288. The Comedians

288. (25 Nov) The Comedians (1967, Peter Glenville) 29



The Comedians is of two minds, establishing the complicated political climate of Haiti and acknowledging its poverty and oppression while focusing on rich white outsiders whose drama remains at the forefront. By no means is The Comedians guilty of something countless great works aren't as well, but it's harder to forgive considering the film's bloated runtime and general ineptitude. Despite a small ensemble, most of this narrative is incoherent and uninteresting.

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton at least offer an intensity that makes their scenes together irresistible. As obsessed, unfaithful lovers, this surely wasn't a stretch for them to play. They have a palpable sexual energy that transcends the mediocre film it's trapped within. Burton handily gives the best performance here, overshadowing Taylor with her inconsistent accent. The supporting cast ranges from serviceable (Alec Guinness, Peter Ustinov) to dreadful (Paul Ford, Lillian Gish).

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Results

5. Leo Genn in Quo Vadis- Genn gives a dull performance that just goes through the motions of a part that in better hands could have stolen a few scenes.

4. Kevin McCarthy in Death of a Salesman- Although McCarthy is not helped by his co-stars or his film he still manages to give a convincing portrayal of a troubled young man.

3. Gig Young in Come Fill The Cup- Young gives an effective performance as a rich drunk who tries to sober up.

2. Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis- Ustinov is wildly broad in his portrayal of the mad Nero and it works. He creates an entertaining portrait of this mad man while being an effective villain as well.

1. Karl Malden in A Streetcar Named Desire- Good Prediction RatedRStar especially since you even guessed Young's placement, and Michael Patison. Where Ustinov is greatness surrounded by dullness Malden is greatness within greatness. Rather than being swallowed whole by the power house performances around him Malden not only perfectly supports these performances, but also makes his character stand on his own as well.

Deserving Performances:
Mervyn Johns in Scrooge
Michael Hordern in Scrooge

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis

Peter Ustinov received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Roman Emperor Nero in Quo Vadis.

Peter Ustinov portrays the mad Emperor Nero, and this is not a moment in his performance where he tries to underplay the role for a moment. This approach certainly makes sense for the deranged Nero, but also because it is best to avoid the blandness of much of the rest of the film. Ustinov actually seems like he is from an entirely different movie than the rest of Quo Vadis, which is a good thing since it seems like Ustinov is from a much better movie. No one else in the film is on the same wavelength here as Peter Ustinov who is out on his own limb for the entire film.

Ustinov plays up just how absurd of a ruler Nero is the entire film, he is always just one big man child who wants his ways and his whims, and wants everyone to appreciate how great he is. Ustinov is very entertaining in the role, always sitting in some off kilter fashion, always making broad gestures and making very distinct facial expressions. It is one big broad portrait of a complete lunatic, that really works well. He performance could easily be characterized as insane, and it is. This style absolutely works for Nero, and even though insanity can be played in a subtle fashion that probably would not have been the right approach for Nero.

The reason that this broad portrayal is perfect for Nero is because Nero is not only insane, but he is the ruler of a whole country who is completely off his rocker. Ustinov does not hesitate to show that not only is this many crazy by nature but his power he has from his position only serves to amplify it all the more greatly. After all Nero is the man who killed his own mother, and even sets the whole city of Rome on fire. He sets his own capital on fire for nothing more than just to fulfill his own pipe dream of a greater palace. Ustinov brings to life the absolutely deranged man who could have done these almost unbelievable actions.

Ustinov is an excellent villain here, and does absolutely control every scene he is in, in fact even when he is not on screen his whole character is the driving force of the film. Ustinov is terrific here because he both has fun with his portrayal of Nero, while still does keep him threatening as a villain as well. Ustinov shows that Nero is not overly smart in fact in many he ways he is quite a bumbler, and is actually quite amusing in showing just how much of a spoiled brat he is. He certainly plays these as "big" but never overplays them these too much and does bring the humor out of the scenes whether he is complaining about his people, or singing one of his terrible songs.

Ustinov though also manages to be an appropriately chilling villain, and he is particularly amazing though because he always shows it as one and the same as in his more humorous moments. Ustinov effectively shows that although Nero can be entertaining in his behavior he can be equally a dangerous one because the exact same tendencies can bring death. In his scenes where he watches people being brutally murdered, or orders the death of many it is all in the same exact way. Ustinov shows that Nero is so deranged and has been so in that way his whole life he really cannot understand even that he is being immoral.

Ustinov gives a great performance here, and is without question the best part of the film. I frankly think it would have been a far far better film if it had only been solely about Nero since really Ustinov's performance is the only performance that is at all interesting. I would say that in fact Ustinov almost makes the film worth watching, but he is not quite in this three hour film enough to make the film enjoyable. Nevertheless when ever he is on screen he instantly makes those scenes worth watching. This is certainly not a subtle turn for Ustinov but it is an incredibly effective performance that made me wish the film actually had been about his character.

Best Supporting Actor 1951

And the Nominees Were:

Gig Young in Come Fill the Cup 

Kevin McCarthy in Death of a Salesman

Karl Malden in A Streetcar Named Desire 

Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis

Leo Genn in Quo Vadis

Best Supporting Actor 1964: Results

5. Edmond O'Brien in Seven Days in May- O'Brien has limited opportunities due to the nature of the film, but he still manages to realize his alcoholic senator quite well.

4. Lee Tracy in The Best Man- Tracy is good in showing the differences between his warm great facade, and his cynical side he shows behind close doors.

3. Stanley Holloway in My Fair Lady- Stanley Holloway gives a very enjoyable performance that is very entertaining, he also handles his songs incredibly well making them some of the best moments of the film.

2. John Gielgud in Becket- Gielgud although is in the film for less than ten minutes makes a sustainable impression instantly bringing Louis to life as a charismatic, humorous, and strong willed King.

1. Peter Ustinov in Topkapi- Good Prediction Dinasztie. This is a very good year actually with all of the nominees giving good performances. The best though is easily Peter Ustinov even though to be fair he had an advantage since he is the lead of his film. Ustinov nonetheless gives an absolutely hilarious performance, that makes Arthur Simpson a wonderful endearing character that is joy to follow through the film's story.

Deserving Performances:
George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove
Frank Overton in Fail-Safe
Fredric March in Seven Days in May

Best Supporting Actor 1964: Peter Ustinov in Topkapi

Peter Ustinov won his second Oscar from his third and final acting nomination for portraying Arthur Simpson in Topkapi.

Topkapi is an entertaining heist film about a group of thieves who attempt to steal a jewel encrusted dagger from a museum in Turkey.

Peter Ustinov joins two ranks of the winners in the supporting actor category. The first being he is another almost entirely comedic performance, that once again shows that this category never was afraid to award performers for being funny. The other rank he joins are winners that are not at all supporting in the film. Although one can argue the Maximilian Schell is a lead as well as the mastermind of the heist, but it is clear Ustinov as Simpson is the true lead as the film follows him through almost the whole film.

Topkapi is a heist film that works certainly because of the heist, and locale, but more importantly do to the characters of the robbers from the sultry Elizabeth Lipp (Melina Mercouri) who comes up with the original idea, to the mastermind of the plan Harper (Maximilian Schell), to the mechanical master Cedric Page (Robert Morley), as well as a strong man, and mute human fly. All of the original robbers have a certain quality that works for the film, but who makes the film is Ustinov who actually is only a "schmoe" at first to the robbers, but eventually becomes needed.

Ustinov is simply hilarious as Arthur Simpson who is a small time hustler in Greece who attempts to make money by selling fake antiques, and offer tours of the nightlife. Ustinov has the perfect sort of an attempt at a charm. Ustinov makes it clear that Simpson is always trying to be a suave con man, but he cannot help it that he is not one. It actually would have been very easy to make Simpson too pathetic, that would not have been funny, but Ustinov has always such a pride within Simpson that his incompetence actually comes off as quite endearing.

Peter Ustinov becomes the viewers guide actually into the heist plot as he forced to become an agent for the Turkish police under the threat of being charged with terrorism. Ustinov is again hilarious in every one of his scenes as maneuvers through the plot. I particularly love his scene where he is being interrogated by the Turkish police, as he constantly attempts to defend himself, and naturally manages even to share some of his own personal history in his defense. It is a great act Ustinov to pull off all of Simpsons various defenses, his attempts at pride, as well as his fear, and even his past while still making it funny, and Ustinov absolutely pulls it off.

Ustinov really is the perfect guide to follow through, as he manages to make Simpson a very likable schmoe, and a very funny one as he spies on the robbers while having absolutely no idea what their up to. Ustinov's various reactions to overhearing them talk about their plot are perfectly times gold. I absolutely love his reactions to when he Elizabeth Lipp complementing his looks particularly his eye lashes that is absolutely hilarious, the only thing funnier is when he reports it to the Turkish security officer, Ustinov just could not be any better.

Eventually do to unforeseen circumstances Arthur Simpson joins in the heist itself, and again Ustinov is terrific in the heist scenes. Simpson suffers from a fear of heights, and again Ustinov is just great realizing Simpson's fear genuinely but still manages to make it quite amusing as well. Ustinov just makes the whole heist fun becomes he brings to life the fears of getting caught, as well as the troubles in the requirements of it marvelously well still with a good deal of humor.

I just simply love this performance, and I think Ustinov's hilarious performance as Simpson was essential to the film. The gang of thieves could have seemed perhaps too distant or pompous to relate to, but Ustinov manages to wipe away any issues of that sort by making Simpson into such an honestly human sap that we can strangely enough relate to. It is simple wonderful work that shows exactly how to make an endearing and very entertaining character.

Best Supporting Actor 1964

And The Nominees Were:

John Gielgud in Becket

Lee Tracy in The Best Man

Peter Ustinov in Topkapi

Stanley Holloway in My Fair Lady

Edmond O'Brien in Seven Days in May

465. Hot Millions

465. (15 Nov) Hot Millions (1968, Eric Till) 55



There are sweet moments to be had in Hot Millions and the embezzlement plot is one of the most clever I've seen in any caper comedy. As nice and relaxed as the film may be, it still lacks a plausible romance between Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith. The plot is overly complicated to the point where it's not very fun. A subplot about Bob Newhart's obsession with Smith is particularly creepy. This is obviously a '68 release since zoom lenses are still a novelty; they're used to death.

Death on the Nile

“Death on the Nile” (1978), based on the Agatha Christie classic, was an all-star follow-up to the hugely successful “Murder on the Orient Express” (1974), and despite the latter’s popularity, I’ve always preferred Nile to Orient. Nile’s cast isn’t as tony as the earlier film, but the mystery is better, the characters are more colorful and the situations are more dramatic. The clues play fair with the audience and the on-location scenery is a delight. It’s a long film, running 140 minutes, but its well paced and never dull.

Set in the 1930s, beautiful Linnet Ridgeway (future Bond girl Lois Chiles) is one of the richest women in England. Her poor but loyal college friend Jacqueline DeBellefort (Mia Farrow) visits Linnet at her estate to tell her she is engaged to be married and asks Linnet to give her fiancé Simon Doyle (Simon MacCorkindale) a job on her estate.

Linnet agrees to give him the job and then some. She and Simon are quickly married, leaving Jackie a huge reservoir of burning resentment. Jackie follows the newlyweds wherever they go on their European and African honeymoon, even surprising them atop an Egyptian pyramid.

Despite their attempts to lose Jackie, she always finds them, even on a steamship traveling on the Nile. Among the passengers is the famous Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Peter Ustinov, in the first of his six Poirot performances.)

One particularly violent evening, an over served, quarrelsome Jacqueline accidentally shoots Simon, wounding him in the leg. That same evening Linnet is found dead, shot in the temple.

Jacqueline is the obvious suspect, but she has an ironclad alibi. As Poirot begins his investigation, with the help of his good friend Colonel Race (David Niven), he discovers many of the passengers had good reason to dispose of Linnet.

Not only do all the suspects have motive for killing Linnet, but also means and opportunity. Filmed recreations show how each suspect could have accomplished the murder during a specific time frame.

A wildly eccentric Angela Lansbury plays an author of steamy romance novels who based one of her characters on Linnet, at the price of a potentially costly libel suit.

Bette Davis plays a kleptomaniac who casts an envious eye on Linnet’s jewelry collection.

Jane Birkin plays Linnet’s maid, who is refused a wish to leave Linnet’s service to marry her fiancée, and becomes strongly resentful of her employer.

Jon Finch is a rabid Communist sympathizer who considers the Linnet Ridgeways of the world to be parasites unworthy of living.

The always welcome George Kennedy is Linnet’s American lawyer suspected of embezzling money from her accounts.

Jack Warden is a doctor who is not what he appears to be.

Other suspects are played by Olivia Hussey and Maggie Smith.

Solid professionals one and all, and the behind the camera talent is equally impressive. Director John Guillermin is often hit or miss but this definitely falls in the hit column.

Anthony Powell won an Academy Award for his costumes, while the great Jack Cardiff provided the gorgeous cinematography. Love those long tracking shots of Linnet and Simon riding across the Egyptian desert, to the stirring accompaniment of Nino Rota’s wonderful music. This would unfortunately be one of the great Italian composer’s final scores. (He died the following year.)

“Sleuth” author Anthony Shaffer did a splendid job of adapting the Christie novel, which is a particular favorite of mine.

I suspect that the witty Shaffer is responsible for an early clue that telegraphs the solution to the mystery….if you know your 1930s movie music. Before everyone boards that ship, all the suspects are in a hotel ballroom awaiting dinner. Only Linnet and Simon are dancing to a song that was first introduced in a 1930s M-G-M musical. No vocals are used, and the song is only played as an instrumental. But if you know the song’s title, and its lyrics…I will say no more, and no, I won’t name the song. But it helped me correctly solve part of the murder, and that never, ever happens with me.

Two more murders occur, thinning the pool of suspects before Poirot gathers the remaining suspects in a room, reviews and case and fingers the guilty party. The solution makes perfect sense, but alas, the song is never brought up. I suspect Hercule Poirot spends little time in the dark watching M-G-M musicals.

Ustinov may not physically be the ideal Poirot, but I rather like him in the role. David Suchet in the PBS “Mystery” series remains the definitive Poirot to date, but Ustinov does bring a nice humor to the role.

I’ve seen “Death on the Nile” several times now, and despite knowing the outcome, I always enjoy watching it. With a cast of this caliber, and its exotic Egyptian setting, it’s always a pleasure to sit down with. A winner all the way.