobby waiting for the first show to let out. The doors opened as the end credits were rolling and we could hear that glorious Goldsmith score. I liked it the minute I heard it, and I couldn’t wait for the movie to start so I could hear it again.
Coming out of the theater with her family was Mary, a pretty, freckle-faced cute-as-can-be girl I had gone to grammar school and junior high with. We were going to separate high schools at the time, but I still saw her when she would come into the grocery store where I was working. We said hello to each other and she said it was a real good movie, that I would like it.
I saw her at the store the next week and agreed that yes, it was a terrific movie, my dad and I liked it a lot. Of course I wanted to tell her how much I liked the music but I learned very early on that there are some things –i.e. film scores – that you don’t discuss with girls. Still, I always wondered what she thought of the score to “The Boys from Brazil.” She probably didn’t even notice it. Her loss.
Rating for “The Boys from Brazil”: Three and a half stars.
