The Great Moment (Preston Sturges, 1944)

The Great Moment was the last of the Preston Sturges Universal run, and it was the film that managed to sink his career when he was on a high. There were fights with the studio, the film was shelved for quite a while, and it ruined Sturges reputation. It’s very sad, but also easy to see why, as the film is really poor, especially compared to his previous outings. It has much of the cast that Sturges used, but the film itself is structured very poorly and the story is mediocre, despite having some potential. The acting is from ok to just bad, and the characterization is poor.

The story is based on the real story of a dentist who discovers and invents anesthesia, but suffers because of it. It’s an interesting premise, where the dentist, Morton, is in some quarters lauded and praised for his discovery, while others criticize and ridicule him, either because they are jealous or because they somehow took part in the discovery and want to be part of the claim. In the end it ends very badly for Morton, as he loses everything. I shouldn’t say “by the end”, because this is how the film starts, showing us the fall from grace that he suffered, before flashing back in time to show how this came to be in the first place. The problem is that the story is told in a very tedious way, it’s actually very boring. A lot of the drama falls flat because of Joel McCrea, who while suited for Sturges comedy, doesn’t really work here. Sturges doesn’t handle the dramatics as well as one would think he could, and the structure of the film seems very muddled. Actually it’s almost ironic considering the premonition Sturges himself made in Sullivan’s Travels. Apparently this film was going to be his greatest, but it turned out so badly. One could say that the studio destroyed something as well, but there are little signs in this film of any real potential. As I said, the story has some potential but the execution is very bad.

Another problem with this “drama” is that there are indeed some comedic moments, but they really and truly fall flat and are unfunny. Because of the tone and the style of the film, the comedic just seems silly, particularly one painful slap-stick moment which is completely out of sync with the rest of the film. It seems that Sturges could make comedies with drama, but not dramas with comedy. The character progression is very sub-par compared to how Sturges works his characters in his other films, and overall I felt the film lacked the Sturges “touch”. The film is one very few would watch if it wasn’t for the fact that it was made by Sturges. The only real significance the film has is as some sort of historic document. Anyone interested in Sturges from a historical studies viewpoint should watch the film, as it is quite an astounding fall from grace. Other than being of historic interest, any regular viewer should avoid this film, and rather watch Sturges’ excellent comedy run for Universal, as these films offer so much more than The Great Moment.

The Great Moment isn’t completely BAD, it just is very mediocre. It has very little to offer in terms of comedy, drama, satire or entertainment. It’s sad that Sturges ended his Universal career like this, and while he made a few films afterwards, he never quite recovered from this bomb. Strange how a career can so quickly loop downwards.

Hail the Conquering Hero (Preston Sturges, 1944)

I think that perhaps Hail the Conquering Hero is Sturges’ funniest movie, at least of the ones that I’ve seen. It’s a brilliant exercise of panicky slap-stick comedy and stinging satire. Like all his films, it’s satirical about America, but this time it focuses on hero worshiping and the illusion of heroism, as a small town is caught in the rage of celebrating their local hero. It’s about being caught in madness and hype, something that is still relevant in today’s world.

Woodrow is our protagonist and he is depressed. He’s hanging out at bars and drinking because he can’t go back home. The reason for this is that a year ago he signed up to join the Marines, only to be rejected because he has hay fewer. His father was a Marine and killed in the war when Woodrow was just an infant, and he doesn’t dare return to the shame of not having lived up to his father’s memory, so he pretends that he did join the Marines and sends his mother letters where he lies about it. One night he meets up with a group of real Marines who have leave. However, they are all broke and don’t quite know what to do with their time. However one of them is fixated on mothers because he never had one, and is infuriated at Woodrow for not having gone back to his yet. So the Marines get an idea; how about lending Woodrow one of their uniforms and going back with him pretending he was in the war, but released because of an injury. Perfect! So they all take him back to his small hometown. This is of course against his own will, as Woodrow sees the many faults that this plan could have, but they drag him along anyway. This is one of the comedic highlights of the films, and Eddie Bracken is perfect as the mumbling and unwilling Woodrow, who is extremely upset about the situation and fears being found out. However they assure him that they will be as discreet as possible, and only visit his mother for a few days, then leave.

Of course, it doesn’t quite work out like that. One of the funniest scenes is when the train Woodrow and his Marine pals are approaching the station, and the whole town has turned up, with banners and four different bands nonetheless. Mass hysteria hits the town as they want to greet their homecoming hero, including the mayor being ready with a speech and the key to the city. Woodrow’s old flame is also there, although she is engaged to another man, as Woodrow in one of his letters lied about being in love with someone else, and urging her to move on. What makes this film so funny is the juxtaposition of Woodrow’s reluctance and fear with the hysteria of the townspeople, creating many great situations. It doesn’t get any better, as soon some serious political figures in the town start thinking that Woodrow with his “charisma” and “heroism” would make a great new major, as the election is just a few days away. And Woodrow just gets dragged in deeper and deeper. Having been made during the Second World War, Sturges is quite brave to hit this particular nerve for satire. It’s a testament to how independent and sharp Sturges had become, and the film captures the American idyllic hero worshiping at its worst, clearly unraveling how ridiculous this had become by that time. It poked fun at something very central, and I would imagine hadn’t it been for the excellent humor this film would have been seen in a much more critical and controversial light. But what’s great about Sturges’ comedy is that it doesn’t take away from the satire, but strongly adds to it.

Hail the Conquering Hero is a very, very funny film. It hits all the right notes and also works extremely well as a satire of Americana, which becomes even funnier and clearer today. It’s a testament to the strength of Sturges’ filmmaking that his films manage to stay so fresh and the issues they deal with are still relevant, even more so, today. But he captured a particular spirit of the time, and for that, we should hail him.

The Palm Beach Story (Preston Sturges, 1942)

Now here’s an interesting little film that Preston Sturges made. It’s a romantic comedy/screwball comedy, but in a very impressive way, as it almost works as a commentary on the genre, and it certainly shows the depth and talent of Sturges. In many ways I find it the most fascinating of Sturges’ films, although it’s not among his best, certainly not The Lady Eve and Sullivan’s Travels. Still, it’s an essential part of the Sturges canon, and a fascinating little film that should be studied.

The story is fairly simple: Gerry and Tom are married, but poor. Tom has a brilliant idea that could make him rich, but he needs a load of cash to get the project underway. So Gerry decides to divorce Tom so that she can marry a rich man and get him the money. It’s a fascinating idea where two people are getting divorced, not out of hate, but out of love. Of course Tom isn’t too thrilled about the idea and tries to stop her. Gerry figures out that she has to go to Palm Beach to get the divorce, so a sort of a chase is on. He says she can never get there without any money, but she thinks she can. There’s a great scene where she wants to get on a train to Palm Beach, and does so by flirting with the gatekeeper and some of the passengers, and gets her own room for the trip, while Tom gets chased out of the train station by the guards as she says he “wants to molest me”. Hilarious. While overall not Sturges’ funniest film, it does have one of the funniest moments in any Sturges film, although it is somewhat controversial, at least it seems so from the comments on IMDb. Gerry gets lodging with a bunch of rich gun & hunting enthusiasts, and during the evening when they are getting quite drunk, things get out of hand and they grab their guns and start shooting wildly; inside the carriage! Besides being truly funny, it’s also an interesting early criticism of the liberal gun laws in the US.

On the way to Palm Beach Gerry meets a shy millionaire, who of course falls in love with her. She takes advantage and accepts his proposal to stay with him for a while at his house in Palm Beach. But when they arrive there Tom has gotten ahead of her and is waiting, where she presents him as her brother. Another character who joins the fold is the “loose” Princess Centimillia, who immediately falls for Tom. She is played by Mary Astor, who is without a doubt the funniest person in the film, she is simply wonderful. It all opens up for a funny and interesting final act. One thing I should mention is that this film has one of the truly most bizarre endings I’ve ever seen. I won’t spoil the ending, but I will say that it’s connected to the equally bizarre opening, which at first seems to have little connection to the film itself. It’s one of the things that make the film really interesting. There are a lot of set pieces and characters that are hilarious in this movie that I haven’t mentioned yet, but it all goes to show how much Preston Sturges’ films have to offer. What he does so wonderfully with his central cast of characters that he uses over and over again is that he adds a lot of flavor to his films, every minor character has something funny to say or has some small quirk, and this is one of the things that make his films remarkable and funny. I will say that Joel McCrea is really underrated in Sturges’ films. He may not have the greatest dramatic range, but his dead pan seriousness is perfect for the kind of comedy that Sturges works with, and the two are a perfect match.

The Palm Beach Story is fascinating in its own rights, and truly an interesting and unique film in the works of Preston Sturges. I feel that even though all of Preston Sturges’ films have something in common, they all also have their own unique identities and themes that separate them. That’s what’s impressive about Sturges, is that although he has his own unique style, he also managed to make several interesting films without repeating the trick, and instead incorporated his style into several very different films, as well as use the cast over and over again without anyone seeming tired or boring.

Sullivan’s Travels (Preston Sturges, 1941)

Sullivan’s Travels is perhaps Sturges most accomplished film, it’s a meta-film like Sunset Boulevard but more like 8 ½. It’s also one of Sturges’ most engaging and funny films, with an excellent script and the wonderful cast that he used several times and of course the wonderful Veronica Lake. It is in a way strangely structured but it works really well for the overall theme and story of the film.

The story mirrors Preston Sturges own life. The story follows a very successful director who is tired of making comedy hits, and instead wants to make a film that is more important, that makes a grand statement about the human condition, and that can educated the public. His producers aren’t too happy about this and try to persuade him it’s a bad idea. They tell him that he can’t make such a film, because he doesn’t know what it’s like to be part of the downtrodden and poor, and he only knows his own life. The director, Sullivan, agrees with this and thus decides to go out and live like a hobo for as long as necessary, again infuriating his producers, but Sullivan now has his mind set on going. So begins Sullivan’s travels, where he dresses up like a hobo (or what he perceives to be a hobo) and tries to live with the poor. However it turns out to be more difficult than he imagined, as he always ends up back in Hollywood and back at his huge mansion. Early on he meets a failed actress at a diner, the character played by Veronica Lake, and his directorial senses kick in, as he sees something in her, while she just assumes he’s a hobo. However he can’t really hide who he is, and she soon finds out who he really is and decides to go on his little adventure along with him.

What follows is a series of events where the two set out, but eventually end up back in comfort each time, failing to in any significant way to learn to live like the poor. But Sullivan is set on his goal, and the two keep on trying. I won’t reveal anymore of the story, as there are some excellent twists and turns to come later. The film is hilarious, working with slap-stick, brilliant dialogue and situations. There’s particularly an early sequence where Sullivan tries to evade a trailer that is following him everywhere (on the studio’s orders), and what follows is a riotous chase scene, where the trailer takes some significant damage. The dialogue is extremely sharp and witty, perhaps not to the same level as The Lady Eve, but it’s still excellent, and very funny. Even the opening scene where Sullivan discusses his art with the two buffoon producers is an early indication of what we’re about to get. As a reflection on Sturges and Hollywood itself, the film works as a really neat look into Hollywood of the time, and also what Sturges felt Hollywood was all about and why he did what he did. More so than any of Sturges’ film, Sullivan’s Travels really showcased why Sturges was such a unique filmmaker of his time.

Sullivan’s Travels, along with The Lady Eve, is the very best of what Sturges oeuvre had to offer. In terms of structure and creating a Meta universe Sullivan’s Travels is easily Sturges most impressive and interesting. The character arc particularly is very fascinating and shows how the director comes to realize what his craft and art is all about, and I wonder if Sturges used this film himself as therapy to his own art.

Christmas in July (Preston Sturges, 1940)

Christmas in July is another Preston Sturges comedy which also at times poses as a drama. It’s again a simple but heart-warming story, filled with wit and satire. It’s probably one of Sturges’ simplest films, and thus probably one of his least impressive. Still, it’s a neat little film which is really worth watching.

Jimmy MacDonald is a simple worker, who has a wonderful girlfriend, but he doesn’t have too much money and he dreams of bigger things. There is a competition from a coffee corporation where the person who comes up with the best commercial slogan wins a cash price of $50 000. So of course he wants it badly. However, the jury is stuck on their decision, and the announcement of the winner is postponed. Meanwhile, some of his working chumps decide to play a trick on him. They write a letter saying he is the winner of the big cash price, and he is easily fooled by this. What ensues is a chaos of misunderstandings and dramatic irony. The comedy works superbly on many levels. Few people in the film except the audience know what is really going on, making most of the cast look quite foolish. But we also worry about the protagonist, seeing the inevitable crushing disappointment when he eventually finds out it was all a big joke. We feel bad for the protagonist when he thinks he has won a huge cash price and goes nuts, but at the same time we can’t help but laugh at the predicament.

The film is also satirical, poking fun at American hysteria of the time and the search for wealth that is so predominant in the American psyche. But there is also a strong ring of truth in the film, and all the characters seem like real people with real goals, and not just caricatures. In the film’s most hilarious moments they might seem like such, but in the end these are deeply true issues, at least for the times. There are fun moments such as when the protagonist and his girlfriend goes on a shopping spree with his new earned money, or the quarrels between the upper stairs coffee corporation bureaucrats. The film ends on a somewhat ambiguous note, where the film shows us that we shouldn’t get our hopes up too much, but at the same time there is hope. I guess the theme of the film is that you shouldn’t put your hopes too much on a lottery, but trust your own skills and instincts to make something of yourself. It’s not bleak, but more of a cautionary tale.

I enjoyed Christmas in July, it’s a funny film that can bring your spirit up without being a complete feel good happy sell out. At its core it’s a frightening realistic film with some harsh truths about the world, but most importantly, it’s a very funny comedy with some great performances.

The Great McGinty (Preston Sturges, 1940)

The Great McGinty was the first of a series of films written and directed by Preston Sturges for Universal. After having written several successful films, Sturges managed to convince the studio to let him be Writer/Director on his next picture, something almost unheard of during that time in Hollywood. Sturges great run of films for Universal only ran for about four year, but in that time he carved an excellent body of work for which he is still fondly remembered today. Sturges had a lot of control over his own projects, and was able to create his own storytelling technique and personal stamp. The Great McGinty was the first in these series of films.

The story concerns Dan McGinty, a tough bum who lives on the streets, with only his name and no money. The film covers an impressive amount of time, where McGinty rises from bum to the Governor of the state, grabbing opportunities that comes him by. The film is essentially a political satire and comedy, showing how much of the inner workings of politics work. McGinty is played by Brian Donlevy, who does an excellent job. At first he seems like a fairly one-sided character, but as the film progresses so does the protagonist, and by the end he is almost unrecognizable from the person he was in the beginning, it’s a great character arc. What the film and its director do very well is creating a very engaging story that develops efficiently, and a main character through his brutal honesty is very easy to root for. There’s also a love interest, of course, but it doesn’t start quite like that. Initially the two are married in a scam marriage so McGinty can portray himself as a family man to the public, but as the story progresses they both start to fall in love with each other, although McGinty struggles at first to realize this, as he has to soften his tough exterior.

While McGinty grabs every opportunity he gets, he is not in control. He answers to the local mob boss, simply referred to as The Boss. They’re relationship is interesting, as they both hate each other from start to finish, yet both need each other to succeed. It’s both a humorous and volatile relationship. McGinty doesn’t have any moral compass or fears doing anything that might be considered wrong, but throughout the film he starts to build up a conscience, with no little influence from his wife. As a politician he is very much a man who impresses with big projects, but doesn’t really care for “the little guy”. However he soon starts to see the errors of his ways. For a film that is less than 80 minutes, the film really has an epic time span and character arc that really convincingly transforms the character. It’s really fascinating to see the journey that McGinty goes through, and the film arrives at a satisfactory, although not particularly happy, ending. Sturges visual style is simple but effective, and it is impressive how quickly and effectively he manages to tell the story.

The Great McGinty is an excellent first effort from Sturges as a writer/director. The story is simple yet epic. The characters are interesting and the humor is spot on. It’s a great political satire akin to Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but with less sentimentality and more sting. It also boasts some of the ensemble cast that would become a standard fare in all of Preston Sturges films.

All I Desire (Douglas Sirk, 1953)

This was a weird one, neat though, but I felt that some of the narrative structure was confused, and the film meandered between the poignant and the weak story-plot. Actually, this film doesn’t have any specific outstanding qualities, but still, it isn’t too bad, it’s just good, but not particularly so. It is actually a bit hard to explain, there are a lot of shifting emotions in this film, but it never really worked, truly.

Usually, I bash colour and praise black and white cinematography. But when it comes to Douglas Sirk, I prefer his colour films, because they usually are aesthetically beautiful and the cinematography has some real depth. This film is in black and white, and while the cinematography looks quite good, I do wish this was in colour rather than in black and white, because I know it would have added some great quality to the film. On the story itself, it has a lot of quality and possible depth, but I felt a lot of it was too unexplored. A middle-aged burlesque dance returns to her home town, a little village in the outskirts of America, where she has left her children and husband. Of course, this brings a lot of emotions and her past back to her, and she has to face up to what she escaped from. I was disappointed, because the message of the film seems to be that the small town life is better than the life of the city, which I am a bit opposed to, although the film has its share of criticism on the hypocrisy of these small towns. Of course, it can be read that the film rather says that the most important thing is unity and family, but then again, it is overshadowed and left somewhat open, which I don’t think is the best thing for this film.

The film escapes complexity, which is quite disappointing, but it does remain poignant and is a good case of an early Sirk melodrama. Within this context there is a lot that works in the film, and Sirk manages to get quite a bit of emotions out of the narrative, particularly towards the end of the movie. What I guess I am missing is a bit of that cutting edge such as in All That Heaven Allows, as well as the awesome use of colour that he now is famous for. In many ways, Sirk is very easy to compare to Max Ophüls, much because of their similar background and reasoning for coming to Hollywood. But while Ophüls was a maestro of the moving camera, Douglas Sirk was the master of the colour. Both have wonderful cinematography with depth almost untouchable, but while Ophüls films are absolutely stunning in black and white, this works somewhat against Sirk, and especially in this. You can still tell he is an excellent storyteller from the camerawork that he utilizes here, but it is quite limited and I wish I was rather watching a Sirk film in colour. Still, though, it all works well, and while there seems to be some lacking narrative, the emotions of the characters are well developed and manage to convey exactly what is going on within the characters.

Perhaps not the extravaganza that other Sirk melodrama’s are, this film still works on an emotional level, and one wouldn’t be ill-advised to watch it. However, maybe not the essential Sirk film, and while it was more serious in tone and had more developed themes, I still enjoyed Has Anyone Seen My Gal? quite a bit more.

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (Douglas Sirk, 1952)

Now I’m going to start a run of reviews, six to be exact, on films by Douglas Sirk. I have a box with seven of his films; the only one I had seen was All That Heaven Allows. Recently, I watched all remaining six films within a single day, to say the least, I was hooked. I watched them chronologically; the first one in line was Has Anybody Seen My Gal?

This film is a bit different from the normal films that Sirk made. It is not a melodrama, but rather a light screwball comedy. The usual extravagant cinematography that we usually find in his film is neither present, so a lot of what has made Sirk famous is not featured in this film. So, it isn’t the treat that Sirk usually serves us, but, actually, it is still quite worthwhile watching. It is a very charming little story and enjoyable to watch. What is more, I could sense the early development of Sirk’s own use of self-referential subtext and subtle sarcasm, which is also one of his trademarks. An old man who is rich and bitter and dying, decides to go visit the family of his old flame, who chose to marry someone else over him. Since he has no family, he is contemplating giving them his money when he dies, but he first has to check them out to see if they are worthy, and he does so in secret, saying he is a lodger and living with them. He then sends them a check worth quite a lot of money, but not close to the amount they might receive in inheritance, but substantial enough so he can observe how they react and how they spend the money. And so the narrative goes on from this point.

Essentially, this is a comedy, but it does carry a subtext and message. There are also, actually, some musical numbers, although the film cannot be called a musical. These musical numbers are quite interesting and funny as well. In the first one, teenagers are dancing and singing, as if in a musical. The grumpy old man comes to the scene, and starts complaining about the singing. Although not as strong as in later films, this film does have a specific self-awareness, which is one of the things I like most about the directors Douglas Sirk and Max Ophüls Hollywood output. It does add another level of meaning and deeper context to the films, and they also manage to stay startlingly fresh compared to many other genre films of the times. Still, this film doesn’t emulate that same sense of depth, although it does point towards such moments at various times. There is also the anti-materialistic attitude there that Sirk would come back to later, as well as exploring the life and morals of the upper-class. In of itself, the film is quite enjoyable, the humour is funny and broad, the actors are wonderful, particularly the lead, played very well by Charles Coburn as the aging millionaire. The film doesn’t dwell deeply on its issues, but it does touch upon them, and therefore manages to remain somewhat more interesting than it contemporaries.

A funny and enjoyable film in its own right, this is perhaps not exactly the height of Douglas Sirk, but it did lure me softly into watching the rest of his films, although it didn’t prepare me for the rest. It is perhaps a bit mean to say that this is the worst film I’ve seen by Douglas Sirk, and it is, but it is still very enjoyable and I would say worth a watch. Douglas Sirk shows early signal of some quite interesting subversive directing that few in Hollywood could match, or indeed understand.

To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955)

This one I hadn’t heard much about, which was strange because it is from the period when Hitchcock was at his very best and it stars two of the most famous actors of the time, Grace Kelly and Cary Grant. Then I watched, and I was still confused, because it actually wasn’t that bad, indeed, it was quite good, and I’m surprised this doesn’t get mentioned more often.

Cary Grant is a retired jewel thief, but when someone starts stealing jewels in the same manner as he used to, and the police suspect him, he has to take action and catch the thief. So it’s the standard wrong man accused story, which, I guess, is nothing special by now, and Hitchcock certainly did it better in North by Northwest. What is a bit unfortunate, though, is that what I remember best about this film is its setting, which isn’t always a good thing. It is set in the South of France during summer, and it does look beautiful indeed. The film is an extravaganza in set and costume design, and I felt that these elements took a bit too much of the spotlight for the film to work strongly as a narrative. It is a fun film to watch though, and while not as clever as most Hitchcock films, it certainly is entertaining. The colour cinematography is beautiful, and the setting puts us right in the mood of the moment, although I did wish I was actually there, rather than watching the film. I did think Cary Grant was a bit unconvincing as the retired jewel thief, I always thought that when he acted in serious films that he was better as a slick guy like in Notorious, rather than some roof climbing burglar. Grace Kelly is at her most beautiful best, and really illuminates the film with her presence. Sadly, it would be her last with Hitchcock.

The film, despite its obvious lack of subtlety or depth, is still a lot of fun, much owing to the humorous tone it keeps throughout the narrative, with a particularly deflating and funny ending line. While Cary Grant isn’t convincing in the role itself, he does have the natural charisma and acting skills to be enjoyable to watch, although it really isn’t a performance to be remembered as his best. Grace Kelly is better, then, putting a lot of energy into her role and generally adding a bit of spice to the film. There are some great cinematic moments, particularly the ecstatic kissing scene between Grace Kelly and Cary Grant during the fireworks. The film is more slick than clever, and it was a big hit in its time, which makes sense to me. It also has a lot of the usual Hitchcock moments and quirks, so it avoids being just another Hollywood film and a quintessential Hitchcock film, although not a particularly strong one. The flair is there, it just isn’t as deep or profound as Hitchcock usually does it. What is good, though, is that the film emulates a sense of enjoyment. While it probably wasn’t his most committed effort, I am pretty damn sure he had a fun time making this film, and I did have a fun time watching it. I am still surprised that it hasn’t received that much recognition amongst the fans, even though it isn’t as good as his best efforts; it is still a good and enjoyable film. Maybe it was just quietly forgotten, I don’t know really.

Not fantastic, but not bad at all. Very enjoyable to watch, and while it might not give me the same amount of excitation as I usually get from watching Hitchcock films, it still managed to keep me interested, and the beautiful setting, as well as Grace Kelly, kept me interested and intrigued throughout the course of the narrative.

Stalag 17 (Billy Wilder, 1953)

Stalag 17 is another film by Billy Wilder which was made just two years after Ace in the Hole. Strangely, though, the film has a vastly different feel and atmosphere to it than Ace in the Hole. It is on a much lighter note, and can be billed almost as a comedy. This actually is quite perplexing, as this film is set in a Nazi POW camp during the Second World War. But hey, this is another genius stroke from Wilder, as the film mixes dark drama with light humour to great effect, and creates a film that is visually intriguing and always keeps the audience interested in the story.

The film follows a group of sergeants who live together in a barracks in the POW camp. They always attempt to scheme their way out of the camp, but whatever they try, the German guards are always a step ahead, thwarting all of their attempts. So, of course, they realize that someone amidst their group has to be selling the information to the Germans. The man everyone suspects is the cynical loner J.J. Sefton, played by William Holden with gusto. While the narrative then unfolds with this as its pretext, there is a lot more to this film than just the narrative. It is also a slice of life of the prisoners, and this area of the film is the comedy part. The interaction between the prisoners and the Germans are priceless, especially the way they know each other exactly. The Germans know that the Americans are trying to escape, and the Americans openly admit so, and in a way it becomes a compromise between the two factions. One of the best things about Billy Wilder films is how they blend humour and drama. I thought this worked at its very best in The Apartment, but it works very well here also. The comedy is a bit broader, and the contrast is a bit stronger, but it still works wonders, my favourite parts where the Sergeant nicknamed Animal’s obsession with Betty Grable throughout the film.

I thing the humour has a very important role in this film. The prisoners are constantly depressed about their situation and the meagre living conditions, but the humour keeps the spirit up, otherwise the film might have been too dark. So, in many ways, the film offers some of the best from two different worlds: wonderful broad humour and some wonderful visual storytelling when the William Holden character tries to find out who the traitor is. The films’ ending is also properly thrilling and satisfying. William Holden is great as the cynical outsider, trying to do the best with the situation he is stuck in. Like the films tone, the cinematography drifts between the light and the gritty, and some of the shots of William Holden contemplating look great, capturing his isolated nature perfectly and creating a sense of paranoia around him. Some might suggest that the mixture of World War Two and broad humour might be a tad bit tacky, but I don’t think so. It is simply a working-through, a way to handle the situation they are in psychologically. The film also handles it subject with a sense of grace and the respect it deserves, so it avoids just being stupid, a trap too many films fall into, especially today (e.g. Saving Private Ryan). But what this film has, which is featured in the best of Wilder’s films, is a penetrating gaze at the human subject and condition, vindicating our very nature and yet having a laugh at it.

Great film, again, from Billy Wilder. Not his best, but that is quite hard to achieve, and this stands as a wonderful classic of that great age of cinema. The casting is almost always perfect in Wilder films, and this is no different, with special remarks to William Holden’s performance, as well as the visual narrative parts and the slapstick parts. Wonderful experience.

Ace in the Hole (Billy Wilder, 1951)

Billy Wilder is perhaps one of the very best classic Hollywood directors, known for his stylistic dialogue and clever plots. His films are also darker than the usual thing you’ll find in Hollywood, particularly his film Sunset Blvd. I discovered this film when I found out that it was available as a criterion release, and even though I didn’t know much about it, I had to have it. It also stars one of my favourite actors of the era, Kirk Douglas, who I recently saw in Out of the Past and he was brilliant in Paths of Glory.

In this film, Kirk Douglas plays a reporter who is on the low point of his career, and seeks a job as a writer for a small newspaper in a town in the outskirts. Hoping to get his breaking story, he idly waits for it at his new job. A whole year goes by, with nothing spectacular happening and nothing relevant to report, he starts to grow frustrated. One day, on a mission for the newspaper, he comes by an old mine where a man is trapped deep down. He sees an opportunity for a human interests scoop, and quickly starts capitalizing on the emotions of the reader, and starts the rescue of the man. The rest of the film details how the protagonist, Tatum, covers the story and his control of all the events surrounding it. I think this film is perhaps Kirk Douglas’ best performance, even better than in Paths of Glory. He is a cynical business man type, who knows everything about the workings of news and how to utilize the media to its fullest. This is also, actually, one of Billy Wilder’s best efforts, the black and white cinematography of the barren desert is fantastic, and the way he continues to drive the narrative forward is excellent. But also, the film is very different from anything I have seen from Hollywood, it stands as a strong contrast to the classic story, and takes its own unique path, something that makes it one of the films of the time that stands out.

The film is a scathing indictment of the media and its potential to trick people and capitalize on their emotions. For its time, it is truly innovative, and it is kind of scary to see that it actually is worse today than before. The place where the man gets trapped becomes a tourist attraction, and Tatum’s handling of the situation is as brilliant as it is frightening. As the tourist attraction grows, the circus also comes, and it creates a great symbol for the media and the press. This is probably Billy Wilder’s darkest and most negative film, showing the greed of Tatum manifest itself in the community and people that he influences. Particularly the wife of the guy stuck in the mine is a very negative character, and unlike most Hollywood films of the time, here there is no redemption. There is a bit of subtle humour in there as well, and the film does work as a comedy in much the same manner as say Dr. Strangelove, but this is actually darker and more sinister. It is a film that is angry, and it sneers at humanity, as well as aptly point out our mistakes and foils. That is why, for me, the film left a strong emotional impact, and stands above most of Hollywood of the time. Its intelligence, the wry and sharp script, and the great performance by Kirk Douglas makes this film stand a whole bunch above the rest of the crop.

One of the finest by Billy Wilder, this might though not be for everyone’s tastes as it is a much more dark and sarcastic film than most from the time, and people who just want to be nostalgic or have a good laugh with a Hollywood classic might not like this film for its grittiness. However, I can do nothing but heap praise on this film, as it stands out as one of the finest of its time period, and in fact, it hasn’t aged in the slightest.

Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947)

This is it, the classic of classics, one of the defining films of the noir genre, Out of the Past brought Robert Mitchum to fame and brought about the noir genre, dark thrillers where people smoked ridiculous amounts of cigarettes and the femme fatale characters started to come to fruition. Out of the Past doesn’t disappoint as a classic, and reeks wonderfully of dark atmosphere, complicated plot and cynicism.

The film has the archetypal protagonist, a tough talking who is in trouble of some sorts, as well as the two love interests, the nice blonde girl and the femme fatale. Although I haven’t seen any films with Robert Mitchum before, his fame preceded him and I knew quite a bit about him before I saw this. He is, of course, perfect for the role, and helps create the atmosphere of the film. But my favourite character, though, is the villain, played by Kirk Douglas. He is perfect as the sly gentleman like villain who seems as if he will stop at nothing, and while he doesn’t really do much himself, one can always feel his pressing invisible presence, and creates a great role of paranoia and fear. The gritty cinematography is iconic, and it creates a very dense atmosphere that shows the viewer the situation that the character is in. While the protagonist is no saint, he is still very much a character one can identify with, or rather, warm to. This is one of my favourite aspects of the noir genre, because the heroes are usually anti-heroes, and therefore creates an interesting conflict into the persona of the character, very different from the normal Hollywood film of the time. These films explore more deeply the darker side of human nature, and in many ways are more interesting for their somewhat different character development, which rockets their characters through some though struggles.

The ending of the film is also great, and the whole film truly spends a lot of time exploring Mitchum’s character. The ending brings it all together and consolidates his character within a frame, giving us the whole picture of what he and the film were about. I usually find noir films very satisfying to watch, and this was no different. I do love the noir genre, and it therefore becomes quite hard to criticize it. Because Out of the Past is the archetype for noir film, it is really hard to criticize it without criticizing the noir genre. In this way, one could say that Out of the Past is the perfect noir, for better or worse. I might be quite biased here, because of my interest in the noir genre; I also love the look 40’s, which creates a certain nostalgic feeling in me. Not that I ever lived in the 40’s, but I still yearn to, everything about that era is amazing. Well, except the war an all that... Anyway, I’ve seen quite a few noir films, but I think this might be the most impressive of them all, because of the great atmosphere, the plot, and of course the great performances from Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas. The mix of the innocent town setting and the dark cityscape is also very intriguing, and creates some very nice contrasts, which has big significance on the characters psyche.

If you want to get into noir, this is perhaps the essential place to start. Everything about this film screams style and class, and it is an archetype for what the noir genre would become known for, particularly the femme fatale character is great, and adds a lot of conflicting emotions in the protagonist. Also see it for Kirk Douglas’ performance.

Arsenic and Old Lace (Frank Capra, 1944)

So, after two fairly disappointing outputs by Capra, I watched this comedy classic, and what a laugh it turned out to be. It is based on a famous play by the same name, but I wasn’t familiar with the story, so I didn’t know what I was in for. Safe to say, this was probably one of the sharpest and funniest comedies I have seen from Capra or classic Hollywood even.

So, I’m not going to bother with spoiling too much of the story, as it is quite a joy to watch unfold and therefore I could ruin anyone’s potential viewing of the film. The protagonist is Cary Grant, and he is hilarious in this. The film uses a lot of physical and slapstick humour, and this works well with Cary Grant’s range, which allows him to go to ridiculous lengths to be funny, but never enough over the top to make it idiotic, and that’s quite a skill. The whole cast is great, though, and especially Peter Lorre is fantastically funny in this, with his thin creepy voice. Now, I’ve talked a lot about the depth in Capra films, and well, this film doesn’t really have much of that. But it makes up for it with the superb wit and sharpness in humour. It’s just a very enjoyable film, and takes full advantage of the script to superb effect. Incidentally, because the film is based on a play, there is only one location, really, and despite this, the film never really gets boring, but constantly keeps itself fresh with the development of the narrative. The film takes most use of cinematography as possible, and the black and white is crisp and beautiful, so the film is also a visual treat, which is important considering much of the visual humour. Don’t get me wrong, though, there isn’t just visual humour, the script and dialogue is great and hilarious as well.

From a pure directing point of view, this is perhaps Capra’s most impressive output, his directing is so consistent and spot-on it at times feels as if he was born to make this film. There is particularly one scene which lasts for quite a long while on just a wide shot, and this was one of the most memorable moments in the films, and that requires quite a bit of skill, as if there was any doubt that Capra lacked this. He captures the frantic moments with gusto, and the silent moments are filled with extreme tension. What I loved most about this film, though, was the absolutely unique sardonic black humour, of which I don’t think I have seen the likes of in Hollywood films, and the closest example is probably Dr. Strangelove. Obviously, this is much due to the original material, but it is excellently translated to the screen here. It is really not that easy to successfully adapt plays to cinema, and I have seen many bad examples, but this is probably the single best example of a completely successful translation of the original material into another medium. Really, everything works very well in this film, and it is a joy from start to finish. Yeah, it doesn’t have the depth or subtlety of some of the other Capra films, but it is his most enjoyable film that I’ve seen, and it is a great example of his great directing.

While not a film I would consider among Capra’s best, it is still a pretty damn good film, and the humour is great, supported by the funny interpretation of the roles and actions by the cast. A wonder to behold, Capra’s sense of direction is fantastic, and a great exercise in how to successfully direct a pure comedy.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (Frank Capra, 1936)

Another film by Frank Capra, and this, just like its title, reminded me a lot of his other film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It has much of the same elements; a young naive man acquires a new post of status and has to adjust himself to the new environment and expectation, but in the end learns that he was better of as he was before the film started. Oh yes, there is also the obligatory love interest.

But Mr. Deeds Goes to Town lacks one major thing that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington had, and that is: Jimmy Stewart. Gary Cooper takes the role as the naive protagonist here, and to say the least, he lacks barrels of charisma. It is so natural with Jimmy Stewart that one almost doesn’t think about it when he acts, but I came tumbling right down to reality when I was watching Gary Cooper, and at times wished I was rather watching a Capra film featuring Stewart. Generally, I don’t rate acting that highly, but in Hollywood films, this is often a very essential part, and that is why I felt the story suffered a lot. But, while the film might have been much better with Jimmy Stewart in the main role rather than Gary Cooper, it still wouldn’t have been as good as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Generally, it lacks the usual flair Capra’s films have, and his directing seems somewhat conservative, and not as spectacular nor as interesting as his films seem, especially his best. So, even though I still enjoyed the previous film I reviewed by Capra, it was still fairly weak for a Capra film. This, though, was quite weak overall, and didn’t have the overall Capra joy or enjoyment that we are usually treated to.

The ending of this film, particularly, is quite weak compared to the fantastic and epic ending of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It all feels fairly contrived, and again, the script seems to be the weak link here. But, the film suffers further from the lack of inventive or interesting directing from Capra’s part. The black and white cinematography is quite nice, but the film doesn’t have that great nostalgic feel that I love so much about classic Hollywood films. The only fairly interesting part of this film is, strangely, the love interest of Gary Cooper. She kind of reminds me of the guy in It Happened One Night. She is a reporter, and tricks her way into his way to get an exclusive on his story to the big times. She is probably the most developed element in the film, but of course, she takes the usual route these characters take, she starts out as a cynical reporter who just cares about the story, but then subsequently falls in love with the protagonist and repents her ways. Of course, here we just see it from her point-of-view, while in It Happened One Night we saw it as a development between both of the two characters, and it was thus even better developed and believable. Well, so what I mean is that, while she is the only interesting character in the film, the relationship itself is not very interesting.

I didn’t really enjoy this film, and it was really a weak film from Capra. Again, it lacked the usual depth his films have, but here, it also missed the charm and joy that he manages to capture, and it thus lost most of my interest throughout. It seems to have a high score on IMDb, so I guess somebody seems to see something in this. Not me though.

You can’t take it With You (Frank Capra, 1938)

Frank Capra is probably one of the finest and one of my personal favourite directors of the classic Hollywood era. Then there is You can’t take it With You, a film I was left fairly unimpressed with, which is quite a disappointment, because it is the first time I’ve ever been unimpressed by a Capra film. Well, not quite, though, but it wasn’t right up there with his best, and, indeed, there were a lot of issues, particularly with the narrative, that irritated me. It is in many ways good fun, but lacks in some of the elements that makes Capra so great.

So this film deals with a family which is quite out of the ordinary. They believe in doing whatever they want, and have fun. This film also features Jimmy Stewart in his probably least inspired role, as the son of a rich guy who is mean and cynical, I liked him a lot. Yeah, you can already see where this review is going. Anyway, the family house is quite crazy; they even manufacture fireworks down in the cellar. Although they aren’t wealthy, they are very happy. One of the girls in the house is in love with the James Stewart character. You can easily see what way the film will go from here. Two people in love, one of a fun loving family without many riches, and the other of a family of cynical rich snobs. Will the crazy family learn complacency in the end, or will the cynical learn some compassion? Well, take your guess. Anyway, while I always like the themes and ideals Capra tries to express in his films, this film left me confused, as it actually seems to blatantly promote anarchy. The narrative contains some annoying plot-holes and at times doesn’t make much sense, particularly psychologically. The characters, though, are pretty colourful and likable, and the casting, as always with Capra films, is spot on.

Capra does, however, manage to evoke the feeling of joy, which is one of his greatest strengths, and there are many such moments in this film, which gives it an overall likability and makes it really watchable. What it does lack, though, is the wonderful subtlety and depth that Capra’s films usually contain, beneath the layer of the narrative. This might be more to the somewhat blatant screenplay, and less to Capra’s sensibility as a director, because the film, in pure technical terms, is pretty much on the same level as Capra’s other films, or indeed Hollywood in general. So it’s not really a bad film, it’s just quite shallow. There is indeed a message beneath the film, but it is not very subtle, nor is it very interesting. It is life affirming and the kind of “do what you can with your life” philosophy. And while most will probably agree with this nice assessment, the film doesn’t treat its subject with the seriousness it deserves. Well, don’t misunderstand, the film isn’t very serious, and is quite silly, but this shouldn’t stand in the way of a serious message, and this is the other main problem with the film. It knows what it wants to say, but doesn’t really have the means to explore this to its true depths, and thus remains fairly uninteresting in this right.

Still, though, it is an enjoyable film, and a fine entry into the work of Capra. I just wish more could have been done with the screenplay, which I thought was quite lacking. The film is based on a play, so I guess it is there where the problems are coming from. Essentially, it is a mainstream comedy, with little to no greater ambition, but for what it is, it’s still worth watching, and the comedy in itself is quite good.

Laura (Otto Preminger, 1944)

I have to say, the noir genre is starting to really appeal to me. I like the settings, the main characters, the film craft and cinematography, as well as the plot twists. I don’t know exactly what it is specifically, but it is a genre I will like to explore much more. Laura is a noir film from the classic period, and one can see all the elements that made the noir genre in this film. This is probably also one of the most well cast noir films I’ve seen, with great performances across the board.

Laura is murdered in her apartment, and there are several suspects. It is up to Lieutenant McPherson to solve the murder, and go through all the suspects. There are two men that were intimate with Laura, that are suspects. One is Shelby, played by the creepy Vincent Price. The other is Waldo, and intellectual journalist, played by probably the best actor in the film, Clifton Webb. He is wonderful as the sharp-witted journalist with a poisonous tongue. The film is full of twists and turns, but surprisingly it never gets too complicated. The film is at such straightforward, but it is always focused and has a specific path it goes. Some noir films seem to move about quite randomly, but not this one, which was nice. The directing is top notch from Otto Preminger, the way he moves his camera is at time amazing, not because it is extremely technically complicated, but because he makes the movement so beautiful. There are also small clues laid out throughout the film, so audiences who keep focused can to some degree see what is going to happen and what will have importance later on, which does feel quite rewarding. It isn’t that often that noir films do this, but I was happy that it was done here, because it gives a bit of re-watch value, as well as makes the film a richer experience.

The score for this film is beautiful, and goes a long way to add to the atmosphere of the film. The cinematography is moody and also helps create the pressing atmosphere. The film uses some flashback techniques that I wasn’t too happy about, but then again, this is Hollywood, and I guess they are part of it. They could have been used a little more cleverly though, there are many different examples of different clever ways to use flashbacks, such as Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) and It’s A Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946). It is bit disappointing, but anyway, the film otherwise, and the flashbacks themselves, are good. The film is quite short, just over 80 minutes, but it works quite well, and makes the films structure more tight. This is also the kind of film that doesn’t hold up well if it is too long, due to losing the suspense when dragging on. For the most part it all works. The thing about Laura, though, is that it lacks that little extra something to make it a great film. It is good, very good in fact, but overall it doesn’t seem that impressive compared to all the other great classics of the era. But the film is unique in its own way, the cast is great, and it does offer something new to an audience who are already familiar with the noir genre.

I enjoyed watching Laura. Not the best of the classic Hollywood era I’ve seen, but also far from the worst. It was bit sad that I couldn’t get more out of it, but the film does deliver, and one can’t really want much more from this type of film. If you like noir, definitely check this one out. And get the excellent Cinema Reserve version.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Frank Capra, 1939)

Okay, sorry, I haven’t reviewed here in a long while now, but I’ve had much work to do lately; essays, scripts, journalistic work and getting drunk with my friends. Hopefully, after Thursday most of the heavy work should be done and I’ll be back on track. Regardless, the last film I saw was another Frank Capra film, and it was quite damn good, to keep it short. I’m starting to get more and more impressed with this director, and I have acquired more of his films to watch.

Mr. Smith is a naïve young man who gets through some incompetent and corrupt politicians gets to go to Washington and become a senator. We are given imagery of sickening patriotism, pompous shots of the American flag in all its eternal glory, and discomforting angles of the statue of Lincoln. But all is not well in Washington, and Smith (so extremely well played by the fantastic Jimmy Stewart) soon realizes he is nothing but a puppet, and his illusions of the greatness of democracy are shattered. It is the struggle of one individual man against a system, but not without its fair share of optimism. This is one of my favourite elements of Capra’s cinema, how he juxtaposes the individual to the collective, and optimism in the face of hopelessness. James Stewart does a great job portraying the young naïve senator who has to face up to reality and realize something about himself and the system that he thought he knew. The supporting cast is equally excellent, with the great Claude Rains as the great support to Stewart, but also holds up well by himself. This film also features some very dark moments, but they are throughout illuminated with light of a positive message.

This is also probably, of the Capra films I’ve seen, Capra’s most impressively shot film. The angles are great, every shot has significance, and the cinematography is at times stunning. Particularly the dark moments are properly and well lit, and do give the audience a feeling of desperation. While some viewers have distaste for Capra’s sometimes very positive message, I would just like to say: grow up. While I guess this is a bit of personal taste and subjective opinion, I will still stand by that Capra’s films are incredibly well crafted. While I do enjoy the message of the film, what stands out for me, and is ultimately most important, is the filmmaking craft. Capra has showed through his films that he is a great storyteller, but also a great artist and poet of the filmmaking craft, and his films are beautiful examples of filmmaking, surely some of the highlights of the Hollywood golden era. If you look beyond all the other Hollywood bullshit, you will see in some of the greatest films of the era that there lies a true brilliance in the crafting of these wonderful films, and they are in fact pure cinema, pure filmmaking, with all the other stuff that has to be thrown in there for the audience of the time just being filler. You remove all that, and the films show their wonderful structures, the elegant storytelling and auteur views of the world.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a great example of the height of the Hollywood golden era, and is a very impressive film by Capra. The beauty lies in the simple shot structures and the emotional drama that is achieved. The later part of the film is pure brilliance, but the beginning of the film is also great. James Stewart never fails, and he delivers everything that is great about him here, and does perhaps one of his greatest roles. What an actor…

It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)

I usually try to know as little as possible about films I am going to see, so I see them without any particular expectations or knowledge. With some films though, this is impossible, because they are so much part of pop culture, that you know them almost beat by beat. It’s a Wonderful Life is a victim of this, and because of that I basically knew most of the story of the film. One wonderful surprise that I didn’t know was that the film starred one of my favourite actors, James Stewart. I’ve only seen one film by Frank Capra, It Happened One Night (1934), so I was looking forward to watching this. It’s also one of those classics that everyone should have watched, so it felt necessary to watch it.

The story is very well told and has a very positive message. Some don’t like Capra’s films because they are too positive and upbeat, however, I resent this. It doesn’t in no way hinder the craft of the filmmaking, and people who don’t like films that are upbeat should stop watching films. But I digress, on this film itself, it is a wonderful piece of filmmaking, and James Stewart’s character is so well defined. The structure of the film is that it is a flashback sort of film, where we see the life of the character. It is really nice to see the whole story of the character, how his life turns out and how he develops. This is where Jimmy Stewart shines, his assuredness and honest character has always been one of the great aspects of his acting. He is also great when the character starts to delve into despair. Stewart is accompanied by lots of great supporting actors, particularly Donna Reed as Stewart’s love interest, and Thomas Mitchell as his uncle. As far as I’m aware, the casting in Capra films is always superb, and this shows here. It is very important to have good lead actors; however, having interesting and good supporting actors, even for small parts, can be vital, especially for this kind of film. The cast does a great and variable job, and throughout the film we are given performances that are as good as Jimmy Stewart’s performance. It is also nice to see a younger Stewart, as most films I’ve seen with him were made after he turned 40, and thus featured a fairly old, but still great, James Stewart.

Other aspects of the film are well done, the cinematography looks really nice, and does remind me of It Happened One Night, as well as the editing and story structure is almost perfect. The film also kind of reminds me of Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941), studying in flashbacks the life and development of a man, but of course, there are many differences, but it is still interesting to see the parallels between the films. We are brought to relate to the main character and hope he has a happy ending. While I usually don’t agree to such one-sided characters, Capra handles this really well, and this is supported by the building up of the story. This is seen widely as a Christmas film, however most of the film doesn’t take place during Christmas, but I understand why it is seen as such. Particularly because of the message of helping others and all that jazz, but this sort of thing doesn’t detract from the films quality. The film does move into darker territory later on, and these parts are really good and uncomfortable. This is really where Jimmy Stewart shines, managing to balance the emotions of the character in a really impressive way. This part also contains one of the best close-ups I’ve ever seen in cinema history, with James Stewart turning towards the camera and the background being skewed. The structure of the film does build up expectation of ruin, and this is one of the things that make the film seem interesting throughout. The conclusion is also one of the most wonderful I’ve seen, and gives the audience a feeling of satisfaction.

It’s a Wonderful Life has become one of my favourite films, and is deservedly so a classic. James Stewart gives a fantastic and sympathetic performance, and the supporting cast likewise gives the story depth. There is quite a bit of sub-text running throughout the film, and this gives audiences a reason to re-watch the film over and over again. I actually wasn’t that looking forward to this, but saw it as a film I just had to watch due to it being a classic. But it turned out to be fantastic. I’m definitely going to watch more Frank Capra films.

Forbidden Planet (Fred M. Wilcox,1956)

I am willing to watch out most films, age, country, genre and movement. When I saw the cover for Forbidden Planet, I had to watch it. I am surprised that I haven’t heard much about Forbidden Planet, for to me it seems like a classic. It has many great elements, and I’m not too familiar with 50’s science-fiction films. There are quite a lot of allegories for the cold war, which today seems a bit trite; however, it never becomes an over-burden. This is the kind of film one would thing of as trashy, but the film is well produced and looks very good.

Actually, this is quite a crazy film. One of the highlights, and probably what the film is remembered the most for, is the robot, Robby. Every single line uttered by the robot is pure gold, and very humorous. The film has a very interesting aesthetic; it is very cold and distanced, with a psyched out electronic music track. This gives the film a very unique feel, and this style is kept throughout the film. There isn’t often one sees this kind of aesthetic in Hollywood films of the 50’s, so it was quite an interesting view. A lot of classic Hollywood elements, such as close ups and dramatic music in romantic scenes are omitted. Further, the film takes its time to discuss contemporary issues, such as humans (mis)use of technology, and also dwells into the human psyche. The films dwells into psychoanalysis, which usually isn’t very good for films, as such complicated issues are usually ham-fisted when dealt with, a good example of this is Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945). But it doesn’t rely too much on this issue, and the stuff it deals with in psychoanalysis isn’t too deep, so it is fair, however my brain always turns on an alarm when films do this, as it is usually not a good sign.

Many complain about the outdated special effects, however, I feel we shouldn’t be so jaded that we can let outdated special effects get in the way of our appreciation of some wonderful art design. Robby the robot looks absolutely hilarious, but in a very good way, and not in an “Ed Wood” kind of way. The scenery paintings of the planet look great, so does the look of some of the architecture in the film. It’s kind of like 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968), which has some of the most beautiful special effects ever made. They may be outdated compared to today’s standards, but the art direction is still wonderful, fantastically unique and beautiful. Besides, why get so carried away about special effects today when we know our kids will be laughing at how horrible today’s films look anyway. So the film, adopting a unique aesthetic is also very visually pleasing, and it never seems as if it is doing it just for the sake of the special effects, unlike so many films made today. The films structure is also good, if adequate; however, the middle part is stretched out a bit too much, while the later part is done to quickly. The film could easily have solved this by being something like 15 minutes longer; however, my guess is that production costs got in the way. It’s not a big draw though.

Forbidden Planet is a wonderful film, in so many ways. The inspired art direction, the wonderful scripts, the unique aesthetic style, and of course the quirky electronic soundtrack. It all fits neatly together, and is overall one of the more enjoyable science-fiction films I’ve seen from this period of cinema. Some may criticize the acting; however, I wouldn’t dwell on it. It works sufficiently, and is proper to the style the film has. I haven’t heard much about this film, but it is a great watch and recommended for all film buffs.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford, 1962)

Westerns often discuss the same thing. They look at the relationship between the Wild West and the approaching civilization of law and order. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) did something similar to this, and it featured western legend John Wayne. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance also has John Wayne, although in not such a big part. The main protagonist is played by maybe one of my favourite actors of all time, James Stewart, who to me became a legend in the Hitchcock films he did. Some claim that he was miscast as the character is supposed to be a young lawyer right out of university, while Stewart at the time was over 50 years old. However, he fills the role with such grace and his undeniable strength of character that I can’t imagine anyone doing it better. I’m not quite on the level with the morals and what the film is trying to say, however, unlike before, I won’t let this influence my perception of the films quality.

Again, I’m looking into these old Hollywood films, and this is one of the late classics of the golden years of Hollywood. While some of the films made previously by John Ford were in colour, this is in black and white. The cinematography was very nice, creating the strong and tense atmosphere in the small city. Much like Howard Hawks who I previously talked about, John Ford’s directing here is very tight and slightly distanced from the events on the screen. Ford has also put some limits on the use of music of the film, avoiding the very heavy scores Hollywood films used to use, although I at times usually loves them. The most spectacular aspects of John Ford’s films are his wonderful wide shots of the wilderness of the west, and there are several of these shots in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, although not as many as one would like, or as there were in The Searchers. But, it’s adequate, and leaves room for more interpretive drama, which is one of the strongest points about this film. Another strong point about the film, which is supported by the first point, is the interesting conflict between James Stewart’s character and John Wayne’s character. While they are not direct enemies, they both have different philosophical points of views and looks on the world. This philosophical debate between the two characters creates much of the drama in the film, and builds up the challenges that James Stewart’s character has to face. While westerns often discuss this issue, the Wild West versus law and order, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is probably the best example and execution of this debate, and creates serious questions about how to act in society, which doesn’t reveal what is right or wrong, but asks the audience to question these issues themselves.

Moral dramas are interesting, but often become tenuous because too much stuff is gutted down the audiences throats. This is not done to too much of a degree in this film, and there is a good degree of personal interior drama, and mixes this with the philosophical drama of the two main characters. I love James Stewart, and he is great in this. But a lot of credit should also be given to John Wayne, who does the best role I’ve seen by him. Stewart is great at bringing naivety and a strong belief to the film, while Wayne brings his assuredness and physical presence. When the two characters clash, it works out as a great combination, and John Wayne creates a great cockiness towards Stewart’s character. But, John Wayne probably brings us the best scene in the film, alone, late in the film when he has an outburst. This is one of the best moments of a interior outburst that has ever been brought to the screen, and John Wayne brings so much emotion to it, showing a man who once was very self confident loosing his head and feeling lost. Of course, this is assisted by John Ford’s great directing, which escalates the scene. I’ve not seen many of John Ford’s films, and I’m not a great fan of westerns, but this is the best film I’ve seen by John Ford and the best western I’ve seen. As said, I was also very much impressed by John Wayne, who I’ve never given much credit, you can always see in stores cheap DVD boxes with 4 or many more John Wayne westerns, and I’m sure that for the very low prices they go for, they are quiet crummy. But while John Wayne was way too typecast throughout his career, his performance in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance really shows what a great presence he could be to a film and what kind of interesting and multileveled characters he could create.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is continuing to make me more and more excited about old Hollywood films. I’ve said it before, I have been sceptical of these kinds of films, but lately I’ve really began to discover some of the greats of classical Hollywood, and this film fills the rooster. It is a great film and remarkable piece of cinema. I am going to continue exploring more and more of these wonderful films, and I am continuously being fascinated by them. All hail the golden era of Hollywood!