Track the Films You Watch (2008) - Page 48

Mario Gauci · 07-27-2008, 06:12 AM

07/22/08: SAVAGES (James Ivory, 1972)

Having read that this unusual James Ivory-Ismail Merchant production was a pseudo-Bunuelian concoction, I thought I’d acquire it for my long-planned Luis Bunuel tribute on the 25th anniversary of his death (which occurred on 29th July 1983). Now that I’ve watched it, apart from the obvious thematic allusions to ROBINSON CRUSOE (1952), I’d say that it’s also a half-baked inversion of THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) which, apart from the occasional amusing passage, fails to entertain or enlighten the viewer, much less do justice to its intriguing subject matter.

For being such a radical stylistic departure for them (even at that early a stage in their careers) and the film’s own satirical intent, it might not be as surprising to learn that Merchant-Ivory here engaged two young writers from the “National Lampoon” school – George Swift Trow and Michael O’Donoghue (later also of “Saturday Night Live”) – to pen the script, not to mention the title track! The latter plays over an animated dramatis personae which introduces us to an archetypal assortment of upper-class citizens complete with clichéd monikers typical of Silent cinema (a bully, a capitalist, a decadent, the limping man, etc.). After this lengthy prelude, a curiously-drawn intertitle “The Mud People” plunges us in a black-and-white world of a group of scavenging prehistoric people. We follow their rituals for the next ten minutes or so (including the yearly ‘death by stoning’ of their queen’s consort) until a flying croquet ball unaccountably lands in front of them. The repercussions of this mundane event are, for a little time at least, as life-altering as the monolith had been to the apes in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) or the Coke bottle would be to Jamies Uys’ African bushmen in THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY (1980)…but again, the end result hardly proves itself as enthralling as the former or as funny as the latter.

Admittedly, the interesting ensemble casting of Susan Blakely, Thayer David, Salome Jens, Martin Kove, Sam Waterston and Kathleen Widdoes does work rather admirably where – as inexplicable as the central conceit of THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL itself – we see these brutes coming upon an abandoned mansion in the woods which they start exploring and, seemingly soon after, change into the socialite-types seen in that prologue with the requisite immaculate English diction! The screen also reverts back to color at this point setting the stage for a long society party segment with its typical show of the malaises of the civilized world in this ‘modern’ age (greed, lust, power, jealousy, etc.). Within the film’s context, I guess, the fact that one (or perhaps two) of the guests seem to be in drag for no good reason can be excused but I have to say I was startled to see included towards the end a steamy lesbian encounter in a car which, unsurprisingly, heralds the start of the savages’ regression to their original uninhibited state.

07/23/08: THE MAD DOCTOR OF MARKET STREET (Joseph H. Lewis, 1942)

As some of you may know, for the longest time I was only familiar with the more popular of the classic Universal horror/sci-fi films; recently, however, I managed to get my hands on a number of their lesser and/or non-monster outings – needless to say, few if any of these proved as rewarding in the long run…though they were never less than entertaining, something which the vintage Hollywood product could always be relied upon to deliver.

This, then, marks Lionel Atwill’s last starring role as a result of his fall from grace in a trial which exposed scandalous behavior in private – and which would subsequently relegate him to Poverty Row or virtually nothing parts in Universal chillers! In any case, he gives the titular role his all – in fact, I don’t think I’d seen Atwill being so arrogant (spouting lines such as “I’ll be the most important man to have ever walked the earth” with complete immodesty, as if it was second nature to him!) and wild-eyed since the delightfully Pre-Code MURDERS IN THE ZOO (1933). Incidentally, I may be attributing undue importance to the fact but I wonder whether the script intended to give his character’s ‘control’ over death a religious undertone – at one point, Atwill mentions that he’ll be able to bring back to life someone who’d been dead for three days (a reference to Jesus Christ?), while the unwilling ‘guinea pig’ hero is buried in the rocks and the entrance to the tomb covered by a huge stone (as we’re told in the Bible that Lazarus was)…!

Not knowing all that much about the film beforehand, I was surprised to see this turn out to be more of a jungle adventure (especially given the title) – following the opening moments set in the city and a brief stint on board ship which, pretty soon, ends up submerged and the only six survivors eventually land on a tropical isle. Atwill is a “pseudo-doctor” whose notorious experiments with suspended animation (recalling the Boris Karloff vehicle THE MAN WITH NINE LIVES [1940]) has landed him in professional disrepute, not to mention in hot water with the Law – I’m sure the irony of the situation wasn’t lost on the beleaguered actor!; anyway, he flees on a cruise-liner traveling all the way to New Zealand and, as I said, ends up ashore in uncharted territory with a bunch of other passengers. This doesn’t stop him from continuing his experiments (for one thing, finding the locals convenient and gullible subjects) – actually, he’d been traveling incognito but, when the native leader’s woman goes into a coma from a heart attack, he can’t resist impressing them with his life-giving ‘magic’…after which they name him “God Of Life” and, naturally, he appoints himself there and then supreme ruler of the island (these obvious Fascist attributes more than anything expose it as a product of the war years)!

The film falls into a category best described as comedy-horror or, if you like, horror comic; neither element is really all that successful – though the former (provided by Una Merkel, top-billed despite her character being clearly of secondary interest[!], and Nat Pendleton) isn’t overly intrusive, the latter is too familiar to generate much suspense…while the jungle setting eschews the fog-laden atmosphere usually representing the ‘in-house’ Universal style! The remaining members from the civilized world are a selfish ship’s officer who leaves the others behind when attempting to flee the isle in a canoe – only to be killed by a native, and the obligatory romantic couple (Merkel’s niece and another former crew member of the sunken liner) – typically, the two had gotten off on the wrong foot but are slowly drawn together…especially after Atwill is persuaded into taking a wife by the native woman he ‘resuscitated’ and, naturally, singles out the heroine for this role. By the way, the film’s biggest laugh is an unintentional one: during Atwill and Claire Dodd’s marriage, following the native custom, some doubt is deliberately thrown by his companions on the unethical activity he leads, which causes the celebrations to cease abruptly – at which, perplexed, Atwill asks the native leader to order his men to “dance…or something” (as delivered by the actor in his inimitable high-strung fashion, it not only shows all too clearly the character’s disdain of their lot but definitely edges the film into camp territory; I know I couldn’t stop giggling for a good five minutes afterwards!).

His status on the island takes further beating when the native who killed the escaping officer also turns up dead; the hero – belatedly introducing himself as being well versed in medicine himself (a plot point so contrived as to smack of lazy scripting!) – knows that Atwill’s miracles were performed on people who only had the semblance of death, so that he’ll never be able to reap results in this particular case (though, up until this time, it was never intimated that he could be a charlatan but rather came across as typically misguided but genuinely obsessed!) and the natives will turn on him as a result…which they do in a fiery climax that barely registers (incidentally, some rather important exposition in the fast-paced 61-minute film is entirely by-passed or taken for granted). Tying with my comments about the same director’s CRIMINALS WITHIN (1943), which I’ve also just watched, Lewis’ hand is apparent here via his choice of odd angles on a number of occasions (though the shot of an intense Atwill approaching the camera, holding a chloroformed cloth to subdue an intended victim, is unfortunately diluted through sheer repetition!). By the way, the music for the film – credited solely to “Musical Director” Hans J. Salter – includes recognizable cues from Frank Skinner’s classic SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) score (Universal shamelessly, and habitually, re-cycled these…as hardened genre fans are surely aware!).

07/24/08: THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (Rowland V. Lee, 1934)

Having always been familiar with (and loving) most of the classic swashbucklers from Hollywood’s Golden Age, this independently-produced effort – along with James Whale’s still elusive THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK (1939) – had always been the missing links in the chain, so to speak. Though several adaptations have been made of the exciting Alexandre Dumas novel – which I’ve owned (and read) in abridged/illustrated form – over the years, the only one I’d ever watched was the 1975 TV version; all of this had occurred when I was still a kid, mind you – even if I did recently acquire the latter film – so that, while I knew the basic plotline, I had forgotten a lot of the detail. For this reason, I was obliged to pay attention to the intricate narrative over the treatment accorded it – not that the direction was liable to draw attention to itself outside of a few set-pieces or montages.

Incidentally, the film seemed to herald the swashbuckler boom of the Talkie era (a trend which continued into the early 1960s) – though the genre’s reputation was truly cemented with next year’s CAPTAIN BLOOD (1935), particularly since that one produced its most popular leading man in Errol Flynn (ironically, it was originally to have starred MONTE CRISTO’s own Robert Donat!). Having mentioned this, I was surprised by how little traditional action there actually is in the film…so much so that, technically, it shouldn’t even be considered a swashbuckler (for instance, the 1940 sequel THE SON OF MONTE CRISTO – with the hero turned into a Zorro-like avenger – is much more zesty in this respect); I’d call it a historical/romantic drama myself, with even a dash of social conscience akin to Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables”!

With that out of the way, there’s much to impress here (and entertain): lavish production, solid characterization, and a gripping story brimming with intrigue, suspense and irony (bound together by a believably poignant romance). I’m sure most here already know many of the surprising twists of fate that befall hero Edmond Dantes: thrown into prison under false accusations of treason by three ambitious men (all of whom stand to profit from his ‘disappearance’), he perseveres for 20 years; together with the Abbe` Faria (as played – splendidly – by O.P. Heggie, the role in many ways anticipates his unforgettable turn in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935]!), another prisoner, they attempt to burrow their way to freedom…but the old man dies, and Dantes cleverly takes his place in the sack which is disposed of in the sea by the guards at the Chateau d’If. However, the Abbe` had left with Dantes the map of an immense buried treasure – thanks to this, he acquires the title of Count of Monte Cristo and determines to put right the wrongs of the past. He begins with Mondego (Sidney Blackmer), who has married Dantes’ former fiancée (Elissa Landi) in the meantime; he insinuates himself in his household by purporting to intercede in freeing Mondego’s kidnapped son – even if Dantes’ death certificate had been issued long ago, Landi immediately feels a connection with the Count (he, on the other hand, makes an effort to restrain his feelings until after his vengeance is complete). Having been involved in the death of an Arab potentate, the Count – who has amassed volumes with everything he could dig up about each of his enemies! – contrives to expose Mondego’s guilt publicly by taking a leaf out of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”…which leads Mondego to commit suicide. An unfortunate consequence of this, however, is that Landi’s son (who had up until that time idolized Dantes) feels honor-bound to avenge his own father – but the duel, ultimately, isn’t carried through by either participant.

Next up on Dantes’ list is the avaricious Danglars (Raymond Walburn – making for interesting casting, since he’s usually seen as a blustery fool!): his come-uppance, then, sees him going bankrupt (having invested all his fortune in bank shares following a deliberately misleading tip from the Count) and losing his mind in the process! This leaves the most dastardly of the lot, De Villefort (Louis Calhern), now officiating as King’s Attorney: his downfall is reached in an even more theatrical fashion than Mondego’s – since the Count ‘plants’ evidence of his own previous identity, which would make him a fugitive and sends him before a grand jury (one Calhern is all-too-willing to personally prosecute). However, he’s blind to the proof of his own guilt in the matter – his father having been involved in the conspiracy all those many years ago and the Count’s presentation of Dantes’ death certificate (saved by the still-devoted Landi and corroborated by Walburn, De Villeforet’s business partner). Incidentally, this climactic trial sequence ties up with my earlier contention of the film as a swashbuckler; still, it’s undoubtedly one of the dramatic and visual highlights of the piece – not least in its unusual depiction of a mobile witness stand (which both Dantes and Villefort ascend at some point).

Standout performances include Donat’s, of course (though somewhat stiff as the sailor-type, he’s extremely convincing as desperate prisoner, embittered nobleman, and cold-blooded avenger – particularly when considering he was only 29 at the time!), but Landi’s as well – while essentially understated, her character is much more integral to the plot than most female leads in this type of film; also notable is reliable character actor Luis Alberni as the Count’s diligent sidekick. Alfred Newman’s quite good score is another notable asset; this would soon become a genre trademark – with Newman himself contributing memorable work on the similarly definite versions of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA (1937) and THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940), among others. Presentation-wise, the DivX copy I watched proved somewhat better than I expected, considering the film’s extreme rarity – being marred only by occasional echoey audio and a number of jump-cuts (one of them severe enough to cause a few seconds of lip-synch problems!); by the way, it had a running-time of 108 minutes – movie guides I own give the full length as either 114 or 119…but, at least, I didn’t end up with the 97-minute re-issue cut (which I’d actually read was the only surviving version of the film).

07/25/08: THE THREE MUSKETEERS (Allan Dwan, 1939)

Unlike what I wrote regarding THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (1934), the opposite is true about Dumas’ “The Three Musketeers” – being perhaps overly-familiar with the narrative from multiple viewings of the 1948 and 1973/4 versions, and one of the Silent 1921 Douglas Fairbanks vehicle (incidentally, director Allan Dwan would 8 years later guide Fairbanks through the paces once more as D’Artagnan in THE IRON MASK), I didn’t need to concentrate on the complexities of the plot…even more so when one realizes how little of Dumas has been retained for this 73-minute musical comedy adaptation!

That said, in spite of it being something of a showcase for The Ritz Brothers’ particular brand of fooling, Fox and director Dwan didn’t skimp with the budget – so that the film looks exceedingly handsome and the action set-pieces are reasonably vivid (with D’Artagnan ably portrayed by a dashing, breezy and agile Don Ameche…who even has a penchant for utilizing Shakespeare quotes as pick-up lines!). Amusingly, the titular figures of Athos, Porthos and Aramis (one of them played by frequent Marx Brothers foil Douglass Dumbrille!) only turn up at the start; their hasty exit arises out of a drinking binge with the Brothers (actually cooks at a tavern) and, when D’Artagnan appears for his famous duel with the trio, he finds the Ritzes have taken their place (i.e. donned their costumes). Their explanation of this, however, is summarily interrupted by the arrival of Cardinal Richelieu’s men – which forces the gang to defend themselves the only way they know how, through slapstick, and subsequently to flee the tavern as D’Artagnan’s companions!

With this in mind, here we get a reversal of the central situation in the Dumas classic: whereas in the latter it was D’Artagnan who had to prove his mettle, in this case, he’s perfectly capable of dealing (almost single-handedly) with the swashbuckling side of business…even if he’s himself merely pretending to an official Musketeer’s position! Even so, the formerly plot-packed saga has been all but emaciated or, if you like, streamlined to accommodate The Ritz Brothers’ shtick (not always successful but generally quite decent and tolerable) as well as a handful of songs (of similarly variable quality but also just as charmingly old-fashioned). By highlighting the episode involving the retrieval of the Queen’s brooch, then, Milady De Winter’s contribution is noticeably diminished – being practically relegated to a mere lackey of Cardinal Richelieu’s!

In my introduction, I mentioned the classic 1934 version of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO – which I’ve just watched; interestingly, the director of that film (Rowland V. Lee) followed it with an adaptation of “The Three Musketeers” in 1935: unfortunately, it’s been even more ignored over the years than the film under review – with which it shares cinematographer J. Peverell Marley and actor Miles Mander (appearing as King Louis XIII in 1935 and Cardinal Richelieu in 1939!) – coming so soon after the former, I guess prompted the tale’s conversion into a musical lampoon for the latter version. One of the factors which really intrigued me about Fox’s adaptation (recently released in a beautifully-packaged DVD edition, which I received only a couple of days ago) was the stalwart cast: apart from those already mentioned, we have Binnie Barnes (as Milady – at one point, subdued to the indignity of being searched upside down by the Ritzes for a crucial letter, to which comes the amusingly anachronistic quip “She’s a walking post office”!), Pauline Moore (making for a lovely Constance), Joseph Schildkraut (disappointingly, barely registering as the King), Gloria Stuart (graceful if a bit stiff as the Queen), Lionel Atwill (again, underused as Rochefort – the ambitious Cardinal’s right-hand man), John Carradine (a surprisingly uncharacteristic turn as a sniveling but greedy inn-keeper who, overhearing the Queen’s dilemma connecting her with the Duke of Buckingham, squeals everything to Richelieu) and Lester Matthews (the bland hero of WEREWOLF OF LONDON and THE RAVEN [both 1935] is here the equally colorless Buckingham). Incidentally, the film might have worked even better were some roles to be exchanged – for instance, while Mander did pretty well by the Cardinal, I couldn’t help wondering what the more renowned Schildkraut or Atwill would have made of it!

In the long run, this particular version of “The Three Musketeers” (aptly dubbed THE SINGING MUSKETEER in the UK!) is best appreciated as a companion piece to The Ritz Brothers’ subsequent outing – THE GORILLA (1939; for which Dwan and Atwill were also recruited) – than as a faithful rendition of Dumas’ swashbuckling archetype (for which the adaptations I singled out early on are already sufficiently diverse and comprehensive to please most ardent fans)…

george kaplan · 07-27-2008, 08:59 AM

Michael,

You didn't mention the acting in the Ring. I'm curious what you thought, cause I use it as a rare example of high-quality silent drama acting, as opposed to the far more common overacting.

French Cancan

Basically, everyone is cheating on everyone else, but getting pissed about the fact that they're getting cheated on. Meantime, they're trying to open up the Moulin Rouge, but it takes about 20 tries, cause each time they make progress, all that jealousy causes someone to get fall down a well, or attempt suicide or some such thing. If that sounds like a good thing in a film, then you'll probably like this, but you and I have different tastes.

Tight Spot

This movie mixes drama, crime, comedy, action, romance and does so exceedingly poorly. It moves abruptly from one to the next and on the rare occasion that one scene starts to actually work, the abrupt next one kills off any momentum the film would have had. Ginger Rogers is on the downward arc of her career here, and it shows.

george kaplan · 07-27-2008, 04:11 PM

Melody Time

One of the weaker Disney animated efforts, though still good enough to watch. For a film where music is so integral, the selection could have been a hell of a lot stronger.

Rhythm Romance

Bob Hope cracks wise, but not very funny. Which leaves a flimsy excuse for a plot and music from Gene Krupa. You'd have to like Krupa a lot more than I do to make it worth watching this.

Mario Gauci · 07-27-2008, 05:10 PM

07/26/08: MILADY AND THE MUSKETEERS (Vittorio Cottafavi, 1952)

Although I’m planning to make next month a “Euro-Cult” marathon, I chose to watch this very stylish Italian swashbuckler now to augment my viewing of Allan Dwan’s musical version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS (1939) since the former is a prequel to (and an alternate take on) the classic Alexandre Dumas tale. I’ve always been partial to spin-offs of famous yarns myself and, as a matter of fact, the film takes the viewpoint of Milady De Winter (where we’re even told of her life before acquiring that title). Dumas himself would utilize his famous Musketeers characters in at least three other novels – “The Man In The Iron Mask”, “Twenty Years After” and “The Executioner of Lille” which is what this film is an adaptation of and was indeed the film’s original Italian title (although it was changed internationally to make the connection with the popular swashbuckling classic that much more clearer); incidentally, back in Hollywood they were contemporaneously filming in Technicolor an adaptation of “Twenty Years After” under the title AT SWORD’S POINT with Cornel Wilde and Maureen O’Hara!

Vittorio Cottafavi is a prolific and largely unsung genre director with a distinctly pictorial style which is well in evidence here, right from the arresting pre-credit sequence that cleverly gives a foretaste of a crucial moment from the climax: the entrapment of Milady in a barn by the titular executioner and the four musketeers. Atypically for swashbucklers, therefore, the events leading up to her capture then unfold in flashback. The film proves interesting in both plot (a compelling and largely unfamiliar narrative laden with romance, intrigue and action – but where characterization is still given its due) and execution: Cottafavi’s use of shadowy lighting and mobile camerawork is particularly effective, while giving the whole a breathless pace.

Nominal male star Rossano Brazzi is belatedly introduced as the Comte De Fer who immediately falls for Milady (formerly Anna de Beuil and soon-to-be Duchess of Buckingham) and later pursues her as an embittered but dashing Athos of the King’s Musketeers. Sensual brunette Yvette Lebon is perfectly cast as the cold-blooded woman who escapes her life of drudgery in a convent by enslaving every man she meets including the executioner’s younger brother (Armando Francioli) who hangs himself in a prison cell when she abandons him for a life of political intrigue under the direction of Rochefort (Massimo Serato) who’s often bemused by Milady’s audacity and resourcefulness.

Jean-Roger Caussimon as the Executioner of Lille is the only man able to resist her and for this she demands Rochefort for his life. His lovely young daughter (Maria Grazia Francia) not only sees her uncle destroyed by Milady but also her own fiancé and, during the afore-mentioned opening, she herself is at the mercy of Milady’s dagger before the latter’s timely come-uppance. While Richelieu is often mentioned throughout, he doesn’t make a personal appearance this time around and, similarly, the other famous musketeers get very little mileage here (where D’Artagnan is, besides, unaccountably presented as both blond and fey!); incidentally, another peculiar historical detail is the English army’s depiction as a bunch of kilt-wearing Scots! The whole exhilarating brew is propelled by a fine score, alternating between moody and rousing, by Renzo Rossellini. Unfortunately, the VHS copy I watched (culled from a late-night Italian TV screening) suffered from yet another spell of distracting extraneous noise on the soundtrack!

07/26/08: ANNE OF THE INDIES (Jacques Tourneur, 1951)

This is one of several period sea-faring yarns of its era, which has the added distinction (although not in itself unique) of a female buccaneer at its center. At first, both leads – Jean Peters and Louis Jourdan – might seem miscast but they grow nicely into their roles eventually, thanks no doubt to the talented players (Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez and James Robertson Justice) who support them. Velvety-voiced Marshall is uncharacteristically cast as the ship’s obligatory philosophical lush of a doctor, and Gomez is suitably larger-than-life as Blackbeard The Pirate.

The cast is completed by Debra Paget as Jourdan’s wife, who incurs the jealous rage of the tomboyish titular character in whom Jourdan instils the first pangs of love (which, however, does not spare him the occasional flogging or sword-wound); incidentally, the film was the second exotic teaming of Jourdan and Paget in one year, following Delmer Daves’ BIRD OF PARADISE. The direct result of this unexpected softening of Anne’s character is her falling out with Blackbeard’s crew, and her unlikely climactic sacrifice in order to save the lives of the stranded Jourdan, Paget and Marshall.

While the film is not a particularly outstanding example of its type, Jacques Tourneur’s energetic direction and Franz Waxman’s grandiose score ensure an above-average effort that moves along at a brisk pace; incidentally, Tourneur had already done service in the genre with the superior Burt Lancaster vehicle, THE FLAME AND THE ARROW (1950). As usual with vintage Technicolor productions, the cinematography gives the film a sumptuousness that is invigorating. By the way, differing running-times are given for this film (81 or 87 minutes) and, for the record, the version I watched was the shorter one.

07/26/08: THE DARK KNIGHT (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

Apart from the usual summer blockbuster expectations, this film acquired an instant mythical aura all its own following Heath Ledger’s untimely demise (which inevitably borders on overhype). As long-rumored, Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker is electrifying and leaves one in no doubt of the late actor’s talent and versatility; still, though undeniably creepy – especially given his penchant for macabre TV appearances – he lacks the flamboyance (even if he dies get to appear in drag!) and sense of fun that The Joker of Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson and even the animated series possessed! Besides, I don’t understand why he’s seen constantly recruiting henchmen from the other Gotham gangs when the film-makers chose to depict him as such a manic, trigger-happy thug that he does practically all of the shooting himself – with his anonymous lackeys being there merely to get treacherously shot in the back or hand him weapons! And what’s up with leaving him dangling from a stairwell? It’s not like he’s coming back in the inevitable third entry, no? Incidentally, I feel that all the ongoing talk of posthumously awarding Ledger an Oscar in tribute is premature. By the way, the fact that the film is currently topping the all-time 250 list on IMDb – not that I ever cared for that particular list myself, mind you – is, quite frankly, ridiculous!

While I can’t really complain of it ever being slow, the film’s 152-minute running-time is definitely excessive and could easily have been thinned down by as much as 45 minutes if some of the less interesting vignettes were dropped altogether: among the many needlessly intricate subplots, the chief offenders were the whole Asian financier segment, the dead-end assault on the Japanese skyscraper full of hostages and the climactic ‘confrontation’ between the two respective shiploads of evacuated citizens and jailbirds. Personally, I don’t understand why the film-makers chose to divide the time between the Scarecrow (albeit a mere cameo from Cillian Murphy but welcome nonetheless), the mobsters, The Joker and Two-Face rather than devote a leaner (if consequently less ambitious) narrative to the most famous of Batman’s opponents – as indeed Tim Burton’s 1989 revival of the caped crusader had itself done. At the very end, I also didn’t get why tolerated vigilante Batman must suddenly become a hunted fugitive from the law for the good of Gotham – what for and on whose authority? Gary Oldman’s final monologue was supposed to shed some light on this, I guess, but I didn’t catch some of it because of the music drowning out the dialogue!

The returning actors from the first film of this new franchise (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman) have all grown nicely into their roles – especially Caine and Oldman (so much so that I was disappointed to see him get ‘bumped off’ half-way through); that said, Batman himself seemed to be merely engaged in action sequences or else make split-second appearances to make his latest report to Gordon; by the way, I too found his scowling demeanor irritating – which his raspy voice sometimes rendered inaudible! On the other hand, the new additions to the fold – Aaron Eckhart (as unlucky D.A. Harvey ‘Two-Face’ Dent) and his gushing secretary Maggie Gyllenhaal (replacing Katie Holmes) – were less impressive (and their relationship equally dreary and time-consuming), which is just as well since both their characters lose their lives by the end of it (or so we are led to believe); Two-Face was supposed to be another criminal mastermind but, here, all he seems to care about is avenge his lover’s death! Incidentally, I never thought I’d say this, but I enjoyed seeing Eric Roberts playing the meaty supporting role of one of Gotham’s leading mobsters.

Where special effects are concerned, the spectacular capsizing of the trailer was the film’s most breath-taking moment and Two-Face’s CGI-animated facial decomposition was not too distracting under the circumstances (reminding one of Griffin Dunne from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON [1981]). Those of you who’ve read thus far may be questioning my eventual

rating but, seriously, I did enjoy the film and there were certainly several good sequences and performances in it but, overall, in the words of George Harrison, “it’s all too much”…

Michael Elliott · 07-27-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george kaplan

Michael,

You didn't mention the acting in the Ring. I'm curious what you thought, cause I use it as a rare example of high-quality silent drama acting, as opposed to the far more common overacting.

It's kind of a double edged sword.

I thought the cast was great with Hall-Davis stealing the show and really delivering a terrific performance. I'm not sure I'd agree that the "overacting" wasn't on display here. It was certainly toned down but there were a few sequences where it was overdone (one scene including Hall-Davis looking in on the first fight through the tent). THE MANXMAN followed this two years later and I put down Brissen for his overacting, which is something he didn't do in THE RING.

However, including the two DeMille pictures I watched today, I've seen 221 silents this year. The "high-quality silent drama acting" is certainly the exception and not the rule. If one is looking for that type of acting then I think they're going to be disappointed most of the time. I also think this type of acting can lead to a dull, flat and lifeless performance especially in the early 1910s when intertitles weren't used that much. The performances might have worked in THE RING but I don't think it would work in most pictures.

I think the "overacting", as you call it, is very important on the majority of these films. To me, acting with the help of words, sound effects, a music score and being able to scream is easier than having to do everything without anyone hearing a word.

I'm not sure if you've seen BLACKMAIL either silent or sound. You can view SOUND TEST FOR BLACKMAIL via Youtube, which you should watch since I know you're a fan of Hitchcock.

george kaplan · 07-27-2008, 09:12 PM

I have seen Blackmail, the version that starts out silent and ends up sound.

I guess we'll have to disagree on the silent drama acting. You argue that a "big" style of acting is necessary for those films to work, while I find it to be what kills off those films for me.

Trafic

I'm torn on this one. Clearly, as the Hulot films go, this is the weakest. The first three films all had a fairly clear arc becoming more modern and impersonal. This one kind of starts out even more so, with the heavy traffic, but veers all over the place on this dimension. It does continue the arc of more and more reliance and importance on dialogue, which isn't necessarily a good thing. The film isn't nearly as funny as the previous ones. There is a kind of nostalgic feel-good feeling watching Hulot again, though it is somewhat tempered by the fact that this isn't exactly the same character. He's not only got a job, but it's head of design for an automobile company, and apparently is successful at it, which isn't really in line with what we've previously seen (especially in Mon Oncle). He does end up being fired, but it's for not being able to get it to the auto show in time, which is not even due to his own antics as in previously movies. He's there, but he's not causing trouble, and this really reduces him to less of a character than even in Play Time, though he has a lot more screen time here.

Whether I'd feel like rewatching this after rewatching the first three is something I just can't say at the moment.

The Fuller Brush Man

Typical Red Skeleton film, heavy on slapstick and silliness, short on much else.