NOW, VOYAGER (1942)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Romance

Director: Irving Rapper

Cast: Bette Davis / Paul Henreid / Gladys Cooper

Plot

Following an emotional breakdown, spinster Charlotte Vale goes on a cruise and falls in love with an unhappily married businessman.  Transformed into a stylish and confident woman, she returns home to confront her domineering mother and pursue personal happiness, yet is unable to escape the memory of her past affair.

What I Liked

“Now, Voyager” would never be made today, at least not in anywhere near the form that it was made in 1942.  It represents the pinnacle of Hollywood melodrama, a genre of operatic histrionics that has long since fallen out of vogue with American film audiences.  As such, this movie is a sort of time capsule of public tastes, particularly among women, in the 1940s and 1950s.  In short, melodramas (sometimes called “women’s pictures”) were essentially the chick flicks of their day, and “Now, Voyager” is perhaps the most popular and highly regarded of them all.

For me, lead Bette Davis is the strength of the film.  True to the genre, the script is full of overemotional and over-romantic dialogue, threatening to make the film feel dreadfully dated.  Yet Davis handles her character with a subtlety and confidence that overcomes the limitations of her script by downplaying Charlotte’s emotions.  Davis gives her character as much depth through subtle gesture, posture, walk, and expression as possible, rather than through melodramatic clichés like swooning, moaning, and weeping.  Women, as embodied by Davis, are complex and intelligent, not simply love-sick crybabies.  It is Davis who transforms not only the character from wallflower to lady-about-town, but also he movie from mindless schlock into a rare (for the period) character study.

What I Didn’t Like

Despite Davis’ accomplished acting, there is never any doubt that “Now, Voyager” is the quintessential, almost definitive, melodrama, a style that is admittedly not among my favorites.  The strings-saturated soundtrack (which apparently won an Oscar?) doesn’t quit, just as the script has all of the central characters incessantly putting “Oh” in front of each other’s names.  It’s “Oh, Jerry” this and “Oh, mother” that for two hours on end.  Oh, stop.

I’m glad this kind of movie died out, though its legacy lives on through television in the form of the soap opera.

Most Memorable Scene

Apparently the closing scene of the film features the first time in motion pictures that a man put two cigarettes in his mouth to light both and hand one to his lover, a suggestive gesture that caused quite a stir among the female audiences of the day but has since become a cliché.  This is as good of a scene as any to pick for it’s being a definitive moment in romantic cinema, but also because no moment really struck me as exceedingly memorable.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

ANIMAL FARM (1954)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Animated / Fantasy

Director: Joy Batchelor / John Halas

Cast: Maurice Denham / Gordon Heath

Plot

In this adaptation of the famous George Orwell novel, farm animals overthrow their human master to run the farm themselves.  The lawful society they set up for themselves, based on equality, soon falls prey to corruption.

What I Liked

I’m giving a *spoiler alert!* here not because I give away specific spoilers here, but because some of what I write below can be inferred to give away many important aspects of the drama.

I read the novel “Animal Farm” back in middle school (so we’re talking over 20 years ago), and while I remember a few details and the main gist, I cannot recall the novel well enough to judge this film’s accuracy to the text.  From research, I gather that it is mostly faithful, except for the conclusion.  Like the source material, the movie is a not-so-subtle allegory for the Soviet Revolution and the subsequent betrayal of the Communist ideals for which the Revolution had supposedly been fought.  There are obvious stand-ins for Czar Nicholas (the human Jones), Lenin (the pig Snowball), and Stalin (the pig Napoleon), while the rest of the people and animals are analogous to specific portions of the populace at large.  However, one of the great things about both the novel and the film are that in truth the story is applicable to the history of most any government or civilization.  Read the stories of most of the human societies of the present or past, big or small, and you’ll likely find that they formed out of a combination of both necessity and idealism, rejecting the dangers and abuses of the past; that rejection is followed by a period of chaos, which, for successful nations is eventually replaced by the establishment of order through consensus, law, and cooperation.  However, someone among the new leadership always finds a way to corrupt the system to suit their own needs, leading to yet more abuse or chaos.  “Animal Farm” follows this common theme, following the details of the U.S.S.R. specifically, but I think most who watch it will conclude that the same basic themes could be applied to the U.S.A.

Interestingly, the audio includes only two human voices, those of narrator Gordon Heath and Maurice Denham, who takes care of every other voice, human or animal, in the story.  It is a credit to Denham that his being solely responsible for the voices of pigs, ducks, donkeys, and the rest goes unnoticed if you aren’t already aware of it prior to watching.  One would easily believe different actors are sharing the load.  The soundtrack is also peppered with some authentic records of real farm animals, but Denham handles a hefty responsibility very successfully.

What I Didn’t Like

This was the first privately-produced, full-length animated feature made in the U.K., which means it can’t help but be compared with its contemporaries from the U.S. powerhouse in animated features, Disney.  In terms of animation, there is really no comparison warranted, Disney films of even the 1930s are far superior to even the best visuals from “Animal Farm,” made a full two decades earlier.  But truthfully, the comparison isn’t fair.  First of all, the makers of the British film didn’t have the American company’s budget.  Second, the animators of “Animal Farm” still manage to add some eye-catching moments of both style and action, never once failing to entertain the eye.  Third, “Animal Farm” covers ground thematically on which Disney would never consider treading.  Unlike “Snow White” or “Pinocchio,” this is a film which only adults can truly appreciate, even if it is wrapped in a fairy tale’s trappings and was marketed toward children on initial release.

Most Memorable Scene

For the most visual and emotional impact, the scene that strikes the hardest is the tragic death of Boxer, the powerful and industrious horse who becomes a symbol of everything that is good about community, institutionalized or not.  The scene of his death features some of the most thrilling animation of the film, but also represents the complete loss of the ideals for which the Revolution had been fought.  In fact, 20 years later, Boxer’s fate was the only specific event of the novel which I could still remember well.  Twenty years from now, even if I never watch this movie again, I’m sure this will also be the part of the film I recall the most vividly. 

My Rating: 4 out of 5

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Romance / Western

Director: Ang Lee

Cast: Heath Ledger / Jake Gyllenhaal / Michelle Williams

Plot

After meeting while on a job corralling sheep, two men fall in love.  Separating at the end of the job, each spends the ensuing years desperately lonely, hiding within a heterosexual marriage.  A reunion and the love it rekindles causes a great deal of emotional turmoil for the men and their families.

What I Liked

“Brokeback Mountain” features some spectacular cinematography, most notably of the title location and other nature scenes, but director Ang Lee and crew also make terrific use of the camera for scenes shot in town or even indoors.  The scope of the film wavers between expansive freedom and oppressive claustrophobia, and all of this is accentuated marvelously by the cameras.

It is a great credit to the actors, then, that they outshine the marvelous visuals, even the otherwise overpowering panoramas of gorgeous mountains, expansive lakes, and lush forests.  Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Williams, and Anne Hathaway all turn in convincing, sympathetic performances.   Ledger’s death has made it so that praising his acting when commenting on any film in which he appeared has become an unspoken requisite.  That makes me want to find a reason to criticize him, but the fact is he the best of the entire talented cast, damn near perfection as repressed, conflicted cowboy Ennis Del Mar.  Ledger’s performance is a clear reference to the “strong, silent type” of cowboy which has been portrayed by everyone from Gary Cooper to Clint Eastwood in the classic American Westerns.  Yet his portrayal questions that archetype’s strength and highlights the cost of that silence, finding a tragic subtext in a macho ideal.  Michelle Williams is also an excellent study in the damage of repression as Ennis’s wife Alma.  Despite their characters not being as interesting as Ennis and Alma, Gyllenhaal and Hathaway are equally capable in their more reserved roles.

What I Didn’t Like

It’s a good thing that the film had excellent cinematography, characterization, and acting to fall back on.  Because otherwise the movie was overly long and disappointingly dull.  As the relationship of the two men played out over a period of twenty years, I kept wondering when something interesting was going to happen.  All of the conflict is character-driven and, as well rendered as the characters are, it would have been nice to have some sort of event worth watching happen.  I’m not asking for James Bond here, but some sort of external conflict would have been nice.  Were it not for the amazing scenery, this would have been a story better fitted for a novel than a motion picture.

Most Memorable Scene

The last line and moment in the final scene drops all of the weight of all of love, nostalgia, loss, and regret right onto the viewer’s chest.  I was holding back some serious tears.

Incidentally, for all those people who stayed away from this film because it was a “gay movie,” or because it represented some liberal media conspiracy, you might be surprised at how tame the gay sex scenes were.  Not that this would (or should) be a reason for you to see past your own hang-ups and actually give the movie a chance.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

BRINGING UP BABY (1938)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Romance

Director: Howard Hawks

Cast: Katharine Hepburn / Cary Grant / May Robson

Plot

Nerdy paleontologist David can’t seem to get rid of kooky heiress Susan, who is determined to win his love.  The fact that Susan has a pet leopard named Baby only makes things more unbearable for the high-strung scientist.

What I Liked

I saw this movie once before as a kid, when my dad was watching it on AMC.  Back then I loved the hijinks involving Baby, the leopard that enters the plot about twenty minutes in as a pet of Katharine Hepburn’s character.  The reactions of everyone else to the big cat made me laugh, and I never forgot this movie because of that unique gimmick.

On a second viewing, this time as an adult, I was much more amused by the screwball banter between Hepburn and co-star Cary Grant.  Grant’s over-polite David and Hepburn’s obnoxious Susan make for a terrific comedic match as the pair constantly bicker with, interrupt, and confuse one another.  With Grant in straight-man mode, Hepburn’s gets the very best lines (many of them improvised), prattling away with befuddled logic that leaves Grant (and the audience) confused as to whether she’s impossibly idiotic or supremely witty.  The fun in Grant’s performance originates from his facial expressions and tone of voice, essentially his exasperated reactions to Hepburn and Baby.

In fact, Baby is almost as good of an on-screen partner for Grant as Hepburn.  I wasn’t surprised to learn that Grant was in fact genuinely terrified of the animal.  He is constantly watching the prowling cat out of the corner of his eye and making sure to jump out of its way.  His terror is natural, making these scenes all the more funny.  Ironically, it was not he, but Hepburn who the feline actor did in fact come after, only to be subdued by a trainer.

What I Didn’t Like

There’s plenty of slapstick comedy to be had as well.  However, for adults, most of the pratfalls and bumped-heads prove anti-climactic when compared with the character-driven laughs.

Also, an insufferable little dog shows up about half-way through and doesn’t stop barking for the rest of the picture, proving quite an annoying distraction.

Most Memorable Scene

Ironically, the film’s funniest moments occur before Baby ever shows up.  The first three encounters between David and Susan, on the golf-course, in the parking lot, and in a restaurant are all terrific blends of the different kinds of comedy to be found through the remainder of the movie: situation, slapstick, screwball, sexual, etc.  The different kinds of funny to be found here mean pretty much anyone can find something to laugh about in at least one of these scenes.  I certainly giggled more than once.  Since these three encounters all run consecutively, I’ve chosen to pick them all as one scene, the best one.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

TARGETS (1968)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime / Horror

Director: Peter Bogdanovich

Cast: Tim O’Kelly / Boris Karloff / Peter Bogdanovich

Plot

A psychopath goes on a shooting spree through Los Angeles, creating a blood bath at a drive-in theater where elderly film star Byron Orlok is scheduled to make a personal appearance.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert!*

It’s ironic that Boris Karloff of “Frankenstein” fame is one of the stars of this movie, which is in itself a kind of patchwork monster assembled from the dead.  Director Peter Bogdanovich pieced together much of this movie with the help of his mentor, Roger Corman.  Corman had surplus unused footage lying about from some of his kitschy horror films and handed them off to Bogdanovich, along with the added gift of two days to film with Karloff.  The fact that Bogdanovich was essentially forced to make his debut film with left-overs makes the fact that it happens to be a fascinating motion picture all the more impressive.

Instead of going the expected route of working Corman’s footage (low-budget if stylish costume horror featuring a young Jack Nicholson) into yet another castles-and-monsters schlockfest, Bogdanovich made an adult film about timely concerns.   On the surface it’s a shock film with a body count that would have been unacceptable in mainstream American film at the time.  But the film is multi-layered, the director deftly weaving real suspense and discomfort by setting all of the horror against the backdrop of familiar American life and making both the killer and the victims look just like average, everyday people.  Underneath it all is not-so-subtle commentary about violence in entertainment and society, about the generation gap, and about the role of entertainment in daily American life.

Even better, it all ends with Karloff heroically slapping the shit out of the villain, which is one of Bogdanovich’s many nods to the films of yesteryear.  Yet it also leaves us pondering what role Karloff and the old guard of horror films played in developing the American taste for gore and violence, thus helping to create men like the shooter.

Despite the fact that the gore level is tame by today’s standards, moments in “Targets” remain very unsettling to this day.  Perhaps most disconcerting is the director’s choice to shoot much of the film from the visual perspective of the killer, allowing the audience to be one with him as he sights his prey.  High profile suburban shooting sprees and psycho snipers have destroyed many lives since 1968 and make for media sensations.  Depending upon the eye of the beholder, that the film predicts these tragedies can be seen either as a testament to or a condemnation of its power.  What’s even more disturbing is to realize that “Targets” was no blockbuster; the mainstream American public didn’t really pay much attention to it.  Yet today real-life mass shootings make for terrific television ratings as millions stare in morbid fascination, as entertained by the slaughter as Bogdanovich’s triggerman.

What I Didn’t Like

As far as the acting in this movie goes, Boris Karloff gives the best performance of the film.  Part of this is that he just does a terrific job.  The other part is that he’s the only one who does a terrific job.

Writer, producer, director Bogdanovich sure didn’t do himself any favors by giving himself a sizable part in his movie.  Like Karloff, he plays a character much like himself.  Unlike Karloff, he does a bad job of it.  He is hammy, awkward, and distracting as a young, cinephile-turned-director.  The self-referential aspect of “Targets” is one of its greatest strengths, but the director should have cast someone else for this role.

There are a few technical oops moments common to films shot on a slim budget and an even more limited shooting schedule.  For example, one more than one occasion we can see the shadow of the camera man.  Still, these types of moments happen far less than one might expect and never take away from the story or suspense.

Most Memorable Scene

My personal favorite moment is when Karloff is given the chance to do what he does best.  With Bogdanovich looking on, Boris tells us all a scary story in his eerie British accent, his hair eyebrows rising and lowering, his lips curling and sneering.  The story itself isn’t as frightening as it is darkly comic, which makes it all the more suited for the 79-year-old actor.  Boris is astonishingly good throughout this, his last important picture, but never more so than in this moment.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

M*A*S*H (1970)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / War

Director: Robert Altman

Cast: Donald Sutherland / Elliott Gould / Tom Skerritt

Plot

Assigned to an army field hospital, a group of cut-ups goof their way through the Korean War.

What I Liked

Hilarious hijinks about sums it up.  There are enough pranks and smart ass comments to go around the entire 4077 to keep the film entertaining the whole way through its two hours of length.  The actors were clearly given plenty of freedom to ad lib with Ring Lardner, Jr.’s script and it works to the film’s benefit.  Some of the best moments are the clearly improvised banter between Sutherland, Gould, and Skerritt, which gives the viewer the impression that great fun was being had by all in the making of this film.  There is less the impression that one is watching a film, than one is simply hanging out with friends.  Which is just as well, since hanging out with friends is almost all that happens in this movie’s bare-minimum plot.  The filmmakers, taking advantage of the freedom brought to mainstream American filmmaking in the preceding five years and clearly looking to cash in on the openness of the surging youth culture, made the wise move of not letting conventional storytelling get in the way of a good movie.  What resulted was a freewheeling, clever, and all-unexpectedly subversive movie that made for a perfect fit with the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" market of the early 1970s.

What I Didn’t Like

However, fitting in with 1970s was part of my problem with this movie – and was always a problem I had with the hit TV show that followed.  Everyone dresses and acts like young people in the 1970s.  The Korean War took place from 1950 to 1953.  I wasn’t there, obviously, but I’ve seen plenty of film and pictures of people who were and I’ve spoken to some people that were as well.  It’s a safe bet to say that few if any American men enlisted during the Korean War looked anything like what Donald Sutherland and his compatriots look like in this movie.  The same goes for the women.  There wasn’t a 1950s hairdo among the ladies.  They all had the long, straight cuts of 1970s women.  Yes, I understand authenticity wasn’t the first consideration of the filmmakers here (except maybe in the surgery-related gore), but it is just something that always prevented me from completely suspending my disbelief in what was happening on screen.

Most Memorable Scene

For overall fun from start to finish, one can’t help but go with the football game that substitutes for what would normally be the climax in a more typical film.  Especially since I just watched this movie the day after this past Super Bowl and the similarities were hilarious (for the movie) and pathetic (for the NFL).

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

BULL DURHAM (1988)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Ron Shelton

Cast: Kevin Costner / Susan Sarandon / Tim Robbins

Plot

Cynical Minor Leagues catcher Crash Davis is assigned to babysit his team’s wreckless, young pitcher through a season of baseball.  Meanwhile local baseball groupie Annie does her best to improve both men’s games on the field and under the sheets.

What I Liked

My source book, the 2011 edition of “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die,” includes so many movies for being artistically revolutionary, socially profound, or intellectually complex that is kind of refreshing to watch a film on the list that is really none of these.  “Bull Durham,” like the sport it celebrates, is mainly just an old-fashioned good time.  Essentially Americana filtered through a baby boomer perspective, the movie doesn’t go for anything groundbreaking, but hits all the bases for entertainment and laughs.

A great deal of what makes the film work is that it gives us what feels like an authentic look inside a mediocre ball club.  Writer-director Ron Shelton was in the minor leagues himself and thus his experience informs his debut film with language, relationships, and experiences that crowd the comedy in truth.  Thus the old adage, “it’s funny because it’s true” applies as well here as it does to maybe any comedy.

Kevin Costner’s performance has been hailed as perhaps his best, and maybe it is.  He hits the perfect balance between cynicism and vulnerability to be both cool and relatable.  But Tim Robbins deservers at least equal praise in my eyes for playing the asshole-you-can’t-help-but-root-for Nuke LaLoosh.  Though the character of LaLoosh - basically a man-child jock blessed with terrific physical talent and no brains – is somewhat of a cliché, Robbins’ performance rises above the caricature to make his character charismatic and funny.

What I Didn’t Like

Perhaps Susan Sarandon deserves a good deal of praise for her role as the poetry-reading seductress Annie.  Annie is sometimes legitimately sexy, despite the fact that I don’t’ find Sarandon physically attractive in the least.  At other times I found her skeletal, bug-eyed face so off-putting that I had difficulty even looking at the screen.

And, as mentioned above, truth be told, the film is in no way idiosyncratic, profound, enlightening, or ground-breaking.  It's really just a pleasant comedy good that failed to score with audiences in theaters at the time of its release and ultimately doesn't deserved to be mentioned in the same book as heavy hitters like "Citizen Kane," "The Wizard of Oz," or "Metropolis."

Most Memorable Scene

In terms of laughs, for me the funniest moment was when a meeting between Crash and Nuke on the pitcher’s mound turns into a regular “convention” of most of the rest of the team as they hold up the game discussing everything from family to where to find a sacrificial chicken.  Costner and Robert Wuhl in particular shine in this moment which one feels might also be based on some of Shelton’s real experiences.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

HEAVENLY CREATURES (1994)

Country: New Zealand / Germany

Genre(s): Crime / Drama

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Melanie Lynskey / Kate Winslet / Sarah Peirse

Plot

Based on the true story of two teenage girls who became obsessed with one another and the imaginary world they invented for themselves, and what happened when their parents tried to separate them.

What I Liked

There are a great many genres mixed into “Heavenly Creatures.”  Drama, crime story, romance, mystery thriller, dark comedy, coming-of-age, and fantasy are all deftly assembled by director Peter Jackson and his co-screenwriter Fran Walsh into this unique period piece that also happens to be based on a true story.  In order to successfully convey this story to the audience, Jackson and Walsh had to deal with the two complex characters at its heart.  That complexity requires not only going into the facts of what happened, but the family dynamics and personal histories of each character, the social conventions of the time and place, and the fantasies of these teenage girls.  Meanwhile they have to make their characters sufficiently real, fragile, and likeable and simultaneously entertain an audience.  Once you see the film, you’ll realize what a weighty task this would have been for the filmmakers.  Yet somehow this is all accomplished so well that the view doesn’t really notice all of the complexity until the film is over; the storytelling has a very natural flow, never seeming forced or disjointed.

It helps that the film is perfectly cast, with each actor embodying their role with precision.  Most important is that the two young protagonists are made sympathetic and interesting, a mission accomplished well by Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet.  Lynskey is Pauline, a brooding misfit to the extreme, complete with an outrageously exaggerated scowl.  Winslet is rich girl Juliet who appears daring on the surface but is soon revealed to be desperately fragile.  Surrounding them are the actors playing their parents, each making an important contribution by playing the parents not as they would see themselves but as they were seen through the eyes of their children.

What I Didn’t Like

I don’t have anything to put here.  I’m thinking hard here, but if the film has a flaw, I didn’t notice it.

Most Memorable Scene

I mentioned earlier that the story has a natural flow to it.  The seamless blends between reality and fantasy are particularly powerful.  My favorite might be when the girls, having just left the theater after a showing of “The Third Man,” are chased through the streets and Juliet’s home by a trench-coated Orson Welles, who appears in black & white.  The successful blending of fantasy elements into the everyday lives of the girls is largely thanks to Jackson’s subtle use of special effects.  He displays remarkable refinement for a man who to this point had been known for gruesome (and terrific) low-budget horror outings with titles like “Bad Taste” and “Dead Alive.”

My Rating: 4 out of 5

SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Billy Wilder

Cast: Tony Curtis / Jack Lemmon / Marilyn Monroe

Plot

Having inadvertently witnessed the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, two down-and-out musicians go on the run from the Chicago mob by disguising themselves as women in an all-female jazz band.  Hijinks ensue when they both fall for the band’s voluptuous singer.

What I Liked

Were it not for the talents of its cast, “Some Like It Hot” would not be nearly as revered as it is today.  Or perhaps the praise belongs to casting director Phil Benjamin for assembling them and placing them in the perfect roles.  Tony Curtis is a natural as mischievous ladies’ man, Joe.  Lemmon in turn provides the perfect foil as the high-strung and exuberant Jerry.  Monroe does her thing about as well as she ever did it as the love-crazy bimbo Sugar.  Last but really not least, George Raft – who was a lifelong friend of Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky – gives an understated and underrated performance as the cold-hearted gangster Spats.

One of the other appeals for viewers back in the 1950s, particularly male audience members, would have been all the risqué subject matter, jokes, and shenanigans.  For a mainstream American film of its time, “Some Like It Hot” puts an abundance of female flesh on display, particularly legs and cleavage.  The best laughs in the movie come from watching Curtis and Lemmon get all kinds of curves shoved in their faces and not be able to react for fear of blowing their…ahem… cover.  And this twenty-first century viewer is not going to complain about two hours of watching Marilyn Monroe shimmy and swoon in a variety of barely-there outfits.

  

What I Didn’t Like

Criticizing a film that has been beloved by millions, is considered one of the defining moments of Marilyn Monroe’s career, and has been rated the single greatest comedy ever made by the American Film Institute might not be considered rational to some, but here goes anyway.

As I said at the beginning of the previous section, “Some Like It Hot” wouldn’t be nearly as respected of a film if it weren’t for the cast.  The plot and script itself are fair, but nothing spectacular.  The characters are about as stock as characters come.  The banter, clearly meant to be crux of the comedy between Curtis and Lemmon, often falls flat.  In short, I’ve seen this film more than once and on no occasion did it illicit more than a few chuckles from me in its entire two hour length.  Those chuckles came from the actors and how they delivered the dialogue or reacted to the situations in which their characters were placed, not from the script.

Here’s something else that bugs me about this and other old movies.  Outdoors in the Chicago winter the main characters are bundled up and constantly harping about how cold it is, yet we never once see their breath.  I know, nit-picking, but it’s just a pet peeve of mine to see something so simple overlooked in a major motion picture.

Most Memorable Scene

Tony Curtis gives us a terrific impression of Cary Grant when his character tries to woo Monroe by passing himself off as the heir to Shell Oil.  These scenes, all shared with Monroe, are the funniest of the film, particularly when they are together alone on a yacht and Curtis pretends that he is impervious to the wiles of women, convincing Monroe to use all of her curvaceous charms on him.  The actors have some enjoyable chemistry with one another, especially for two people who apparently couldn’t stand one another.  Monroe’s erratic behavior and lack of professionalism was a real trial for everyone else involved in the film.  By the time they got to film this scene, Curtis said later, kissing Monroe was “like kissing Hitler.”

My Rating: 4 out of 5

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1946)

A.K.A.: La belle et la bete

Country: France

Genre(s): Fantasy / Romance

Director: Jean Cocteau

Cast: Jean Marais / Josette Day / Marcel Andre

Plot

In order to save her father’s life, Belle is held prisoner by the hideous Beast in his magical castle, but soon develops unexpected feelings for her captor.

What I Liked

My last entry was about a redefining exponent of neorealism.  Now we head in a completely different direction into a classic in surrealism.

I’m not much of a fantasy fan, but ironically what I enjoyed about this film were the elements most often associated with the genre: the sumptuous set design, dreamlike cinematography, elaborate costumes, primitive but elegant special effects, and dramatic musical score.  It all blends into an overall ethereal tone for “Beauty and the Beast” that always reminds the viewer of the story’s fairy tale origins.  Whether we’re in the gorgeous forest surrounding the Beast’s castle or inside of the foreboding castle itself, the sense of the magic, both light and dark, is ever-present.  Then there are the cinematic slights-of-hand that director Jean Cocteau and crew use to galvanize the eyes.  Just when all the histrionic drama gets a little too heavy, we’re treated to surprisingly quick special effect that probably amazed audiences of the time.  Even today, one can’t help but grin at these effects; we’re familiar with all of them and how they work now, but Cocteau’s timing and tastefulness in using them to their fullest effect is impeccable.  Even something as simple as cutting out the sound completely from some scenes, to where one can’t even hear footsteps or wind, adds to the film’s surreal

To me, George Auric’s music is indispensable to this film.  It’s every bit as lavish as what we see on the screen and in scenes where the emotional content lies under the surface, the music does much of the work in conveying the necessary feelings to the audience.  Most of all, the melodies are just plan gorgeous to the point where one wouldn’t really mind in just listening to the soundtrack alone.

What I Didn’t Like

Jean Marais seems to get a lot of praise for his dual-role performance, but I found him cheesy, one-dimensional, and not very creative in his portrayals of both Belle’s suitor Avenant and her captor, the Beast.  Granted, as the Beast, he does convey some of the anguish inherent in the character through his eyes and facial expressions, which are still easily seen thanks to the painstaking work of special effects designers.  However, his physical gestures and body language reminds one of a junior high school student trying to fumble his way through “Hamlet.”  And what does it say about an actor that his best work happens when there’s a mask over his face?

As a matter of fact, most of the male leads were disappointing; Michel Auclair and Marcel Andre don’t fair much better than Marais.  One could argue that he was a product of acting his time, but there were terrific actors in movies in the 1940s.  He just wasn’t one of them.

Most Memorable Scene

When Belle’s father first finds himself lost inside the Beast’s castle, we’re are transported from a fairly quaint reality into a convincing fantasy world in a manner not unlike “The Wizard of Oz” scene where Dorothy passes from black and white into color of Oz.  The castle scenes, like the rest of the movie, are entirely in black and white, but still dazzle the eyes with floating characters, disembodied arms, self-opening doors, living statues, and the constant presence of mist and smoke enveloping the characters in the same way the viewer in surrounded by a sense of mysterious splendor.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5