Month: April 2009

Note: This is #17 in my 52 Classic Movies in 52 Weeks challenge for 2009.

This was kind of an odd one. Sullivan’s Travels is a curious mixture of drama and comedy with the perplexing message of “Don’t try to make movies that honestly explore the human condition; just keep making comedies, you jackass.”

John Sullivan (played by Joel McCray) is a Hollywood director prized by his studio for being able to churn out commercially successful comedies. Sullivan, however, wants to make movies that examine big issues like poverty and class struggles despite the fact that he comes from a privileged background himself. When the studio execs talk him out of it by pointing out that his upbringing means he knows nothing of poverty or having to struggle to survive, Sullivan reluctantly agrees but gets the idea that he should compensate by living the life of a tramp until he feels he has suffered enough to understand poverty.

The studio execs can’t stop him, but plan to trail him to make sure that their hitmaker stays safe (with bumbling and amusing results that are incongruous with the entire spirit of the endeavor). Along the way Sullivan meets a girl (just “The Girl” according to the credits) who had been trying to break in to a Hollywood acting career but has failed and is heading home. The Girl (played by Veronica Lake, who was like SUPER hot I’m not kidding guys) buys Sullivan a meal even though she thinks he’s a tramp. When she learns about Sullivan’s true identity and social experiment, she decides to come along because she’s intrigued and finds Sullivan oddly compelling.

Like I said, the movie is a weird mix of drama and comedy, with slapstick car chases mixed in with almost maudlin moping and stark scenes of soup kitchens and homeless shelters. The acting and cinematography are both fine, if nothing particularly special or spectacular (it’s a pretty straight forward story). And Veronica Lake has great looks and charisma on screen. But all in all I found the whole thing kind of meh; it had a pretty good setup (even if it’s kind of cliche in 2009) but the direction they end up going with it just struck me as odd, especially considering how many great examinations of poverty and the poor followed –or preceded, like The Grapes of Wrath. Yes, comedies have great value to society, but Sullivan’s Travels seemed to go far beyond that and embrace a defeatist message: ignore poverty and social problems –look, here’s a funny cartoon dog! Hee hee!

Note: This is #16 in my 52 Classic Movies in 52 Weeks challenge for 2009.

The Maltese Falcon strikes me as another one of those classic movies that gets credit for stepping out and doing something for the first time, or at least being remembered most for it. It’s the prototypical example of “film noir” which I think is French for “everybody smokes, yanks their pants up to their arm pits, and talks really fast.” I wasn’t too enthralled with this one, but it was okay.

The plot of The Maltese Falcon is probably the most sophisticated and complicated one I’ve seen yet in this little experiment, but the gist is that private detective Sam Spade gets tangled up in several people’s competing attempts at finding the eponymous falcon, which is actually a small statue of great value. Spade (played by Humphrey Bogart) has to figure out what everyone’s angle is, who to trust, who to trick, and which one of them killed his partner. Things take a LOT of twists and turns, and the whole thing reads very much like the detective story it is.

While leaning towards the melodramatic at times (especially the scenes with the leading lady in them) the acting is pretty good, and Bogart has a certain smarmy charm as Sam Spade. You get the impression that this is a really smart AND tough guy, possessed of several shades of gray in the morality department and more than willing to play people off each other for his own gain. That makes for a refreshing change from all the romatic comedies I’ve been seeing lately. It was also hilarious to see him knock someone unconscious for hours at a time just by gently waving his knuckles in their general direction. The fight scenes, in other words, were pretty underwhelming.

If I have any real complaint about the movie it’s that the plot was difficult to follow, though admittedly that was probably by design. Maybe it’s more rewarding with repeat viewings. At any rate, it’s still worth watching as an early (and still prototypical to this day) example of the gritty detective story in film form. As I watched it I realized that like Citizen Kane, I was more familiar with The Maltese Falcon than I realized just by having seen so much of it in various parodies, tributes, and knock-offs.

Also this week, Paul reviews Grand Illusion (1937).

Note: This is #15 in my 52 Classic Movies in 52 Weeks challenge for 2009.

More romantic comedy, more Katharine Hepburn, more James Stewart, and more Cary Grant. The Philadelphia Story has one of the more complicated plots of its ilk that I’ve seen, telling the story of self-important socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn), who was divorced from her jerkface husband C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant) some time ago and is getting ready to marry a self-made man (John Howard). Lord guards her privacy closely, so a local gossip rag ropes writer/newspaperman Macaulay Connor (Stewart) and another photographer into infiltrating Lord’s wedding day with her ex-husband’s help. Along the way people fall in love, out of love, and so forth. Yeah.

So the plot is a little silly and not particularly sparkling, but there are a few funny moments and some really great performances. I think, in fact, I’m beginning to understand the appeal of Katharine Hepburn. I’ve never found her sexy or attractive AT ALL, so not having seen her in movies I was a bit at a loss for understanding the reason for her appeal. Turns out, it’s the obvious one: she’s fun to watch on screen. She’s got a certain type of charisma and presence up there, and it’s easy to get carried away with whatever act she’s putting on.

Cary Grant also puts on a good show as reformed jerk C.K. Dexter Haven, and his character probably has the most depth out of any of the cast –though that’s not necessarily saying much. I was kind of disappointed with James Stuart’s performance, though. Maybe it’s because I just saw him in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but he seems to have this unique cadence to his deliveries and a limited set of mannerisms that make me think he’s always going to make me think “That’s James Stweart. He’s pretending to be someone else, but he’s not fooling me.” It’s kind of like Morgan Freeman. When I see him in the credits of any movie my brain always sees “and Morgan Freeman as …Morgan Freeman …playing some guy.”

So, not a bad movie, but I’d definitely place it in the middle of the pack of what I’ve seen so far.

Also this week, Jeremy reviewed Milk

.

Note: This is #14 in my 52 Classic Movies in 52 Weeks challenge for 2009.

Having grown up in Oklahoma, I’m familiar with the story of The Grapes of Wrath. It’s the law. I’d also read the book by John Steinbeck upon which this movie is based, and was surprised to find out the ways that the movie both differs and stays true to the source material.

Like the book, the movie tells the story of the Joads, a family that sets off to California in search of honest work and a better life after being kicked off their farm in Oklahoma. They make an arduous and occasionally deadly trip across the country in a beat up and overburdened truck, led by wayward son and ex-convict Tom Joad (played by Henry Fonda) and accompanied by a former pastor named Jim Casey. The Joads are beaten down and full of despair over losing their home and livelihood to the big banks that technically own their land, but they are optimistic about what awaits them.

When they get there, however, they just find more business owners who are willing –even eager– to take advantage of them, paying them a pitiful wage for picking fruit that’s not even sufficient to live on, much less prosper. There’s some labor union rabble rousing, some tragedy, and lots more hardships. Interestingly, the tone of the movie takes a sharp detour from the book about 3/4 of the way through, when the Joads encounter a government-sponsored labor community (shades of Socialism here, interestingly) where they have everything from fair wages to toilets to people looking out for each other. Suffice to say that the movie ends in a MUCH more upbeat tone than the book, which basically just shrugged its figurative shoulders and made you feel that the Jodes and everyone like them was hopelessly screwed. Which was probably closer to the truth historically and I thought made for a much more powerful story.

The movie had a lot of other great stuff going for it, though. Henry Fonda was fantastic as Tom Joad, for example. He gave the kind of smooth, believable performance (for which he won an Oscar) that makes you forget that you’re watching an actor and really gets you to buy into the character. John Carradine was also great as ex-pastor turned union organizer Jim Casy, I should also mention. And the cinematography, was fantastic. It strikes me that this is the kind of bleak movie that’s actually better shot in black and white given the way that they made use of such stark lighting and contrasts. To give it color would somehow be untrue to the spirit.

So, I liked the book better for various reasons, but this was a great movie.

Note: This is #13 in my 52 Classic Movies in 52 Weeks challenge for 2009.

Well, here’s a movie that has aged …oddly. When the governor of an unnamed state has to appoint a successor for one of his state’s deceased U.S. senators, he refuses to listen to his corrupt political boss. Instead he picks Jefferson Smith (played by James Stewart) on the recommendation of his sons, who are enamored with Smith because of his qualities as a troop leader in the Boy Rangers. Smith is as ideological and patriotic as they come, but his qualifications for the job are pretty much limited to folksy charm and innocence, so when he hits Washington D.C. he’s quickly eaten alive by the press and his fellow senators, several of whom are quite corrupt.

Without giving away too much of the plot, what ensues is some severe soul searching and Lincoln gazing on the part of the embattled Senator Smith and a David vs. Goliath showdown on the Senate floor as Smith tries to simultaneously defend his own character and make a plea for the sanctity of the U.S. Senate and democracy in general.

I can see how Mr. Smith was controversial when it came out, casting aspersions as it does on the Senate and basically accusing it of wallowing in corruption. The thing is, though, that in an era of unjust wars, sexual harassment, state sponsored torture, embezzlement, theft, blackmail, CIA agent outing, and the like, the stuff that Mr. Smith’s adversaries are accused of seems downright quaint. Nowadays a U.S. Senator could probably murder a box of orphan kittens on C-SPAN live, and most people would probably just shrug. So there’s a disconnect there, for better or worse (my money is on “worse”).

It doesn’t help that Stewart and the other actors lay on the cheese pretty thickly, with hand wringing, misty eyed appeals to patriotism, vague praise for ideals, oversimplification of complex issues, and plenty of platitudes starting with “aw, shucks ma’m.” But in the end it’s hard not to enjoy a story about the little guy triumphing over the big, bad guys, and part of us will always want to believe in someone like Jefferson Smith. Plus, while some of the supporting actors give stiff performances, Stuart is nothing if not watchable in his role, and it’s the kind of movie that just glides by. Trailer of sorts below.

Also this week, Jeremy reviewed Twilight and Role Models.