The Seven Year Itch (1955): Sex And Sizzle in the 1950s

by Paul Batters

the-seven-year-itch11

When it’s hot like this – you know what I do? I keep my undies in the icebox – The Girl (Marilyn Monroe)

The seasons hold powerful symbolism in a number of ways and cinema audiences have made those connections for decades. There is a romanticism about Spring (the blooming of love, rebirth, discovery), a bittersweet emotion is often connected to Autumn and Winter can represent far darker elements whilst alternatively evoking memories of cosy fires and (at least in the northern hemisphere) scenes of Christmas.

But Summer is a whole different thing. Hot summers evoke hot passions, the full flowering of life and living life to the fullest before everything turns back to the long, cold winter. Despite a celebration of summer generally being linked to youth and the young, that doesn’t mean that the more mature don’t share the same desires. Just as the young make discoveries and want to experience the world, those somewhat past the initial full-bloom of youth have just as much a desire to party. They also seek out to re-spark the excitement that was once there and perhaps lament decisions which have seen them in marriages that have left them stilted.

The concept of the ‘seven-year itch’ has become cliched in an age where divorce, separation, multiple partners and affairs are de rigueur. Indeed, the concept of marriage is one which is not a permanent state, nor does it prevent people from seeking partners or sexual excitement from outside the marriage. However, the ‘seven-year itch’ was a new, psychological concept in the 1950s and at a time when the sex comedy became an institution in film for a more hip and sophisticated audience.

 

As a result, Billy Wilder’s The Seven Year Itch (1955) sought to look at the phenomenon. Tom Ewell plays Richard Sherman, a middle-aged executive from Manhattan, who lives a straight, vanilla life. He begins to reminisce about his past and the possibilities and opportunities he left behind, particularly with those of the opposite sex, and the obvious mid-life crisis comes into play. But what also emerges are his own insecurities and worries, and as the audience will discover, his imagination runs rampant and we are left wondering how much of what we see is reality or Richard’s fantasy.

With the arrival of summer, Richard sees off his wife Helen (Evelyn Keyes) and son Ricky (Butch Bernard) as they go on vacation to Maine. It’s a hot, sultry summer, which of course is suggestive of the heat that Richard will begin to feel. Remaining at the publishing company he works for, the climate of sexuality is constantly hinted at; such as the title of Little Women being changed to ‘The Secrets Of A Girl’s Dormitory’, complete with highly suggestive cover. Or when he goes to a vegetarian restaurant (to watch his health) and the waitress (Doro Merande) asks for donations for the cause of ‘nudism’:

Waitress: Nudism is such a worthy cause. We must bring the message to the people. We must teach them to unmask their poor suffocating bodies and let them breathe again.

Returning home to an empty house, Richard has also been immersed in a manuscript – “Man and the Unconscious” by psychiatrist Dr. Ludwig Brubaker (Oskar Homolka). It is this book which drives his imagination into over-drive, as well as his mid-life crisis, and he begins to dream up all manner of scenarios. (Later, the famous beach scene from Here To Eternityis hilariously satirised, with Richard romping with his wife’s best friend Elaine). But Richard is also convinced that he is falling for the seven-year itch, where all married men are tempted to engage in extra-marital affairs after seven years of marriage. He also becomes convinced that he is irresistible to women and that women have been throwing themselves at him for years. All in his imagination of course.

8748644590_39ff4fe4d1

It’s at this point that he comes into contact with the new neighbour in the apartment building. Known as The Girl (Marilyn Monroe), this new neighbour is almost impossibly beautiful and oozes sexuality. Eventually inviting her in for a drink after a slight mishap, The Girl seems to be innocent in her sexiness and has no intention to seduce Richard. Yet he is under the misapprehension that he is definitely in with a chance, fuelled by his present condition and his misguided and deluded belief in his own personal attractiveness. Again, there’s plenty of fantasy as Richard’s mind invents all manner of seduction scenarios in which he conquers her. Richard drifts between fantasy and reality throughout the film. 

champagne-4-Marilyn-Monroe-Tom-Ewell-Seven-Year-Itch

Richard is inherently a good guy going through a personal crisis and no seduction occurs. However, the torment has a hold on him, and he seeks advice from Dr. Brubaker, whose book he has been reading. He’s even convinced that his wife and son will find about his imagined indiscretions and his guilty conscience is transferred onto his wife, whom Richard discovers has come into contact with a former beau (Sonny Tufts). But Richard is also becoming more paranoid that his innermost thoughts, as well as his sexual urges will be discovered by all, especially by his wife. His paranoia sees him imagining The Girl (working in a toothpaste commercial) broadcasting what he was been up to. It seems that Richard’s imagination never seems to let up.

Again, Richard drums up all manner of scenes between the two and he uses these as an excuse for revenge by inviting The Girl to dinner. To escape the hot summer evening, a movie in an air-conditioned theatre is suggested, going to see The Creature From The Black Lagoon. The interesting conversation they share is followed by one of the most iconic moments in film cinema history:

Contrary to popular belief, the scene filmed on location at Lexington Ave was not rendered useless by the noise of the crowd watching. The scene was re-shot on a sound stage and both scenes were used in the final cut.

In the end, the sexual tension is more in the mind of Richard though The Girl holds a definite affection for him. Richard eventually comes to his senses and realises that he has a problem with an over-active sexual imagination. Yet The Girl commends him for it:

The Girl: I think it’s just elegant to have an imagination. I just have no imagination at all. I have lots of other things, but I have no imagination.

0065e104

The ending is a little sappy and to be expected for a sex comedy of the 1950s. Whilst it feels dated and even redundant, there are some funny moments, often emerging in the imagination of Richard Sherman. Tom Ewell is fantastic in the role and he brings forth a wry humour that makes it a fun, memorable performance. But if the film is particularly memorable, it is thanks to Marilyn Monroe whose characterisation of innocent sexuality works well in tandem with Ewell’s performance. There is an unfortunate truth the role plays up the ‘sexy dumb blonde’ persona that plagued Monroe’s career and the now iconic scene of her standing in the sexy white halter-neck dress above the grate, certainly fed that persona.

Seven-Year-Itch-1955

Drawn from the George Axelrod’s play, the film loses much of the impact of the stage version, due to the restrictions of the Code that was in place. Whilst The Seven Year Itch is still enjoyable, it becomes a light-hearted comedy with only some of the sizzle. Billy Wilder is one of the greatest directors, with a litany of great films across film noir and comedy that were not only ground-breaking but are templates for genius on film. The Seven Year Itch is not one of them, although it did well at the box-office on release and was generally well-received.

The film is perhaps best remembered because of Marilyn Monroe’s dominating sexual presence and the title which would become part of the lexicon of popular culture. In Cahiers du Cinema, Wilder would state that he was not happy with the film and would also describe it as a ‘nothing film’. Wilder had been commissioned by Fox to make the film and the restrictions in place would be too much for the director. Yet he still manages to add some beautiful touches to the film, specifically via the sexual urges of the main character in the presence of Monroe, as well as his talent for farce and cynicism. But as stunning as Monroe was on screen, Wilder found her exhausting to work with although it would pale in comparison to the difficulties, he would face with her a few short years later in Some Like It Hot.

The film certainly looks good, with Wilder using colour and Cinemascope to project the vivid imagination of Richard Sherman with great effect. There’s enough here to keep one entertained with a good dose of satire as well. Derek Adams in Time Out makes a valid point that what seemed ‘fresh and risqué in the ’50s, now appears a little obvious and over-plotted’. Wilder would have agreed with the sentiment.

For a film set during the heat of summer, there’s still some of the sizzle that one would expect in a sex comedy starring Marylin Monroe. Without the restrictions in place, and Wilder freer to pursue the original story, The Seven Year Itch may have been more of a scorcher.

This article is an entry into the Hotter N’Ell Blogathon kindly hosted by Movie Movie Blog Blog . Please click on the link to read other great entries!

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history. 

Advertisements

Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter (1974): Last of the great Hammer films

by Paul Batters

e7ff1cb4f55db52ecc3352e76f94e662_3x3

“There are as many species of vampire as there are beasts of prey”  – Grost ( John Cater) Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter

Of all the horror films produced by Hammer in the 1970s, Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter perhaps had the greatest potential. Touted to become a new franchise, the studio was in such dire financial straits that no incantations or tana leaves could have revived its’ dying body. And so, any possible future for a series of Kronos fighting all manner of monsters was sadly ended. As a result, there’s only one film as testimony to what Hammer was planning. Yet even as a stand-alone film, Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter, offers a different and fascinating take on the legend of the vampire with an intriguing story.

Directed by Brian Clemens (famed scriptwriter of numerous British TV shows such as The Persuaders, The Avengers and The Professionals), Captain Kronos would introduce a seemingly new yet actually ancient concept of the vampire. This concept also went to the metaphysical depths of vampiric legend that the source of survival was not blood but life itself.  The vampire in Captain Kronos feeds on the life essence and the opening scene of the film, gives us the backdrop to the story in a vivid and terrifying way. Again, there is an evocation of Stoker and vampire folklore as the vibrant youth and beauty of the victims is countered with the decrepit corruption of the monster.

As a counter to the usual narrative, it is day when the first attack happens, whilst two girls who are together in the woods. As one girl runs off to pick flowers, the other sits under a tree and brushes her hair whilst looking into a mirror. The camera acts as the menace, approaching the girl, who discovers the strange figure via its’ reflection in her mirror (going against traditional vampire lore). Initially startled and frightened, she quickly falls under the hypnotic spell of the hooded figure and is drawn into the figure’s embrace, again shown in the reflection of the mirror, after which a few drops of blood fall onto the glass.

Perchance, Dr. Marcus is out riding and notices the second girl looking in in stunned horror. Again, the moment is highly effective in the suggestive gaze of the camera, particularly when Dr. Marcus discovers the victim, who turns to face the camera, horribly aged with blood dripping from her lips. The horror on Dr. Marcus’ face matches that of the audience and the story is set.

Captain-Kronos-Vampire-Hunter-1974-00-01-01

captain-kronos-vampire-hunter-1974-movie-review-swiss-miss-girl-old-drained-of-life-hammer-horror-studio

The titles launch, backed by the superb soundtrack of blasting horns and strings of a battle song, with the dashing Captain Kronos (Horst Janson) riding his horse across the green, with his faithful companion Professor Hieronymus Grost (John Cater) following behind. It’s an inspiring moment and the tone of a great hero who is more than a match for any monster is well established.

0*yX9GJguDGkvcqfN3

Of course, our hero is on his way to the village of Durward, after being called there by his old friend, Dr. Marcus. Kronos’ expertise in fighting and destroying the undead has brought him there. The context of the story is well-established, not only temporally through costume and language but more importantly through the belief system in place. In an age where the power of the Church was unchallenged, the law punishes those who go against Church teachings and dogma. On his way to the village, Kronos discovers a beautiful girl in the stocks, punished for dancing on the Sabbath. The girl, Carla (Caroline Munro) is a gypsy who will stay with Kronos and not only will she become his lover, but Carla will also assist in his search for the vampires.

What will follow makes for an intriguing storyline, with Kronos and his two companions using their knowledge and wisdom to discover the vampires. The methods used are fascinating and well-weaved into the story, with Professor Grost, acting as the classic horror character of the wise and educated elder who educates and familiarises us with vampire lore. Grost’s explanations are fascinating and his methods of discovering vampires, such as placing dead toads in buried boxes, also intriguing.

maxresdefault

The scenes of the mysterious vampire taking down its’ victims are atmospheric and exceptionally done. Again, the flower of youth is accentuated via young, beautiful women with their whole lives in front of them, only to be left as drained husks before dying. Of course, it drives the story forward and the desperate necessity to rid the community of this horrific monster. But there are other horrific ways in which young girls are attacked, evoking classical interpretations of the vampire story.

captain-kronos-vampire-hunter-1974-flying-fox-killer-bat-attack-hammer-horror-studio.jpg

Kronos is a fearless hunter of monsters and he also has a powerful intuition and knowledge borne of experience, which will lead him to discover who the vampire is. The hints are already there, after Dr. Marcus has made an earlier visit and of course the usual trope of ‘the noble vampire’ is again employed here. The Durward matriarch seems old and decrepit beyond her years; a result of ‘grief’ from the death of her husband, seven years earlier. Her son Paul (Shane Briant) plays protector to his mother and his beautiful sister Sara (Lois Daine) become suspects to the audience.

MV5BN2M2NWVmM2YtZmRiMS00NzQxLWFiMjYtYzc0YmZjNGNhZmFjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzAwOTU1MTk@._V1_SX1223_CR0,0,1223,999_AL_

But unlike previous incarnations, there is quite the twist and it takes Kronos’ intuition, mystical powers and vampire knowledge to make the discovery. To draw the vampires out once and for all, he will use Carla as bait, which is beautifully shot and directed. Director Brian Clemens will lead us down the garden path and his screenwriter’s sense of story development makes the final twist all the more exciting.

The final confrontation makes for an exciting finish to the story. Again, Kronos’ brilliance sees him take on the Durward vampires with a mystical sword fashioned from a large crucifix. Its mirrored blade becomes a crucial weapon against Lady Durward (Wanda Ventham), the vampire matriarch.

captain-kronos-5

What works in Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter is also what lets it down a little. There is plenty of fantastic back-story and plot development that is not exploited enough or rather not enough, to keep us dangling. One wonders if more would have been revealed in future films in the series. Certainly, Captain Kronos himself is a figure with a veiled past, that makes him far more intriguing and fascinating. A veteran of numerous wars (and apparently had served alongside Dr. Marcus in the past), he dismisses questions about his military career, illuminating a cavalier approach that is in keeping with a man with a past who would rather forget it but cannot:

Kerro: Tell me, did you win your battles or lose them?

Kronos: A little of both… and not enough of either.

Obviously, Kronos is a man with incredible abilities, particularly as a swordsman, which has allowed him to survive countless encounters – not only on the battlefield. There is also the suggestion that he is travelled far beyond where most have been and it’s quite interesting that other than the traditional rapier, Kronos also wields a katana. To be in the possession of such a weapon opens up a host of questions – obviously, how did he get it but more to the point, how did he learn to use it? The incorporation of Japanese swordplay also raises another question; where Hammer trying to tap into the explosion of popularity in martial arts movies (This had been attempted, of course, with Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires).

The scene where Kronos uses the katana is pure gold and evokes countless Westerns, where the underestimated stranger/gunslinger deals with local tough guys or trouble-makers. In the case of Kronos, three men led by Kerro ( a very underused Ian Hendry) are sent to dispatch with the hero, who does the dispatching himself of the three with one super-human stroke of his sword. Impressive? Absolutely and one of the highlights of the film.

What also makes the swordplay work is the quality of the duels, with greater realism in the use of weapons. As already mentioned, the final duel is gruelling and exciting as the two opponents seek to destroy each other through attrition rather than intricate swordplay. Kronos, after all, is a master of war and fighting, not there for the entertainment of others.

There are far more questions than answers, and a number of vague clues leave the audience with even more. At one point, after making love to Carla, Kronos reveals that he lost his family to a vampire, leaving him devastated and empty. He shows Carla two bite mark scars on his neck (given by his vampirised sister). Not having been vampirised himself, does this mean that his ‘near-miss’ has given him wisdom beyond that of mere mortals? Or the mystical and incredible powers that he possesses? What is left, is a man driven to destroy that which destroyed his family and nearly destroyed him. It’s a compelling and fascinating back-story to the character of Captain Kronos that is not developed enough, and this is a certain flaw in the film.

The film certainly needs to be better paced and whilst the slow burn works well in developing a tale, it begs for well-placed flare-ups from time to time to keep the fire going and further drive the story.

Horst Janson has enough charisma and mystery to make for a dashing hero. Whether he could have carried a franchise is impossible to know but this reviewer gets the feeling that he had the goods. Caroline Munro is as stunning and gorgeous as ever, and at least becomes part of the team hunting for vampires, instead of the usual eye candy.

tumblr_nrrv6exvkJ1tckw7ko9_500

As a huge fan of Brian Clemens for his work across a number of TV shows, he’s a far better script-writer than director and perhaps a more seasoned director could have been utilised to launch a franchise. After all, this was a last roll of the dice for Hammer. But there are some beautiful touches that Clemens employs; the opening scene is particularly effective, as are the opening titles and overall the film is beautifully shot. Other effective moments are the flowers left blackened after the vampire passes over them. Budget wise, Clemens did not have huge amounts of money to play with, yet he does well with the monetary limitations.

Clemens is on record believing Captain Kronos would have been a perfect franchise, fighting all manner of monster, across all manner of time period (hence the name ‘Kronos’ – Greek for ‘time’). There’s no doubt that there is huge potential for a series. (Perhaps television was an option?)

captain-kronos-vampire-hunter.jpg

In fairness, Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter is a good film made at the wrong time. The audience demand for Hammer-type films was dying off by the mid 1970s, as a whole new approach to horror had emerged, particularly thanks to Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The horrors of Satan and demonic possession far outweighed Gothic horror tales and brought a deeper, more frightening fear out of the depths of an audiences’ psyche. Additionally, the terrifying reality and real fear of serial killers had emerged in the post-war era and the slasher film, with the almost-supernatural relentless killer a la Halloween, would frighten audiences far more than a frilly-shirted vampire from literature. Such horrors were turning up in newspaper headlines and the 6 o’clock news, rather than Gothic literature.

Hammer had gambled on combining genres which were out of fashion; the horror film and the swashbuckling hero. A great idea that did not fit the era and even if a franchise had taken off, it’s a safe bet that it would not have survived to see a third film, given the nature of what audiences wanted.

But there are other factors to consider. The film was made in 1972 but struggled with finding release by 1974, when as already discussed, new forms of the horror film had emerged. Caroline Munro has stated that it barely got released in Britain and she wasn’t even made aware it was being shown. For a Hammer Film, minimal publicity and struggles with getting wide distribution, was an anathema and simply unheard of. But the budget wasn’t there.

Nevertheless, Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter is lots of fun and perhaps one of the better Hammer films of the 1970s. It’s a last great hurrah for the studio which transformed the horror film from the days of silvers and sepia (for better or for worse), into a world of colour, sex and excitement. Captain Kronos won’t disappoint, and the hallmarks of Hammer are all over its production. It deserves to be honoured as a cult classic.

(Note: The film in full is available via Hammer’s You Tube Channel. You can view it via the link below)

This article is an entry into the Great Hammer Amicus Blogathon, kindly hosted by Realweegiemidget Reviews It’s been a great pleasure to take part! Click on the link to read other great articles on classic films from Hammer and Amicus. 

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.

China Seas (1935): Celebrating Clark Gable On The Silver Screen

by Paul Batters

Unknown

Of all the stars that graced the silver screen during MGM’s heyday, none was ever as dominant as Clark Gable. Younger generations may have never seen any of his films, yet Gable’s face is still recognisable to them today.  Justifiably, he was called the ‘King Of Hollywood’ and was without doubt the king of his home turf – MGM Studios. For classic film fans, there are quite a number of Gable’s films that are particularly celebrated, none moreso than Gone With The Wind.

During the mid 1930s, Gable was arguably Hollywood’s biggest star, which was certainly assured after his Academy Award winning performance in 1934’s sleeper hit, It Happened One Night, directed by Frank Capra and also starring Claudette Colbert. The film was a ‘punishment’ of sorts by MGM, lending Gable to the studio when he complained about the roles he was getting. It would showcase Gable’s talent for screwball comedy, as well as quick repartee. MGM would not make that mistake again and would jealously guard their now biggest star.

With stardom assured, MGM spared little expense in the films in which Gable featured. During the period that immediately followed, many film historians tend to focus on two films –Mutiny On The Bounty (1935) and San Francisco (1936). Both reveal classic MGM production values, with outstanding casts and were huge hits for MGM. They are both exemplary in showcasing Gable’s screen presence and talent. Yet China Seas, the film he made not long after It Happened One Night, whilst not completely forgotten, does not get as much attention as the aforementioned films.

As biographer Warren G. Harris points out, Gable had just come off an Oscar win which meant a new lucrative MGM contract, with far better conditions. China Seas would be the first film of this new contract, which meant star treatment for Gable.

6cb423d3ccb69d1438810c87bce07305

Directed by Tay Garnett, MGM’s golden boy, Irving Thalberg, had eyed China Seas for production since 1931.  With some of MGM’s biggest stars and a supporting cast with good depth, China Seas was a big hit for the glamorous studio in 1935 and further cemented Gable’s superstar status. An adventure/romance sea epic, China Seas, was the perfect vehicle for Gable and MGM’s other major star, Jean Harlow, with both appearing in their fourth film together. The studio wanted to capitalise on the wonderful screen chemistry that the two shared and they certainly sparkle, with the raw sexuality of Harlow matching the man’s man machismo of Gable.

MV5BOTJmZjcxOTMtZGQ2MC00ZDY1LWEwM2QtOGEyY2M0OGZhYzQwL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzk3NTUwOQ@@._V1_

From the opening scene, Herbert Stothart’s musical score underpins the busyness of the port of contemporary Hong Kong, which in 1935 means it’s an integral part of the British Empire. The hustle and bustle eventually focuses on the ‘Kin Lu’, a steamer that runs between Hong Kong and that other port of British empirical power of the period, Singapore. The steamer’s captain, Alan Gaskell (Clark Gable), has a reputation as tough, fearless and a hard player. Most are wise enough to stay out of his way or at the very least make sure they don’t arouse his ire if they can’t. However, we soon discover that deep down Gaskell is a good guy, particularly when parrying with the ships’ owner, Sir Guy (C. Aubrey Smith). Despite all appearances, the two share a mutual respect and affection, and Sir Guy recognises that he has a captain that is worth keeping. The duplicitous Jamesy McArdle (Wallace Berry) wears the façade of a friendly though rough-edged trader in the Orient but as the audience soon discovers, Jamesy has other plans and is in league with a gang of pirates. Garnett sets the tension early and establishes the story’s later complication when a number of the aforementioned Chinese pirates disguised as women are caught by Gaskell. McArdle praises Gaskell whilst sending out a message to keep the caught pirates quiet. McArdle’s warmth and geniality is the perfect cover for a dangerous man in league with desperate men.

china-seas-v

Furthermore, the 250,000 British Pounds in gold bullion to be transported to Singapore has been hidden in the steamroller. McArdle knows it’s on board through his contacts and he and the pirate gang are after it. But naturally only Gaskell (and the audience) knows where it is. Will McArdle and the pirates get the gold?

We get a feel for who Gaskell is early in the piece, particularly when addressing his crew. As he chews out the first mate Dawson (Dudley Digges), Gaskell barks at him, ‘Its bad enough to have a ship that looks like this and a Captain that looks like me, without having a Chief Officer who looks like you!’ When entering his quarters, Gaskell finds the young newly appointed officer Rockwell (William Henry) mocking his captain in the mirror, to which Gaskell gives Rockwell all the space necessary to embarrass himself. Suitably chastened, Rockwell asks for forgiveness, to which Gaskell smiles and says forget it. Gaskell may be tough but deep down he’s a ‘good egg’. He even smiles to himself once the inexperienced officer leaves the cabin, tripping over himself.

1314169769_1534609

4594278_l2-1

But we also see Gaskell’s compassion for the newly appointed Third Officer Davids (Lewis Stone), a former captain himself who was disgraced after being the only survivor of a pirate raid, whilst the rest of his crew perished. Gaskell is gruff with Davids yet welcomes him on board and even casually offers him one of his own uniforms. There is an element of well-placed foreshadowing, and even Gaskell looks up afterward with a moment of thought. Will Davids rise to the occasion if and when needed?

Before long Gaskell finds that former girlfriend and ‘professional entertainer’ Dolly ‘China Doll’ Portland (Jean Harlow) is on board. It seems that Dolly is very much a part of the China Seas, illustrated by her familiarity with the crew and her warm interaction with McArdle as they are boarding.  The interaction is a great example of the snappy and witty dialogue that liberally peppers the script from start to finish:

Dolly: Say, there ain’t enough dough in all Asia to make me change the way I feel about one guy.

Jamesy: Still crazy about that Gaskell, huh? Well, whenever you get tired of running around with an Airedale and you want to run around with a St. Bernard, why you let me know.

Dolly: Sure.Whenever I get lost in the Alps, I’ll whistle for you.

Jamesy: All right, I’ll come running.

27dvd.1.650

Gaskell tries to shoo her off the ship, to which she Dolly gets defensive and defiant:

Gaskell: Get on your horse, we’re shoving off.

Dolly: Say, why are you so anxious to get me out of your sight? Is that hunk of caviar makin’ the round trip?

Gaskell: What hunk of caviar

Dolly: That redhead Russian princess that was on board from Singapore.

Gaskell: She isn’t a Russian and she isn’t a princess and I have my doubts about her hair color.

But Dolly manipulates Gaskell into letting her stay. Their relationship seems to be one that has been more physical than emotional, judging by Gaskell’s annoyance when she gets ‘close’, after which she returns to being sassy to save the situation.

Clark-Gable-and-Jean-Harlow-in-China-Seas-1935-

But Gaskell will discover a greater affaire de Coeur to deal with, when he discovers that a former love from England, Sybil Barclay (Rosalind Russell) is on board. The now widowed English rose hints at their former (and possible future) romance when she delicately quips to him ‘I’m in your hands again, Alan’.  When told immediately afterwards that he looks like he’s seen a ghost, Gaskell slowly responds ‘I have…’. All this is quietly witnessed by Dolly and the pang of sadness she emotes is impossible to ignore.

China-Seas2

Before long the ship is at sea and Gaskell and Sybil become reunited and are joined by Sir Guy at dinner. Dolly, encouraged by McArdle thanks to his desire to disrupt and distract Gaskell, cannot hide her jealousy nor allude to the details of her prior relationship with Gaskell. Her hot temper and aggression gets the better of her, leaving some of the other guests embarrassed and feeling awkward. Gaskell responds to Dolly’s jibes with a cold smile and a short ‘that’s right, darling’ sending Dolly a clear message. But perhaps the most telling and revealing moment belongs to Sybil, who says nothing but smiles sadly at Dolly and then responds with equal sadness to Dolly’s aggressive demand:

Dolly: What are you grinning at?

Sybil: You must be very fond of him.

Dolly: What makes you think so?

Sybil: To humiliate yourself like this.

The situation gets uglier as Dolly declares loudly ‘don’t worry, he knows where the royal suite is and so do I! And I had it the first time I sailed on this ship!’ Not long after, while trying to apologise, Dolly gets the cold treatment from Gaskell who tells her to stay far away.

3Nk9wSZBMMn966F3XaN5NuuDcpw

But Dolly is not going to quit her man, despite her initial congratulations when she hears Gaskell and Sybil are going to be married. It means not only quitting the China Seas but also obviously leaving Dolly.  Attempting to see if the rumours are true, Gaskell finds Dolly in his cabin under the pretense that she is borrowing one of his books ‘to improve my mind’. What follows is Gaskell’s barely veiled revelation as to why he is marrying Sybil, with a cruel putdown that is impossible to not decipher:

Gaskell: Did you ever see an English river, Dolly?

Dolly: No, I’m dumb with geography, just like I am with everything else.

Gaskell:Well, it’s cool and clear and clean. Put a stream like that alongside any river out here – dirty, yellow, muddy – you’ll see the difference.

Needless to say, Dolly is unimpressed at the insult.

The drama and sniping that follows will test Gaskell particularly when Dolly begins flirting and drinking with McArdle.

But the real test will be the mighty storm that has suddenly sprung up and the passengers, as well as the precious cargo, are in danger. The storm sequence is packed with action and beautifully shot and Gaskell risks all to save the steamroller, as well as protect his ship. By all accounts, Gable did his own stunts much to the concern of MGM.. But it takes nothing away from what still proves an exciting action sequence that leaves the audience holding their breath.  The typhoon proves to be an ominous sign of worst to come.

china-seas-1935-clark-gable-jean-harlow-12

china-seas-1935-clark-gable-jean-harlow-20.jpg

Here also is where Garnett uses well-placed secondary characters to further the story. The disgraced former captain Davids, now Third Officer, fails in his duty to help during the storm. He has also failed Gaskell who put his faith in him and gave him a chance. Will he redeem himself? Will he be the only one who lets Gaskell down?

ChinaSeas01

The audience discovers the answer as the turning point in the film arrives when Dolly is put to the test in terms of her love and loyalty towards Gaskell. Whilst playing a drinking game with McArdle, Dolly discovers the truth and later risks all to try and warn Gaskell about McArdle’s intentions. His fatigue after the storm, disappointment and anger towards Dolly results in his rejection of her, much to his misfortune. Like the classic and clichéd woman scorned, Dolly swears she will make Gaskell pay and sure enough painfully goes into league with McArdle to assist him in his plans.

 

Dolly: You just wait! I’ll fix you! You’ll be lower than a coolie! You’ll be lower than Davids! You’ll come crawlin’ to me on your knees!

With Dolly’s assistance, McArdle puts his plan into action and the pirates board seeking the gold. Robbing the passengers, Gaskell appears calm and collected as they ransack the ship for the gold. McArdle’s duplicity is played to the hilt as he pretends to be concerned whilst secretly desperate to find the gold. Gaskell’s toughness is put to the test as the pirates torture him with ‘the boot’ and despite McArdle’s false concern, Gaskell merely replies that his size is 9C. The brutality of the torture is difficult to bear and we see just how callous McArdle is as well. He’s clever enough to play out his deception, even as Gaskell is being tortured. Yet all is not doom and gloom, as Davids redeems himself during the pirate raid – exactly how will not be revealed here.

china-seas-1935-clark-gable-jean-harlow-19

Annex - Gable, Clark (China Seas)_NRFPT_02

Indeed, to avoid spoilers, this reviewer will not divulge the result of the pirate raid or what the consequences are. Needless to say, the tension and drama continues right to the very end with Gable at his very best.

China-Seas-1935-3

Overall, China Seasis a thoroughly entertaining feature film, with the perfect combination of action, adventure, romance and even some comic relief.  Running at 87 minutes, it feels a little longer thanks to plenty of action and well-written dialogue. Additionally, the film is very well paced and Garnett handles direction with appropriate use of tension with tact to drive the story forward. Humour is injected in the right places and it certainly works well when Gable and Harlow fire their lines at each other. Much of the fire of their work during the Pre-Code Era had to be tempered for China Seas but their fire is a sizzling slow burn that does not disappoint. There’s also the allure of an exotic setting a la Red Dust, with plenty of sexual jealousy to add spice to the adventure. Admittedly, Harlow is less the loose, dangerous woman of Red Dust and more a loveable party-girl who only has eyes for Gable and whose heart belongs to him as well.

China Seas (1935) 07

The sub-plots and intrigues of the secondary characters at times may seem superfluous but they rarely interrupt the story and indeed often work well to add interest. Lewis Stone as the disgraced former captain, who initially shows cowardice during a storm, finds the hero within himself during the great crisis moment in the film. There are interjections of humour with the permanently inebriated Charlie McCaleb (Robert Benchley) oblivious to the typhoon’s might as he attempts to play chopsticks on a piano that’s wreaking havoc and later trying to light a cigarette as waves crash into the film. Throughout the film, Benchley throws out highbrow one-liners that would be right at home around the Algonquin Round Table.

Jamesy: Twenty years on the China Seas and she never lost a spangle.

McCaleb: I had a spangle once. It was a cocker spangle. She had a liter of field mice.

Conversely, Edward Brophy as Timmons provides some blue-collar humour surrounding the sub-plot of his wife’s jewellery. Played by the beautiful Lillian Bond, it’s hard to imagine her with Brophy but she’s also manipulated by Romanoff (Akim Tamiroff) with suggestions that would have been more explicit before the Code took hold.  Some great dialogue also highlights an uncredited appearance by Hattie McDaniel as Isabel McCarthy, Dolly’s maid:

Dolly: Would you say that I look like a lady?

Isabel: No, sir, Miss Dolly. I been with you all too long to insult you that way.

DjHKuwgU8AAbOgH

With all due respect to the film’s cast and creators, there is fair amount of silliness and removal from reality in China Seas. The story itself is pretty far fetched and Gable as an Englishman who is ex-Navy is about as believable as a snowman in the Sahara. How a character like Dolly ends up in the China Seas is anyone’s guess. Many of the characters seem to fit the formula but it’s a formula that works and suspense of disbelief is very easy to achieve because China Seasis so much fun to watch and enjoy. The dialogue and interaction between the characters feels natural, leaving the audience believing in the relationships that are depicted on the screen.  The stiltedness of dialogue and movement that could be found in some of the early Pre-Code films is no longer present and it seems that MGM found a ‘formula’ that worked well. Yes, the parallels with Red Dust are evident but Garnett does more with the material he has and the action scenes are incredibly well done.

Not only is the success of China Seastestament to Tay Garnett as director and the high production values afforded by Thalberg and MGM but also due in particular to the great cast. For Thalberg, it was a return to the all-star cast format that had been used by MGM in Grand Hotel. And it certainly paid off. Beery is outstanding as the dangerous McArdle, particularly as he appears so likeable as the friendly trader. The audience can even feel for him when he readily admits his feelings for Dolly:

Jamesy: Lovin’ you is the only decent thing I ever did in my entire life. And even that was a mistake.

MV5BNTM5M2E1NDEtODhkZi00MjhlLTllNjgtMTNiZjQxNGVjNzBlL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzk3NTUwOQ@@._V1_

Aubrey is as British as they come, with a dignity in profile that even Barrymore would admire. The gorgeous Rosalind Russell as an English aristocrat shows poise even in a secondary role and to the script writer’s credit shows a little more than your standard secondary role. And of course, Jean Harlow is at her very best, matching Gable moment for moment and certainly outshines some of her more celebrated roles from the early 1930s. For my money, the chemistry that they shared on screen is best appreciated in this film.

d2b17b48d6222d2a9982e6f4090ce9e2

But it’s the incredible talent of Clark Gable that makes this film a real gem. Yes Gable is playing Gable but that’s why it’s so much fun. Tough, uncompromising and with a powerful sense of self-deprecation, there are moments galore where you cannot help but like him. With so many great films as exemplars of Clark Gable at his best, China Seas should be added to the list of must-see Gable films.

 

This article is a proud entry into the Second Clark Gable Blogathon, kindly hosted by Love Letters To Hollywood. A huge thank you for hosting and allowing me to take part! Please go to the link for other great articles on the King Of Hollywood, Clark Gable.

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.

 

To remake or not to remake? The question on rebooting classic film.

by Paul Batters

remake_poster_20

Recently, Harrison Ford made an interesting declaration regarding one of his most iconic characters, which is also part of one cinema’s most financially successful franchises – Indiana Jones. Famously close-mouthed about previous roles, the actor made the comment in anticipation of the Disney announcement that a 5th instalment of the Indiana Jones franchise would be released in July 2021. Basically, Ford claimed the role as permanently his, stating:

‘Nobody else is gonna be Indiana Jones! Don’t you get it? I’m Indiana Jones. When I’m gone, he’s gone…’

Whether this declaration is tongue-in-cheek or serious, I cannot ascertain nor does it particularly matter for the purpose of this article. The vast majority of fans would probably agree with Ford, as Indiana Jones is one of cinema’s most loved action heroes. (If his friend George Lucas is anything to go by, there is little to be held sacred in remaking or re-hashing films. Star Wars, anyone?)

But it does raise an interesting question – are there screen characters which should never be re-visited?

It’s also a polarising question and one which probably raises another more divisive question – should classic films be re-made? Cinema is certainly in a strange place at the moment, and there have been consistent attacks on the state of film-making with criticism aimed at the lack of creativity, the focus on special effects and CGI and particularly the obsession on re-makes. The Marvel and DC domination has been discussed ad nauseam and the recent Godzilla movie speaks to this issue as well. (What’s the current tally of Godzilla movies since the 1954 original?)

godzilla-1954-train-featured.png

The criticisms are not unfounded, and this reviewer certainly agrees with the aforementioned sentiments regarding cinema’s current sins. However, are these problems simply a contemporary phenomenon? Or has Hollywood been re-making films and re-casting iconic roles since its’ earliest days? 

Indeed, the ‘re-make’ has been a part of entertainment that goes back to ancient times. Initially, the ancient Greeks, who created the concept of drama, would see performances only the once and their plays were unique, one-off experiences. However, over time, those plays were performed again and again, particularly during the Hellenistic period. It was also meant that those plays stayed alive and they are still with us today. Consider the plays of Shakespeare. They have been performed, interpreted and even changed (depending on context) since Elizabethan times. King Lear has been interpreted through a whole range of approaches from a medieval Japan context to one set with 1950s Eastern Bloc /Cold War aesthetics! The richness of these stories in language, theme, character and emotion are still alive because they have been performed for hundreds of years. And of course, the Bard’s stories have been interpreted for the screen. Think Olivier’s 1945 film version of Henry V, which is often considered one of the finest screen interpretations of the play. Does this become the one and only version, never to be remade? What of Baz Lurhman’s Romeo And Juliet (1995)? It is not the first nor will it be the last telling of the tragic story of two star-crossed lovers.

The truth is that some of our most loved, revered and celebrated films are remakes, whether we realise it or not. We often chide Hollywood for remaking films within only a few years of each other but actually it’s been a practice since the silent days. By the time, Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde was made in 1932 at Paramount, the story had been filmed at least 8 times, with three versions being made in one year! (1920 to be precise, two in the U.S and one in Germany).  John Barrymore’s 1920 turn as the infamous dual personality was a benchmark performance but March as the doomed doctor is perhaps the most superb in sound film history, with even the great Spencer Tracy unable to reach audiences in the 1941 version with Ingrid Bergman.

The same is true for quite a number of films based on classic literature such as A Tale Of Two Cities, Treasure Island, The Three Musketeers and A Christmas Carol – all being filmed numerous times. By the 1935 MGM version, David Copperfield had been made 3 times. The story of Oliver Twist was on its’ 8thversion in the loved 1968 musical Oliver!(with the film being made 6 times during the silent era!).  William Wyler’s Ben Hur is often cited as the greatest epic ever made and a standard by which other ‘big films’ are measured. Yet it too is a remake of the 1925 silent epic starring Roman Navarro and Francis X. Bushman. (Ironically, the recent remake of Ben Hur was critically panned and financially an unmitigated disaster).

Interestingly enough, Cecil B. deMille is an example of a director who revisited earlier films he had made and gave them a new perspective. The Squaw Man (1914) would be remade two more times in 1918 and 1931! Of all the films he made, his most celebrated, known and loved is his final film, The Ten Commandments (1956), a far superior remake of his own 1923 silent version. In this case, the original is not the best. The 1956 version is the quintessential epic tale, resplendent in Technicolor, with all the kitsch, pageantry and excitement of Biblical proportions that are synonymous with deMille and the epic film.

But not only have epics and tales from classic literature been remade to great or greater success. Contemporary stories have been revisited as well. In the world of film noir, one film which justifiably makes every top five list was on its third remake when it was redone by John Huston. The Maltese Falcon (1941) remains one of the greatest films ever made, far out-pacing it’s prior two incarnations which would have become little more than a footnote in cinema history. The previous 1931 same-titled version starring Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels is a little stilted, whilst its’ 1936 remake, Satan Met A Lady, starring William Warren and Bette Davis feels more like a typical Warner Bros. programmer and was even considered by critics at the time, such as Bosley Crowther, as ‘inferior to the original’. Neither are remarkable and again, the original is not the best. Huston’s version of the Dashiell Hammett pulp fiction novel, would help to create the tropes and cinematic expression for film noir, and Bogart’s performance as private eye, Sam Spade has become legendary and would make him a star.

MalteseFalcon1931_1764_677x381_05032017092823

satanmetalady1936_053120131002

maltese_falcon_-_h_-_1941

Unfortunately, there is sometimes an element of exploitation that comes with the remake. But Hollywood is a business and driven by profit. If an audience responds, then it the film is deemed a success. The horror genre is one where the remake is a constant, driven by the profit margin rather than artistic merit. That has certainly been the impression felt with Universal’s recent attempt at ‘re-booting’ the classic Universal monsters with disastrous results. (This writer feels that Universal was making an attempt to trash its’ legacy!) The classic monsters were first seen in monochrome but would be remade in the 1950s and 1960s in Britain by Hammer Studios, complete with full-blown colour, gore and sex. Exploitive? Perhaps. Yet audiences saw a new interpretation of the undead Transylvanian count – from a dream-like, hypnotic and slow-speaking Lugosi to an animalistic and vivid Christopher Lee, complete with bloodied fangs. Horror fans often find it difficult to choose, with the character of Dracula ‘belonging’ to both actors. Yet Lee would be less successful with the Frankenstein monster, as would many who preceded and followed Lee, and the monster has been firmly associated with the brilliant performance of Boris Karloff in the original 1932 film and its’ two sequels. Still, the Hammer remakes resonated with audiences, offering something new and exciting.

Lugosi vs. Lee.png

Yet there are characters that belong to certain actors and actresses and their ownership of those performances are complete. It is impossible to think of anyone else but Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara or for that matter, Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. And of course, Gone With The Wind is a film that no-one would dare remake. The same could be said for Casablanca,again a film with iconic performances from Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, a song that had stood the test of time in its’ poignant definition of love and of course some of cinema’s most famous lines. How could it be remade? The story of Robin Hood has been told numerous times, with mixed results and mixed reviews. Arguably, the role was firmly identified with Douglas Fairbanks Snr, one of the great silent stars, after his 1922 film was a huge hit; until Warner Bros. remade the film in full colour in 1938, with Errol Flynn. A natural for the role, Flynn has owned the role since, despite numerous A-listers taking on the role over the decades.

Vivien-Leigh-MGM--440670

There are countless other roles and films which, if recast or remade, would results in loud cries of protest. And perhaps rightfully so. Could The Wizard Of Oz be remade? (Actually, it, too is a remake!) How about Edward G. Robinson as ‘Little’ Caesar Bandello? Imagine a ‘reboot’ of Chaplin’s work. Or Hitchcock’s films. (It’s been done!) Singin’ In The RainDouble Indemnity? The Godfather? Metropolis? Duck Soup? Some Like It Hot?

In the end, a remake will work or fail if it resonates with the audience. For better or for worse, that’s the lowest common denominator that determines a film’s eventual worth andif it will stand the test of time. For silent films (and indeed even some sound films from the golden years of Hollywood), this has proved difficult. Aside from cinephiles and classic film lovers, silent films find difficulty in gaining traction in a mainstream market and for audiences not exposed to silent film. Additionally, we have audiences trained to expect blockbuster films over-cooked with CGI and action every 30 seconds. A silent film, without sound, colour and very different contexts finds it difficult to gain a foothold.

But all the technological advancements in the world cannot replicate, re-design or replace the impact of story.

It takes a fair amount of courage and risk when a remake is given the green light. It means big shoes to fill and an attempt to draw out a performance from under the giant shadow of its’ predecessor. Cinematic history shows that it does happen. But there are films that are like classic works of art. Can a work by Monet or Dali be redone? Should a piece of music by Mozart or Brahms be re-written? And the importance of textual integrity cannot be over-stated either. The recent tragedy of the near destruction of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, will see deep discussion and debate on how to ‘remake’ what has been lost or damaged. Will it be in keeping with the historic and architectural integrity of the building? Will it be true to the cathedral’s past whilst reflecting the modern era (or does it have to)? And how will people react in the present and in the future to any change or lack of change?

The remaking of classic film shares a similar dilemma.

There are advantages to classic films being remade. It sounds almost unthinkable but Nosferatu (1922) would be successfully remade by Werner Herzog (in an English AND German version!) in 1979 with the famed Klaus Kinski in the title role, to great critical and commercial success. It is an impressive film, with stunning visuals, incredibly deep pathos and emotion, and Kinski is outstanding as the vampire. As a result, it also brought new interest in the original 1922 film. If remakes can arouse interest, educate audiences and broaden the experience of cinema, whilst offering a new and exciting perspective/interpretation, then it serves a great purpose.

nosferatu-bfi-00n-2r5

image

But just because classic films can be remade, does not mean that they shouldbe. As already mentioned, Universal came close to trashing their own legacy with the attempted (and hopefully permanently aborted) reboot of the classic horror monsters, which felt watching someone take fluorescent spray cans to the Sistine Chapel. But as audiences, we do need to set aside prejudged notions and allow for new interpretations of stories. This is what provides a richness to cinema and art. Multiple and contemporary readings offer greater insights and new interpretations offer inclusivity to modern and future audiences – and there is great value in that prospect.

But new is not enough. ‘New’ for the sake of ‘new’ does not do justice to a work of art. Nor does new mean better. What is also important to recognise is that masterpieces do not and cannot be replicated. Nor do they need to be. We can already enjoy what exists, revisit them time and time again and walk away re-spirited, revitalised and emotionally moved.

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.

Bert Gordon – Arch Villain: The Performance Of George C. Scott in The Hustler (1961)

by Paul Batters

1961-Hustler-The-04

“You gotta be hard, Eddie”  – Bert Gordon (George C. Scott) The Hustler (1961)

How many stories feature the protagonist facing a villain? The character of the villain has been at the heart of storytelling since humans started telling them. The villain is an important part of the construct of storytelling and there is a range of reasons why.

In terms of human history, film is a very new method of telling story. But the importance of the villain as a crucial character still applies. Since the beginning of the film industry, we have seen heroes and heroines on the screen battle and attempt to overcome a villain hell-bent on the hero or heroine’s destruction and/or failure.  We often apply a range of adjectives and descriptors to the villain in a story and they remind us of our own darkness and the ugliness that humanity possesses. We ask the question ‘how can they do that?’, without asking ourselves the same question. What does it take to push a human into the darkness?

Villains come in the shape of murderers, criminals, monsters, serial killers, dictators, femme fatales, gangsters and even schoolyard bullies. Often they are visible and in some cases caricatures. Yet perhaps the most dangerous villain of all is the one that is not so visible – at least initially. They look like us. They ride the elevator into our workplace. They walk down the street and into the same cafes and order coffee as we do. And they even catch cold like us. Yet underneath they harbour black souls and are as destructive as a prehistoric beast arisen from its’ slumber. They use and crush their fellow humans for their own gain, with a callousness and cruelty that can steal one’s breath. They can entice us into their web without our knowing, buying into their charisma and believing their promises.

Bert Gordon in The Hustler (1961) is such a villain.

Written, produced and directed by Robert Rossen, The Hustler is a powerful film that examines human frailty in its’ pursuit for fulfilment and need for realising one’s self. Arguably, Paul Newman’s performance as ‘Fast’ Eddie Felson is perhaps his finest portrayal, playing a pool player existing on the edge of society.  His struggle to overcome the obstacles in his path, often flummoxed by his own passion becomes complicated by two relationships: one being Sarah (Piper Laurie) the woman who loves him and the second Bert Gordon (George C Scott), the man who wants to own and exploit him.

Our first glimpse of Bert Gordon sees him in his natural habitat, a card game. The fact that he’s drinking milk as he plays, suggests that Bert stays in control in a world where most are hard and heavy drinkers. A professional gambler, who knows the odds and plays to win, leaves the card game to watch Eddie play the legendary Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), whom Bert ‘owns’ and bankrolls. 

Like a predator watching prey, Bert sits by quietly, his eyes gleaming – immaculately dressed and seemingly not perturbed by Eddie’s winning against Minnesota Fats. But Bert reads the situation like a pro, especially when Eddie’s ego gets the better off him and his winning streak begins to turn sour, assisted by his consumption of bourbon. Bragging, Eddie tells Minnesota Fats:

‘I’m the best you ever seen, Fats. I’m the best there is. Now even if you beat me, I’m still the best’.

We here Bert Gordon for the first time, making a cold and accurate assessment with a controlled growl of a voice, as he tells Fats:

Stay with this kid. He’s a loser’.

Despite directing his comment at Fats, it is clear that Bert is speaking to Eddie, already using a psychological switchblade on Eddie to push him into defeat. Or perhaps to test Eddie and see if he can win? Either way, it’s a taste of things to come.

Eddie soon finds himself involved with Sarah (Piper Laurie) a woman who ‘has problems’, including drinking and loneliness.  They are both lonely people, but they also seek different things. But there is no doubt that Sarah loves him and has her own problems with accepting this, partially out of fear of losing him, as well as her own personal inadequacies. In the end, Bert and Sarah will fight for Eddie but for very different reasons.

h7

the-hustler-19612.png

When Eddie encounters Bert again, it is at a card game and Bert decides to school Eddie on the art of winning.  Bert likes any game, not only where there’s ‘action’ but where he can control the odds and win. In the process of maintaining control, Bert drinks milk claiming that ‘it’s good for you’ and though he can drink, he does so only on a rare occasion. Again, he calls Eddie a loser who looks for an excuse to lose, talking straight and hard that it takes character to win, despite having all the talent in the world. Bert knows that Eddie is good and points out that he had never seen Fats hooked before but as he also declares in his schooling of Eddie, ‘you don’t win by yardage’. The way to judge a winner, he adds, is by who is standing at the end. Refusing to buy Bert’s terms, Eddie tells him aggressively to ‘kiss off’ but Bert is not perturbed and smiles at him like a shark showing his teeth. Bert offers Eddie a warning that ‘the word is out’ on him and he could get himself hurt. Sure enough, Eddie is going to get hurt and while hustling pool for cheap money, gets set upon. Not only is he beaten up but his thumbs get broken. It is a brutal and vicious attack that leaves Eddie helpless as he stumbles back to Sarah’s door.

After a slow and difficult recovery, where Eddie has had time to think, he incredibly seeks out Bert and offers the revelation that ‘twenty percent of something is better than a hundred percent of nothing’. There is something else that both Eddie and Bert are hungry for, despite Eddie realizing too late what the price is for that hunger – and that is to win.

thehustler_c_scott_newman1

Bert has plans to go down south to Kentucky during the Derby and use his connections to start making money through Eddie. He points out to Eddie that he always picks up the tab: signifying that far from being a generous man, it is more the case that Bert pays for what he owns in the same way that a horse–owner takes care of his horse. But there is a complication in Bert’s plans, as Eddie wants Sarah to come along. Bert recognizes what Sarah is – a danger to his plans to own Eddie outright. Sarah is a rival for Eddie’s heart and soul and love is the one factor that Bert cannot connect with nor have in his way. As far as Bert is concerned, Sarah must be removed from the situation.

Travelling to Kentucky by train, Bert starts his campaign early even though there is the appearance of friendliness. His cold, evil persona is evident at every moment, with his shark-like smile ever apparent. Leaning back to eye her like a predator eyeing a weakness, Bert is sizing her up for the kill and considering the way in which he will dispose of her. He drops the word ‘cripple’ during a discussion, knowing that Sarah has a slight limp, which she is self-conscious of. Eddie stands up for her but Sarah tries to show she isn’t bothered, despite understanding full well what Bert is up to. He will be dismissive of her presence by pretending not to remember her name, which may appear like bullying but it is a slow kill where he first intends to break her, before he ensures his personal victory.

Enjoyingthemoney

But the veneer drops along with the smile when the two are alone in the hotel they have arrived at in Kentucky. The pretense also drops away as Bert shows his true colours. Voice hard and rough, Bert stakes his flag in the ground and growls at her:

‘Listen, Miss Lady Bird. You’re here on a rain-check and I know it. You’re hangin’ on by your nails. You let that glory whistle blow loud and clear for Eddie, and you’re a wreck on a railroad track. You’re a horse that finished last. Now don’t make trouble, Miss Lady Bird. Live and let live – while you can!’

The menace behind the mask is frightening and Sarah is intelligent enough to see what she is up against. It is a warning above anything else. It initially appears that Bert is drawing a line in the sand and will even tolerate her presence.  But before long, Bert begins his dismantling of Sarah, pulling her fragile psyche apart like a boy pulling wings from a fly. It is a deliberate breaking down of her defenses and a method of prying her from Eddie, so that Bert has complete control over his investment.

It is at the party where Bert will show what a cold villain he truly is. The real battle for Eddie’s soul begins when he plays the party host in a game of billiards. It is a brilliant power play on Bert’s part and Eddie becomes the battleground where Sarah and Bert will do battle. Sarah throws herself at Eddie’s feet, openly attacking Bert and imploring Eddie to get away from him. Newman beautifully imparts Eddie’s acceptance of Sarah’s truth but like an addict who cannot turn away from the terrible affliction that grips him, and his self-disgust finds him turning to Bert. Like a drug-pusher, Bert casually knows how to hook Eddie in and win him over anything that Sarah has to offer, even truth. He does not even deny what Sarah declares, knowing full well that all it will take is to feed Eddie’s addiction and Bert will win the day.

Sure enough, Sarah leaves the battlefield broken but the war is not yet over. However, she will make a terrible sacrifice to save Eddie.

The victorious and satisfied Fast Eddie Felson cleans the party host out and Bert seems satisfied as well. Suggesting to Eddie that he’ll give the kiss off to Sarah for him, Bert reminds Eddie that ‘you need to be hard’. Eddie’s non-committal to a decision shows his lack of courage in making a final choice – he wants the action of the game but cannot bring himself to tear Sarah away or hold onto her either. Eddie decides to walk back to the hotel. In the meantime, Bert returns and the final tragedy will unfold.

the hustler1.jpg

Without giving too much away, it is a moment where our admiration for Sarah reaches its’ greatest height as she ‘wins the war’ for Eddie’s sake even if it means losing everything. Sarah knows who Bert is and when he claims he ‘only wants the money’ Sarah smiles wryly and accurately describes Bert as a ‘Roman’, who wants to win everything. Bert takes the bait and shows his true colours, revealing the cold, hard villain that underlies the supposed hard-business never personal façade that gives him his edge.

Eddie learns his lesson in a hard yet life-defining way. There will be a final showdown where Eddie will reclaim his sense of self but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Eddie has learned who Bert Gordon is but has learned it too late. He tells Bert that ‘the cost is too high’ and Bert relents but gives him the quiet warning, smiling all the while:

George C. Scott’s performance is one of incredible measure, where his cold, calculating persona is superbly coloured by a dangerous charisma and a commanding presence. Scott gives a clear sense of Bert’s villainous nature, one which needs to win completely – to not only pocket the winnings from the action but to destroy those around him as well. Eddie’s final assessment of Bert shows that he has finally learned what Sarah was trying to reveal about Bert, that beneath the mask the face is twisted and evil.  Eddie turns Bert’s words on himself and calls Bert a loser, declaring that Bert is dead inside and can’t live unless he makes everything else dead around him. Bert seems chastened but like any villain, who is even momentarily beaten, he will continue in his ways, for there is no other path for him.

The Hustler is an outstanding film with penultimate performances from Paul Newman as Fast Eddie and Piper Laurie as Sarah. But George C. Scott steals almost every scene that he is in, with the subtleties of a super-villain whose wielding of cold manipulation like a weapon is akin to watching a master at work. The truth remains that for the hero to shine, the obstacles that he or she must face must be great in their scope. The ultimate obstacle for the hero is the villain – and in The Hustler, that obstacle in Paul Newman’s way is perfectly personified by the performance of George C. Scott as Bert Gordon.

This article is an entry into the Great Villain Blogathon of 2019, kindly hosted by Ruth of Silver Screenings, Karen of Shadows And Satin  and Kristina of Speakeasy.  Many thanks for letting me take part! Please click on the following link to read some fantastic articles on great villains in classic film – Great Villain Blogathon of 2019

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.

 

Dirty Harry (1971): Clint Eastwood As The Iconic Cop

by Paul Batters

dirty-harry-uk-quad-film-poster-1971-1.jpg

‘Now you know why they call me Dirty Harry…every dirty job that comes along’  Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood)

The depiction of the police on film is one that courts controversy and can rarely placate all and sundry in an audience. Certainly, the depiction of law enforcement has changed dramatically since the days of Breen Code but societal values and perceptions have also played an important role. Until the 1960s, the police on film were rarely depicted in a negative light and if there was corruption, it was only one or two bad apples not the police institution itself.

Yet the 1960s saw wholesale changes, with the collapse of the studio system, the new wave of film-makers and the obliteration of the Code. But perhaps most importantly, the 1960s was a time of change, challenging the status quo, Civil Rights, the anti-war movement and the birth and growth of the counter-cultural movement. For the first time, popular culture challenged traditional power and authority and the revelations of the time (Nixon, Watergate, assassinations of leaders, the Vietnam War) meant that people would never trust power and authority in the way they always had ever again.

But it was also a time of conservative backlash and a strong response to the perceived collapse of law and order. Nixon was elected to power, as Noel Murray points out, and reactionary politics was in the culture – think All In The Family and the film Joe (1970). Both spoke to the same platform that Nixon claimed; the silent majority who were tired of dirty hippies, long-hairs and smart-ass university types telling them how to live and what direction the country should go in.

Which is why Dirty Harry is both an anomaly and an understandable statement of its time.

harryhed_2.jpg

Roger Ebert’s own review back in 1971 opened with a fascinating overview of criticism of the film being labelled ‘fascist’. He opines that the term had been overused and ‘best confined to a literal meaning’ rather than being used to label anything that is undesirable. In the context of the late 1960s/early 1970s, this is a fairly astute viewpoint, particularly as Ebert goes on to declare that the use of the term ‘fascist’ to describe Dirty Harry is actually quite justifiable. And there’s plenty of evidence in the film to fuel this criticism.

Directed by Don Siegel and released in 1971, Dirty Harry would be one of the highest grossing films of 1971. It would also assure Clint Eastwood as one of the top stars in Hollywood, with his directorial debut in Play Misty For Me already in the can and only just being released a couple of months earlier, also playing its’ part in assuring Eastwood’s currency in Hollywood. Emmanuel Levy points out that it outraged many liberals when it was released and you can see why.

Clint Eastwood plays Harry Callahan, a San Francisco cop who is after a dangerous psychopath named Scorpio (Andy Robinson). With an obvious nod to the real-life Zodiac killer, Scorpio taunts the SFPD that he will kill more unless his demands are met. From the get-go, the audience discovers that Callahan is not your average cop. Despite his dedication to the job, he has little regard for the authorities despite being a cop working to stamp his authority on the street. His first interaction with the Mayor (John Vernon) is both humorous and brazen in its feelings towards those in higher office. Indeed, it sets the tone for the zeitgeist of the times; a lack of respect or trust in authority. But it also establishes how Callahan deals with perps – and his ‘policy’ is direct and to the point:

Callahan runs his own show and the audience also discovers that he gets into trouble for crossing over the line. Yet his calm demeanour, perfect one-liners and fondness for his .44 Magnum create a persona that would permeate into many future roles for Eastwood. His character’s proclivity to use all three is discovered early in the film, when he deals with an attempted armed bank robbery.

His lack of desire to work with a new rookie partner, Inspector Chico Gonzalez (Reni Santoni), further suggests the ‘lone wolf’ who prefers to work alone without limitations and thus more effectively by his reckoning. Callahan cannot help but gently mock his new partner’s university education, further reflecting the right-wing ideology that critics suggested permeated throughout the film. But he has no choice, as ordered by his direct superior Lt. Bressler (Harry Guardino), and they embark on the search for Scorpio. Chico also discovers early on why Harry has the reputation that he does.

Initially, there’s a humorous ‘wrong number’ when they track the wrong guy and Chico jokes now he knows why he’s called ‘Dirty’ Harry. Even Eastwood is stumped for a retort.But things get serious and tragic when a 10 year old African-American boy is shot in the face by Scorpio, meeting his earlier evil prophecy in his letter to the SFPD that he will shoot a ‘Catholic priest or a n…..”. As  Callahan correctly surmises, the next victim could very well be a priest as Scorpio ‘may think he owes himself a padre’ and they set up an operation to get their man during a late night Novena at a Catholic Church. The operation does not go to plan and a cop going undercover as the priest gets killed. Not only does the killings heighten the sense of tension and terror but the desire for Callahan to finally get Scorpio. It’s a perfect emotional manipulation of the audience by Siegel and has become part and parcel of ‘law and order’ films ever since.

The use of dark humour and Callahan’s seemingly casual demeanour in dealing with problems is perhaps a facade for his coping mechanism. Take in point the ‘suicide scene’ where he has to deal with a jumper that is first mistaken for Scorpio. Whilst he handles the jumper with casual indifference, it’s a ply to get him down but his face is tired and his voice loaded with cynicism, betraying the truth behind the facade. Later, when he is speaking to Chico’s wife, she asks ‘why do you do it?’ and Callahan can only respond that he really doesn’t know.  The two moments link as evidence that Harry Callahan is a man who is tired and jaded with the whole of society and the damned institutions that run it.

Finally, Scorpio abducts a teenage girl and threatens all manner of horrors if his demands are not met. To show his intent, he includes in a package sent with a letter of his demands, the girl’s panties, a lock of hair and a tooth pulled out with pliers. Callahan believes she’s probably dead but agrees to be the bagman taking a bag filled with money to Scorpio, in the hope that the girl will be saved. What follows is a cat and mouse game where Scorpio sends Callahan all over town, from phone box to phone box until the final confrontation in the city park at night. Of course on the way there, there’s a dash of homophobic reference thrown in for good measure when Callahan comes across ‘Alice’ who will ‘do anything for a dare’.

The masked Scorpio meets with  Callahan, who forces him to disarm and give him the bag of money, after which Scorpio brutally beats him. But Chico has been following and after a gunfight, Scorpio gives an animalistic and terrifying howl as Callahan plunges a hidden switchblade deep into Scorpio’s thigh. Scorpio gets away but is injured, as is Chico in the exchange of gunfire.

The following scene is perhaps the most infamous in the film, where Callahan tracks Scorpio down to a football stadium. The arrogant Scorpio is now a simpering coward, begging for mercy but Callahan will not relent. Repeating over and over in tears ‘I have rights, I want a lawyer…’, Callahan demands to know where the girl is and begins to torture Scorpio by standing on his badly injured leg as he points his gun at him. The camera, obviously placed on a helicopter, hovers back into the blackness as Scorpio’s howls fade out as well into the backdrop of the city at night. It’s a jarring and terrifying scene  and one of the most memorable.

It feels like the story has come to an end. As the sun rises, a tired and hurting Callahan watched from afar as the missing girl’s dead naked body is pulled out from a grave. The sombre music reflects everyone’s mood and it’s also a Pyrrhic victory for Harry Callahan.

Here the shift to audience outrage takes form as Callahan is informed that Scorpio will walk because his rights have been violated, including key Amendments in the Constitution, as well as the Miranda and Escobedo rulings. It touched a raw nerve with audiences in an America torn by civil strife and riots, as well as the fear and terror of urban decay and the proliferation of the serial killer (in all manner of forms – here manifested in all those forms by Scorpio). In the D.A’s office, Callahan’s incredulity and anger mirrors an audience who, like Callahan are also ‘all broken up about (Scorpio’s) rights’. Callahan declares that ‘the law’s crazy’ and also assures that he will stay on Scorpio’s tail (no pun intended by this reviewer).

Callahan starts following Scorpio, whose wearing of a twisted peace sign as a belt buckle as he stares at kids in a playground, is highly suggestive of a constant underlying tone in the film; that America’s failings are a result of bleeding heart liberals whose progressive ideas are causing its’ societal and political woes. Now if only the police could do their job without being held back by ridiculous laws seems to be the sentiment.

The eventual showdown will results after Scorpio hijacks a school bus and takes the children hostage. It is a terrifyingly cruel scene as Scorpio manically terrorises the children on the bus. Somehow, Callahan is on the ready and as the bus goes under an overpass, he leaps onto the bus and makes chase after the bus comes to a halt.

WARNING! Be prepared for spoilers!

As Callahan chases Scorpio through a processing mill, the psychopathic killer comes across a boy fishing at a nearby pond and uses him as a human shield. It seems there’s nothing Callahan can do. But with all the flash and cool that he possesses, Callahan wounds Scorpio with a lightning fast shot, freeing the boy who runs away and leaving the two to face each other. It’s what the audience has been waiting for, with the coup de grace yet to come.

Callahan repeats with controlled aggression, the now famous line he used at the start of the film with the failed bank robber. This time – Scorpio will test his luck and Callahan blasts him to kingdom come.

In the background, a faint police siren can be heard and it’s easy to imagine what Callahan is thinking – why do I need to justify my actions against this maniac? His disgust can be felt as he holsters his weapon, looks into the distance and takes out his badge. A moment’s pause sees him throw into the water and then the credits begin to roll. According to Peter van Gelder, Eastwood was not too keen to toss the badge, seeing it as a gesture of abdication. But Siegel made him see that it was more an act of protest and disgust than anything else.

Legendary critics like Ebert called the film ‘morally fascist’, as did Pauline Kael. But Kael adds an important assessment of the film:

“It’s hard to resist, because the most skilful suspense techniques are used on very primitive emotional levels…You have but one desire: to see the maniac get it so it hurts”. 

And there’s the rub. Whatever elements of fascism one wishes to find, it’s impossible to deny that it’s a damn good cop thriller and perhaps one of the best. Noel Murray puts it perfectly:

“Thanks to Siegel’s lean direction and Eastwood’s cooly laconic lead performance, Dirty Harry’s vision of a world gone mad is effective enough to make even a card-carrying ACLU member cheer for Harry’s vengeance”.

Siegel keeps the film tight and any fat has been trimmed off to keep the story moving and the dialogue drives the story without wasting words. As a director, Siegel has an instinct for pacing and it’s what makes the film such a solid thriller as much as a cop film. Interestingly enough, for all the charges of fascism, Siegel declared himself to be very much a left-leaning liberal who just wanted to make a commercially successful cop-thriller. Despite speculation that both Siegel and right-wing Eastwood must have clashed on the film, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Both were aiming to make a successful film and ultimately as Siegel stated, his making a film about a ‘hard-nosed cop doesn’t mean I condone hard-nosed cops’.

Many of the tropes we find in later cop films and even vigilante-type stories such as the Death Wish series find their origins in Dirty Harry, particularly when it comes to the bad guy. Whilst Scorpio is without a doubt based on the real-life Zodiac Killer who plagued California during the same period of time, Scorpio does incorporate characteristics of numerous psycho-types that would terrify anyone. Andy Robinson is perhaps one of the most disturbing creeps ever brought to the screen and time has not diminished his outstanding performance. By all reports, Robinson struggled with key aspects of the performance, particularly in two areas – the use of guns (which he personally hated and needed intensive training with) and the school bus scene. According to Peter van Gelder, Robinson could not stomach the violent cruelty he was supposed to dish out to the children and only relented when Siegel himself started dishing it out, just to get the scene over and done with. If Robinson was struggling with it, there’s a challenge to spot it because it’s one of the most disturbing and manic moments in the film and difficult to watch.

Dirty-Harry-Scorpio-Bus

Eastwood was not the first choice for the role but he turned out to be the best. Like the lone gunman or the man with no name, Harry Callahan stands alone in the SFPD and in the pantheon of cops on film. The role would deliver a franchise of successful films, with Sudden Impact (1983) perhaps being the most successful. But the original is still the best and whatever one thinks of the film’s politics, it is impossible to deny it’s one of the greatest cop films ever made.

This article is an entry into the 2019 Cops Blogathon kindly hosted by Dubism. Many thanks for letting me take part! To all readers and visitors, please click on the above link for more great articles!

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.

Five Favourite Films Of The 1950s

by Paul Batters

It’s always a tough gig trying to compile any favourites list and when it comes to film, I personally find it particularly difficult to do. But after seeing this blogathon hosted by The Classic Film and TV Café, the challenge was too tempting to let slide. The following five films are cinematic classics that have deeply moved me and ones which I have developed a profound connection to. They are also films which I have watched time and time again, only to discover something new during every viewing. Most importantly, they are timeless for the powerful performances of the key actors and actresses, the thematic concerns and the cinematic quality of their production.

There’s no right or wrong answer to this. And yes, yes and yes, there are other films which could be added, dropped or given an honourable mention. But these films are what stand out for me.

So without further ado…

The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

Without a doubt one of the finest films in the pantheon of film noir, The Asphalt Jungle is also the quintessential heist film. Directed by John Huston, it also contains one of the greatest lines in film noir and one which sums up the core value of noir – ‘Crime is but a left-handed form of human endeavour’.

ASPHALTJUNGLE_C033287_HDMASTER1.mov.01_42_34_07.Still015.tif

Starring Sterling Hayden as a small time hood named Dix, he’s a tough, no-nonsense man who has principles as well as a dream to get back to his childhood home. The whole cast is outstanding and each character embodies the foibles, dreams and weaknesses of humanity, seeking a way out yet finding themselves moving deeper into the darkness. Dix becomes part of a gang put together by Doc (Sam Jaffe), a gentlemanly crook whose scheme of a big jewellery robbery is funded by Emmerich (Louis Calhern) a corrupt lawyer, who has his own plans. Their meticulous plans will become undone by greed as much as the hand of fate in a taut and superbly crafted story.

Asphalt3.jpg

There’s no slackness and no loose ends, and Miklos Rozsa’s score underpins the desperation of men seeking to get out from under. We’re left feeling as desperate as the men on the screen, hoping against hope that they will make it – to wherever it is they are going. Grim but exciting and riveting from start to finish, The Asphalt Jungle is mandatory viewing not only for those who love film noir but for any fan of classic film.

Incidentally, I’ll be writing a review of The Asphalt Jungle for the 2019 Noirama Blogathon hosted by Maddy Loves Her Classic Films

The Bad And The Beautiful (1952)

Vincente Minelli’s bittersweet poem to Hollywood pulls no punches, revealing the nature of the industry and the people who work within it. The story focuses on director Fred Amiel (Barry Sullivan), movie star Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner), and screenwriter James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell) and their personal and working relationship with producer Jonathon Shields (Kirk Douglas). Minelli made it a point thatthe characters’ humanity was integral to the success of the film and that they were not immune to weaknesses, which were counterpoints to their strengths.

The harsh reality behind the magic of film is brought forward through three different stories told in retrospect. Yet all three are intertwined and ultimately centred on the ruthless yet brilliant and emotional Shields, who has given them their career breaks yet also betrayed them, professionally and personally. Douglas plays Shields with incredible sensitivity and depth, delivering the personal pain, passions and difficulties that film-makers face. The other key players are also superb and for my money it is one of Lana Turner’s most memorable performances as the alcoholic actress, who falls in love with but is eventually spurned by Shields.

bad

There’s plenty to pull apart as the characters and scenarios are drawn from Hollywood history. Georgia Lorrison is based on the daughter of legendary John Barrymore, Diana. The European director von Elstein is certainly a nod to the European directors who came to Hollywood such as von Sternberg and von Stroheim. Watching Shields and Amiel work on ‘Doom Of The Cat Men’ is without a doubt an homage to Val Lewton’s unit at RKO and the making of The Cat People (1942). According to a number of reports, Shields was based on David Selznick, whose life and career certainly shows parallels with the obsessed producer.

maxresdefault

The Bad And The Beautifulis not nostalgic or sentimental; there is a deeper undertone of harsh realism that counters any such possibilities, without it being an expose. But it’s impossible not to feel for the characters and despite their ruthlessness, selfishness and complexities, like us, they love film and are ultimately moved by its magic. As a result, I’ve always been deeply moved by The Bad And The Beautiful.

On The Waterfront (1954)

If ever there was an actor on the screen whose brilliance was matched by apathy to the industry, it was and still is Marlon Brando. There are countless actors and film-makers who turn to On The Waterfront as their inspiration for becoming involved in film, and it is impossible not to argue with them.

Elia Kazan’s grim crime drama tells of the corruption deeply entrenched in the unions which control the New Jersey docks but more importantly it highlights the impact that it has one the longshoremen and their families. The harsh, cold setting and stark story is a contrast to the colour extravaganzas of the musicals that were popular during the period. It was a gutsy picture for Kazan to make, aided by Schulberg’s superb script. There are some deeper criticisms that emerge, focused on Kazan’s testimony for HUAC which have been discussed at length elsewhere.

on-the-waterfront.jpg

The cast is strong and Eva Marie Saint’s debut as Edie stands tall with Karl Malden as tough priest Father Barry (who for my money deserved the Best Supporting Actor), Rod Steiger as Charley and Lee J. Cobb as the crooked union boss, Johnny Friendly.

But the fact remains that the film is Brando’s and the incredible performance as ex-boxer Terry Malloy is one of the greatest in film history. Brando is natural, realistic and adds subtle touches which add a beautiful element to his performance. Terry is torn between the rules that he has known all his life, the cynical harshness that has shaped his reality and the tenderness and desire for something more that is drawn from deep within by his love for the delicate yet strong and determined Edie.

on_the_waterfront_-_h_-_2017

The most famous scene in the film has been paraphrased, satirised and almost exhausted to the point of cliché. But the cab scene between Terry and his brother Charley is a powerful scene and deservedly one of the most celebrated and lauded scenes in film history. Brando would declare that he initially hated the scene and bemoaned Steiger’s ‘always wanting to cry’ in dramatic scenes. Yet years on, Brando would come to terms with the universality of the scene and be at peace with it. Malloy is channelling what nearly everyone feels at some point in their life – that there was a moment in time, a chance, where they could have become more than what they are and reached heights that met their dreams and potential, which never eventuated for whatever reason.

On The Waterfront is a powerful and provocative film and the ending which sees Terry stand up for a chance to make a difference and that he even though he’s ‘lost the battle’, he can ‘still win the war’ is inspirational. For me, it deserves to be recognised as one of the finest films of the 1950s.

Paths Of Glory (1957)

Paths Of Glory is a masterclass of cinematography by Stanley Kubrick and one of the key reasons why I feel it is an exceptional cinematic experience. The cold realism of the horrors and cruelty of war are experienced by the audience, through the camera’s presence with the soldiers during battle. It is a stark contrast to the conventional war film with dramatic music being absent and the use of silence to heighten tension, with the aim of realism being well-established.

Kirk Douglas plays Colonel Dax in the French army during World War One. An intelligent man who is leading his men into battle, he is also well aware of the futility of war as well as the stupidity of the orders from high-ranking officers. Douglas offers a strong, tempered performance, balancing the character’s frustrations with the unprincipled, contemptuous and disgraceful Broulard (Adolphe Menjou).

paths-of-glory-1957-pictures.png

Thematically, the film examines the brutality and cruelty of humans during war and the contempt that the military has for the men who are doing the fighting and dying on the battlefields.

Dax leads a futile attack on Anthill, a position held by the Germans which Dax knows is doomed to fail. Dax tries to lead his men as best he can, despite the madness of the orders given but the shelling of his own men by French artillery sees disaster result. Brigadier-General Mireau (George MacReady) decides to court-martial 100 of his men for the failure, in an attempt to deflect blame from himself.

maxresdefault-1.jpg

Dax, a former lawyer, defends three of his men in a trial which is at best a travesty of justice and procedure. Despite his honourable attempts, Dax knows it is a pointless defence, mirroring the futility of the battlefields.

An anti-war film it is but it is also more than that – it is a strong indictment against injustice, corruption and the cruelty of humans at their worst. It is as much an anti-militaryfilm as well. It was a film with a rawness that would be banned in some countries due to its’ anti-military tone.

Paths Of Glory is one of Douglas’ best performances in a film that is testimony to the genius of Stanley Kubrick.

Vertigo (1958)

I recently wrote about Vertigo( see link ) and cannot speak highly enough of what I believe is perhaps Hitchcock’s most beautiful film. It leads the audience through the mental anguish of former cop turned private investigator Scottie (Jimmy Stewart) and a mash-up of his obsession founded in dream and nightmare. Kim Novak was never more ethereal and captivating as Madeline and Bernard Herrmann’s score is, as Martin Scorsese declares, a spiralling and circular movement that lifts and drop the audience along with Scottie’s journey through obsession.

maxresdefault-2.jpg

The plot won’t be discussed here but needless to say it touches the audience with its’ themes in ways that few films ever could. It becomes personal and deeply intrusive into our own psyches.

It’s no mistake that Vertigo has consistently made the top ten lists of many film critics, film magazines and institutions, such as the AFI and Empire.The BFI’s magazine, Sight And Sound, more recently listed it as the greatest film made, leap-frogging Citizen Kane. Hitchcock constructs his film with all the cinematic tools at his disposal with incredible depth and consideration. Whilst certainly existing in the stylistic and tonal registers of film noir, it is also a deep psychological thriller.

kim-novak-vertigo

Jimmy Stewart as Scottie is the everyman caught up in and duped by circumstances that he initially cannot see but there could be endless conversation over his choices and the nature of his obsession with Madeline. Madeline is also a victim of her own trick because she falls in love with Scottie as well, something she did not expect to happen.

For me, Vertigo is one of the greatest films of all time and deserves to be in the canon of the best films of the 1950s. For more on my thoughts of Vertigo, you can visit the link here: Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’ (1958): The Art Of Obsession

Film should be deeply personal, even though we cast a critical eye on the films we watch and absorb. At the end of the day, Hollywood is trying to make a buck but that’s also because film-makers want their films to be seen for an emotional response and connection with the audience. It’s why classic film endure and why they always have something to say.

This article has been submitted for the 5 Favourite Films Of The 1950s Blogathon which was kindly hosted by Rick at Classic Film And TV Cafe. A huge thank you for hosting and allowing me to take part! Please click on the above link for some other great articles!

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.