Viva Villa!: A Review

 

VIVA VILLA!

I was wary when I heard that Wallace Beery was playing Francisco "Pancho" Villa in a biopic. While the casting is still a bit jarring, I was surprised at how much I liked Viva Villa! thanks to some excellent work in front and behind the camera.

After seeing his father killed by a wealthy landowner, young Pancho Villa kills that landowner and flees into the night. Decades pass, and now the adult Pancho Villa (Beery) has come to keep his war against the powerful going. He may have found a surprising ally in Don Felipe (Donald Cook), who seems sympathetic to the peons' plight. Also sympathetic is Don Felipe's sister, Teresa (Fay Wray), who is also quite attractive. 

There will be no romance between Villa and Teresa however for a variety of reasons. First, Villa is married, though exactly to how many women is a subject for debate. Second, sequestered American reporter Jonny Sykes (Stuart Erwin) warns Teresa not to wave at Villa, which for some reason is his cue to make his moves. 

Finally, there is the growing Mexican Revolution itself. Villa finds a hero in another Pancho of sorts: the elegant intellectual Francisco Madero (Henry B. Walthall). Madero is sincere in wanting to improve the lot of Mexicans like Villa, and the general takes a liking to his little man. With that, Villa agrees to use his men to overthrow the dictator Porfirio Diaz and make Mexico great again. Villa also commandeers Sykes to be his personal de facto press agent to the world.

Villa has military successes, culminating with the capture of Ciudad Juarez. However, he is also reckless, disobedient and ultimately pushed out of both the revolution and Mexico itself. Exiled in nearby El Paso, Villa is devastated and angry when he learns that Madero has been assassinated. It is now up to Pancho Villa to restore the revolution and punish those who went after his little buddy and hero. It means a falling out with Felipe and Teresa, a falling out that will have ultimately deadly consequences for some of them.

It would shock no one that Viva Villa! is wildly historically inaccurate. Villa, for example, was never President of Mexico, which the film has him as. Villa's assassination was more than likely political rather than personal. It is surprising that Viva Villa! opted for this retelling of history given that Villa had been killed in 1923, a mere nine years before Viva Villa! premiered. 

However, I think Viva Villa! was not interested in history but in a mix of mythology and even comedy. On those levels, the film is a great success. 

The Villa in Viva Villa! is almost a sweet innocent, not buffoonish per se but with a few quirks. He could be menacing, even psychotic, like in Beery's first scene. Sweeping in to avenge the unjust killing of peons, he storms into the kangaroo court with their corpses, sitting them down to serve as a "jury" against the wealthy landowner who had them killed. Villa from time to time mockingly addresses the jury, asking them what they want him to do. It is clear that Villa is enraged at the extrajudicial murders and will hold those responsible to justice. Beery, to his credit, makes Villa here eerily dark and dangerous.

However, for most of Viva Villa! Wallace Beery makes him almost endearingly sweet. He, for example, explains to a general why he won't follow the orders he's been given. "You give me orders that I like, fine, then I do what you say. Otherwise, I do as I say". Beery as Villa does not say this in a belligerent or angry when he says this. Rather, he says this in an almost apologetic and sweet manner. It tells us that Pancho Villa is not a terrible man. He's actually a bit of an innocent, one who kills but who also is quite pleasant.

We see this also when he is President. Complaining loudly that his ministers do nothing but talk about the budget rather than the land reform he and Madero wanted, he berates them for not having the money for anything. However, he, Pancho Villa, has come up with his own brilliant and logical solution. He merely has printers literally make more money. If you need money, you just make more money. Villa goes so far as to arrest the printers who dare ask for payment. The logic of hyperinflation escapes the President. The adding of doves to the currency rather than the bulls he demanded, however, does not.

Beery's Villa does have something of a moral nature. He, for example, agrees to assault a town because Sykes had already reported that he had, and Villa does not want to disappoint a friend. He also chides two of his men for trying to take some treasures home when he decides to resign the Presidency. However, Ben Hecht's screenplay gives this a bit of humor when Villa himself takes a gold bull. We do not dislike Villa for this brazen act of hypocrisy. Instead, given how Beery has played Villa, we end up finding it endearing. 

Beery has a warmth and again, sweetness when it comes to Villa. I think people now would fiercely condemn the casting of Wallace Beery as Pancho Villa, and to be fair his stabs at an accent do fall short. However, thinking on it, I think General Villa would have been tickled at the idea of having a major star at the time like Wallace Beery play him. Giving Beery credit where it is due, he did a good job if it was to show Pancho Villa as a bit of a charming, childlike rogue.

There is a running gag of him marrying almost every beautiful woman he meets. The one he could not get is Teresa, though not for lack of trying. Few people would try a pickup line like, "Are you in the Revolution too?".

Walthall was nobility itself as the moral, idealistic Madero. Wray's Teresa was excellent: sincere in her concern for peons that eventually morphed into contempt for her former ally Villa, albeit due to his actions to avenge Madero. Leo Carillo balanced menace and mirth as Sierra, Villa's second-in-command. Sometimes cruel, sometimes silly, Carillo did an equally strong performance.

One of the highlights in Viva Villa! is the cinematography. The film had two cinematographers. One of them was Charles G. Clarke. The other was James Wong Howe, who could go on to be ranked among the greatest of all time. While it is difficult to impossible to know who shot what, I think we can pick out the scenes that Howe filmed. In particular are the night scenes when Villa is ordering the killing of the Federales. The use of shadows to counter the killings is beautifully filmed. My sense is that this scene, some dance hall numbers, and Madero's introduction were made by James Wong Howe. I may be wrong, but they are well-shot.

Viva Villa! is open about being more fiction than fact. Its opening title crawl says, "It is fiction woven out of truth and inspired by a love of the half-legendary Pancho and the glamorous country he served". A legend in his own time, Villa's myth grew right after his death. It is a legend that will not fade into history and one enhanced by Viva Villa! While it may not be history, it is entertaining, and I think even the General would not object to that. 

1878-1923

DECISION: B-

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice: A Review

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE

This is the Age of the Nostalgia Sequel, where we have to have a sequel on an old film from decades past. We had Twisters. We had Ghostbusters Frozen Empire. We had Mean Girls (though to be fair, that was the film version of the musical which was based on the film). That is not even going into prequels and remakes, such as The First Omen and The Crow. Now we have Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, the sequel to a thirty-six-year-old film. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is probably not the worst film of 2024. It is probably not even the worst Nostalgia Sequel of 2024. It is, rather, a pointless waste of time, with so much going on that ultimately nothing happens. 

Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder) is now the hostess of Ghost House, where she communicates with the dead. She is startled when she has visions of her old nemesis Betelgeuse flashing. These visions do not concern Lydia's producer/boyfriend Rory (Justin Theroux) a great deal. However, Lydia learns from her stepmother Delia (Catherine O'Hara) that Lydia's father Charles has died. Lydia, Delia and Rory now go to Charles' funeral and have to pick up Lydia's estranged daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega) up at her prep school.

Astrid is still hostile to her mother ever since her father Richard disappeared in the Amazon. She is more appalled when Rory takes the opportunity to propose marriage to Lydia, insisting that it be at midnight on Halloween, a mere three days away. Astrid makes friends with local boy Jeremy (Arthur Conti), who is not what he appears to be in more ways than one.

Someone who is what he definitely appears to be is Beetlejuice himself (Michael Keaton), determined to get his slimy fingers on Lydia. He has his own issues with the sudden return of his ex-wife Delores (Monica Bellucci), out for revenge after he chopped up her body due to her trying to literally suck his soul when both were alive. She is wandering around the halls of the afterlife, as are Astrid and Jeremy. Will the dead Richard (Santiago Cabrera) be able to save his daughter? Will Delia find that those asps are not as safe as she thought? Will Beetlejuice get his mortal woman?

I have never been one who held Beetlejuice as this masterful film. It is a fine film, entertaining and quirky. However, I never joined the cult around it, or of any film made in my lifetime. With that being said, I am surprised over how Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is being made out to be some delightful romp and nice throwback to the beloved original. In reality, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a hollow, pointless film, with various plots wandering around in total confusion and conflict. 

In my plot recap, I did not mention Willem Dafoe as Wolf Jackson, a B-movie action star who is now a cop in the afterlife pursuing Delores. Why is that? Well, it is because for long stretches of a surprisingly short film, he is pretty much forgotten in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. I had actually forgotten that Delores was in the film at all as well. We learn about Delores' backstory through Beetlejuice himself in a faux-Italian film scene, which to be fair was not terrible.

I pause to note that Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is only twelve minutes longer than Beetlejuice. Despite that, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice feels infinitely longer than the first one. I put it down to the fact that the sequel has so many characters that feel so unnecessary. I figured the Jeremy/Astrid subplot alone could have been enough for one movie. The Delores subplot alone could have been enough for one movie. The conflict between Lydia and Astrid alone could have been enough for one movie. Yes, you can combine one or two of those, but all of them do not mesh into a cohesive whole. 

The alleged twist with Jeremy is so obvious that I wrote in my notes "Jeremy--are parents dead? Him too?". I wonder if screenwriters Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (with a screen story by Gough and Millar along with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter writer Seth Grahame-Smith) watched Toy Story 2 and/or Toy Story 3 before working on Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. When Betelgeuse's minions escape into the real world (another subplot that I do not think was resolved), I got flashbacks to the original Jumanji. 

As a side note, when we get to the second wedding attempt from Betelgeuse to Lydia, I wondered what exactly happened to the influencers invited to the wedding ceremony. I won't bother wondering why the wedding had to take place at midnight on Halloween or why Father Damien (Burn Gorman) would agree to any of this. I also won't bother wondering why MacArthur Park, of all the songs in the world, is the one used for a variation of the Day-O (Banana Boat Song) scene in Beetlejuice. I like to think that "Father Damien" is a nod to The Omen, but honestly, I think that is giving Beetlejuice Beetlejuice far too much credit.

I was genuinely surprised that the various subplots were resolved shockingly quickly. The Jeremy subplot was solved so fast that perhaps the film should have ended there. The Delores subplot was equally resolved so quickly that it all seemed pretty pointless to be there at all. The absence of the Maitlands from Beetlejuice Beetlejuice was shockingly lazy. "We found a loophole" that let them move on, Lydia says. What was that loophole? How did it come about? Beetlejuice Beetlejuice was not going to tell us. It only had to give us some reason, no matter how vague, to explain away that they were not there. It was pretty much insulting, and I do not know why Beetlejuice fans just went along with it. 

I could not shake the idea that Beetlejuice Beetlejuice could have gone in so many different ways, explored so many different routes, but opted instead to go everywhere and nowhere. 

I do not think that there was much in performances. I might exempt Catherine O'Hara, who did her best to be that wacky artiste not totally aware of things. Michael Keaton too did well as Betelgeuse, even having a bit of a romp when discussing his life with Delores. I did, however, wonder if Winona Ryder was genuinely shocked to be in the film, for there was this look of desperation to her performance. Justin Theroux knew the character was dumb and played it that way. Willem Dafoe was just happy to be working, and I don't think cared if he was necessary. 

Perhaps some begrudging credit should be thrown at director Tim Burton for going out of his way to not include the disgraced Jeffery Jones in the film. Yes, his character died, but we got a Claymation reenactment of his final moments and then his dismembered corpse popping in and out sans reason. Ortega played the part of the insufferable Astrid correctly, so there's that. Conti, to his credit, at least left open the idea that Jeremy might be a lot of things. Is he a ghost himself? Is he a living person who, like Lydia, can speak to ghosts and might be unaware that he can speak to them or that his parents might be dead? Is he a ghost that is unaware that he is dead? 

Again, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice could have gone so many different ways. Why it opted to go the way it went is to me, a sign that it did not care.  

The one part that I thought was clever was the Soul Train section. I will leave it to readers to decide if having soul music playing while black people dance and a vaguely Don Cornelius conductor lead the actual Soul Train to either Heaven or Hell is a stereotype. However, at least that seemed to be a clever bit.

Apart from that, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is just there. What it is, what it wants, I can't guess at. Yes, at least it is way better than Argylle.

Seriously, of all the songs in the world, MacArthur Park? 

DECISION: D-

Reagan: A Review (Review #1865)

 

REAGAN

How one feels about Reagan, the biopic on the 40th President, might, more than likely will, depend on how one feels about the man himself and what he represents to the viewer. Those who love the Gipper will adore the film. Those who hate the Great Communicator will despise it. It is unfortunate that most cannot get past their own feelings on the man and his ideology to see the film itself. Respectful without being too reverential, Reagan is a positive though placid look at one of the most consequential Presidents in living memory.

Reagan uses the framing device of Russian Communist Andrei Novikov (Alex Sparrow) visiting former KGB operative Viktor Petrovich (Jon Voight). Novikov wants to know why the Soviet Union fell. Petrovich tells him the story of how he had been tracking Ronald Reagan (David Henrie as a teen, Dennis Quaid as an adult) since at least from his time as a Hollywood actor and president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Petrovich repeatedly warned the Politburo that Reagan was dangerous. He had a mix of firm anticommunism with a religious bent that made it a crusade. He'd even earned the mocking nickname of Crusader from Petrovich. Reagan was a generally affable fellow, mixing with other Hollywood personalities and firmly allied with the SAG until he saw that the Communists were trying to muscle in on them. This began his shift to the Right. Reagan's commitment to his political causes cost him his first marriage to Jane Wyman (Mena Suvari). However, hope came when aspiring actress Nancy Davis (Penelope Ann Miller) turned to Reagan for help in getting her name removed from a blacklist when she was confused with another Nancy Davis. From that, a romance blossomed.

Reagan soon started moving up in the political world, first as Governor of California and then after a thwarted effort in 1976, the Presidency four years later. His assassination attempt and dealings with the Soviet Union brought about the eventual collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe. However, Alzheimer's would soon take over, leading to his death.

I am not surprised at the divide Reagan has between critics (21% positive) and audiences (98% positive). My sense is that professional reviewers are seeing Reagan through their own biases on the subject. Some, no doubt, do find elements in Reagan that are worthy of criticism. I too will do that. However, I also see this, or any film, based on what it is attempting to do and whom its target audience is. Reagan is for those who do not think he or his views are demonic.

As a side note, I have lived long enough to see Reagan and both Bushes described as "literally the New/Worse Than Hitler", so there is that.

I see Reagan as something of comfort food for conservatives and center-right individuals who do not want either a long lecture or a hagiography closer to Southside with You (91% and 71% positive from critics and audiences respectively). The question that I ask is, "Is Reagan (the movie) terrible?" not "Is Reagan (the man or his ideas) terrible?"

Reagan is not a hagiography in that it does touch on some controversial matters. It does not shy away from Iran-Contra. It gives time for a montage of negative reactions from those opposed to him in the 1984 reelection. In a nice montage to Genesis' Land of Confusion (itself an anti-Reagan song), we see teens and young adults dancing while also noting the various protesters opposed to his lack of action on AIDS or nuclear disarmament. That Reagan tackles these subjects at all is a plus to the film.

I can see where Reagan made a few wrong turns. The framing device was a mistake in Howard Klausner's adaptation of Paul Kengor's The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Perhaps opening and closing Reagan with this conversation would have worked. Going back to it over and over again cut out the flow the film gets into. A better use might have been if Petrovich had been lecturing a group of students about the fall of the Soviet Union.

In fact, I think Reagan might have done better if it had focused on his war with Soviet Communism instead of attempting to put almost every part of Reagan's life in the film. It starts getting bogged down, and sometimes one feels like one is rushing through things. Take for example the character of Dana (Derek Richardson). Starting out as essentially a Hippie for Reagan (he shows up unannounced on their yard, disheveled with long hair and a vaguely stoned-out speaking style that understandably alarms Nancy), we next see him coming to the White House as a speechwriter, still wearing casual wear in the Oval Office. Reagan might have done well covering these events through his eyes.

Instead, characters come in and out so quickly that you rarely if ever get a sense of who they are. Things went so fast that I was surprised to read that Creed frontman Scott Stamp appeared as Frank Sinatra. I didn't realize Sinatra was even in the movie. If not for my own knowledge, I would not know who "Trumbo" or "Holden" were when Ronald and Jane were at a nightclub. Other incidents, such as his speech at the Brandenburg Gate or an amusing moment when he shushes a group of protesters who greeted him with silence, are nice. However, they again show that Reagan tried to pack too much in.

The reason Reagan is not getting a negative review from me is due to a few factors. At the top of them is Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy. She did a standout job in the role. Miller made Nancy into a genuine person, neither the overprotective power-hungry shrew nor the zombified political spouse. I was genuinely moved when Nancy is at the hospital after the assassination attempt. The mix of fear and hope that Miller shows was effective. Credit should also be given to the makeup work on Miller, who looks convincingly like the former First Lady. Her scenes with Dennis Quaid really do well in selling their great love story. 

As the title character, I think Dennis Quaid had a difficult task. Ronald Reagan had a distinct speaking manner and voice, trained from decades as a radio announcer and actor. As such, Quaid could do only so much in his interpretation of the role. I think he did as well as he could, which is not a slam on his performance. There were times when he sounded more like Ronald Reagan and less like Dennis Quaid. Other times, it was the reverse. There was, again, only so much he could do with the script he was presented. On the whole though, Quaid was a serviceable Reagan. 

The scope of the film did not let David Henrie do much as the younger Reagan. That is a shame since he could have done well in Reagan: The Early Years. While I think Miller was spot-on as Nancy Reagan, I was not convinced by Suvari as Jane Wyman. Dan Lauria was good in his small role as House Speaker and Reagan frenemy Tip O'Neill, one moment bon vivant with Ronnie, the next being fiercely antagonistic. John Coda's score was an error, not so much in that it was bad but that it was dead set on being stirring when it might have done well to take a "less is more" approach.

Reagan is, I found, a film that is perhaps not as in-depth as it could have been but not filled with fierce fury and hatred for its subject either. It may not be the definitive portrait of the man behind the myth. It does serves as a good primer into this man, loved and hated in equal terms then and now.

Ronnie, we hardly knew you...

1911-2004

DECISION: B-

Deliverance (1919): A Review

DELIVERANCE (1919)

The story of Helen Keller is probably best known through the biopic The Miracle Worker. Long before that, however, Keller herself appeared in her own story in Deliverance. This silent film gives us a glimpse into Keller's story, albeit at times still bound by the style and customs of the times it was made.

Broken into three acts: Childhood, Maidenhood and Womanhood, audiences learn about what first befell little Helen Keller. A childhood illness left her in the words of the title card "Blind--Deaf--and Dumb". Devasted, it looks like Helen Keller will be condemned to a life of darkness until they reached out to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, who in turn got them to contact Anne Sullivan. 

Sullivan was able to pierce through the fog that covered Keller's world. With the veil lifting as much as possible, Keller would also learn to not just read and write, but also speak! Her first words were, "I--am--not--dumb--NOW!". She goes on to Radcliffe and entertains such luminaries as Mark Twain. We see Keller's visions of the stories she reads, such as those of Odysseus, reenacted before our eyes.

Finally, we see Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan play themselves, along with Keller's family, as they lead the world into the fight for independence. Keller's own story is a counter to that of Nadja, her frenemy who has all her senses but no sense. Despite having advantages Keller does not, she ends up a seamstress whose son loses his sight in the First World War. She turns to her friend Helen Keller to help, which Keller eagerly does. Metaphorically if not literally leading troops into battle against ignorance, Helen Keller pushes on.

One element that surprised me about Deliverance is how long it felt despite being a mere 90 minutes. I think the film felt long because of some truly curious moments. I imagine that the recreations of Odysseus' time with Circe were meant to show us what Keller's imagination looked like. Looking at it over a century later, these scenes just felt like padding, and a curious padding at that. There are also reenactments of Washington and the Battle of Bunker Hill that come off as basically strange. There is context to these moments (Keller and Sullivan are visiting these places). However, it does take away from how almost nutty it looks.

I also wonder if we needed that counter story about Najda to contrast Keller's own. I think Keller's story is inspirational enough without having this nasty little girl be a counter to the sweet little Helen. 

Deliverance also suffers from the prevailing attitudes of the times. The black people at the Keller home look like they are literal slaves on a plantation. While Keller was a descendant of slaveowners, slavery had been abolished fifteen years before her birth. Deliverance, however, makes it look like this started in the antebellum South. The title cards for whenever an African American character speaks is also tinged with "ethnic" dialect. "Marse Keller, it am the sweetest li'l chile in de world", a Mammy-type figure remarks. The use of "Marse" (read: Master) is bad enough. Everything else involving the black characters is very questionable.

Again, Deliverance should be judged by the times it was presented. As such, a little grace is needed when watching. 

What is fascinating is the third act, when we see the real Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan interact on camera. We see Keller navigating her life, using sign language, even typing. Deliverance is perhaps one of the first films where the subject of a biopic played herself, if only in the third act. Still, having a visual record of this most fascinating and controversial figures of the twentieth century is still something to marvel at. 

Deliverance does have the flaw of the overtly theatrical acting manner that plagued early silent films. 

It is amusing now that, intentional or not, there was a brief surge in "Helen Keller Truthers" among Gen Z. Apparently, there were some young people who could or would not believe that a deaf, blind and mute woman could read or write fourteen books, let alone fly a plane (which we do see in Deliverance, though Keller herself was not actually flying the plane solo). Some even doubted that she actually existed. Others, to my amusement, stated that she was despite her disabilities just another privileged white woman. She, according to them, never heard "no" when applying for jobs or got pulled over for driving.

I'll leave aside the thought of how in a sense, these "truthers" are right that she never did hear the word "no". I do not know if she ever got pulled over for driving though.

I doubt any of these very misinformed people would sit through a silent film like Deliverance. However, as an early record of Helen Keller, Deliverance is a fascinating glimpse into a fascinating woman. 

1880-1968

DECISION: B-

The Boys in the Band (2020): A Review

 

THE BOYS IN THE BAND (2020)

The bitch (boys) is back. The remake of The Boys in the Band attempts to outdo the original film from fifty years earlier. In some ways better than the 1970 adaptation, in some ways weaker, will The Boys in the Band stand on its own or pale next to its counterpart?

New York City, 1968. Michael (Jim Parsons) is getting things ready for his frenemy Harold's birthday party. Arriving early is his friend Donald (Matt Bomer), with whom he is having a casual relationship. Michael gets a surprise call from his college friend Alan (Brian Hutchinson), who tearfully asks to come over. Reluctantly, Michael agrees to see him for a quick drink during the party even though Alan is straight and unaware of Michael's homosexuality.

Soon the other guests start arriving. There's Emory (Robin de Jesus), overtly flamboyant. There's Hank and Larry (Tuc Watkins and Andrew Rannells), a couple who are going through a rough patch. Bernard (Michael Benjamin Washington), the only black man at the party, brings some books for Donald to enjoy. At first, Alan calls again to say he can't make it, and the party commences. To everyone's surprise, Emory's gift to Harold of street kid Cowboy (Charlie Carver) arrives early. To everyone's horror, Alan arrives after all.

He does not say what happened to cause his breakdown. He also takes umbrage at Emory's suggestion that he is closeted, causing a fight to break out. Into this comes the guest of honor, Harold (Zachary Quinto), as bitchy and pithy as they come. With the party pretty much in shambles, they still manage a nice meal until they get rained out. Now, an increasingly drunk Michael, who has fallen off the wagon due to the overall stress and chaos of the night, forces everyone to play a simple party game.

They have to call the one person whom they have truly loved. Alan wants to leave but Michael won't let him. As the various guests make their calls, secrets are revealed until Michael gets confronted by both Harold and Michael himself. Will everyone get out in one piece emotionally or even physically?

At another time, I will do a comparison between the 1970 and 2020 version of Mart Crowley's play (which here, he coadapted with Ned Martel). One thing that both versions have in common is that every actor who appeared in the Broadway version of The Boys in the Band recreated their roles for the film adaptation. The film even has the same director from the Broadway play: Joe Mantello.

Was Mantello the right choice to direct the film version? I'm leaning towards no. He did a good job with most of his cast, though to be fair he had worked with them for months on Broadway. What makes me lean no is that at least early on, Mantello loved moving the camera. I also felt some of the flashback scenes, particularly with Bernard's reminiscence of a one-night stand with a high school friend, were too artsy for my tastes. Add to that the idea that they were a bit distracting, and I felt overall unnecessary. This remake runs a mere two minutes longer than the original film yet felt longer. I think the reason for that was, in part, due to those flashbacks. I get the aim was to make it more cinematic, but it did not quite work for me.

One stumbling moment was when Donald and Larry see each other at the party. Perhaps it was meant to be clear that they had also been sexually involved. However, with that being the case, the revelation of their dalliance does not have the impact and shock that I think it should have had. 

In terms of performances, I think they were hit and miss. A standout was de Jesus as Emory, who was flamboyant without being unbearably silly. His monologue about his great lost love was quite moving. Watkins and Rannells did not convince me as lovers caught in a tiff. Instead, they were actors speaking lines. Their fight over a menage a trois as a compromise for Larry's need for sexual freedom was rough to watch.

Carver as Cowboy and Bomer as Donald were fine in every sense of the word (audiences of both genders got an appreciation for the physical beauty of Matt Bomer). I also think that both Parsons and Quinto were trying too hard to be both dramatic and sarcastic. Neither was terrible, but I never thought I was watching two people who both loved and hated each other. Quinto's final takedown of Michael seemed, again, like he was delivering a monologue versus Harold speak almost spontaneously from his heart. Parsons worked hard to be the mean, drunk, bitchy Michael to others, and he did have some good moments. Other times, though, Michael's anger felt forced. Had I been Alan in this production, I would have pushed Mikey out of the way and left.

The Boys in the Band feels a bit like a period piece. I am aware that it is set over fifty years ago. However, despite it being a relatively new production, there is still something almost creaky about its presentation. By no means a horrible film, with some good performances in it, The Boys in the Band still feels long. I might not turn down the invite to Harold's party, but I am not enthusiastic about it either.

DECISION: C+

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1969). A Review

GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS (1969)

Peter O'Toole sings!

Peter O'Toole sings?

I think Peter O'Toole bursting out in song is a strange sight. Goodbye, Mr. Chips will not convince people that O'Toole could carry a tune. However, the tunes themselves are quite lovely and the overall film is a delight that has been unfairly ignored and that hopefully will find a renaissance among the public.

For decades, Mr. Arthur Chipping (O'Toole) has worked formally, diligently and strictly at Brookfield School for Boys. His no-nonsense, by the book manner do not make him a student favorite, but as he is within the rules there is nothing the boys can do about "Ditchy" (short for "dishwater, dull as"). He takes his school break to visit a former student, Lord Longbridge (Michael Culver). Johnny Longbridge is besotted by showgirl Katherine Bridges (Petula Clark), a chanteuse who specializes in soubrette roles and starring in the hit West End production Flossie from Fulham.

Chipping, who genuinely has no idea what a "hit" show entails or what a "hit" even means is not enchanted by this showgirl. Katherine, for her part, finds "Mr. Chips" delightful if a bit square. A chance reunion in Pompeii between Chipping and Katherine when both go there (he on holiday, she to escape her faltering career) leads them to spend the day together. That day, seeing how And the Sky Smiled at her, Katherine falls in love with Mr. Chipping. He at first is shocked, almost appalled at the idea. 

Despite that, he slowly starts seeing Katherine socially and eventually falls in love with her as well. A quick marriage between the owl and the pussycat shocks everyone at Brookfield, her bubbly personality a counter to his staid manner. She eventually becomes a beloved schoolmaster's wife, and he lightens up his formerly stern and serious manner. Her past brings wealthy alumni to threaten withholding funds for a playing field, but Katherine is an old pro at handling arrogant wealthy men. As they go through life together, things look blissful until the Second World War comes. Tragedy and loss follow, but dear Mr. Chipping continues seeing to the care of his generations of boys. 

I am at a loss to understand why Goodbye, Mr. Chips could be disliked. I could see reasons to find fault in it, which I will go into. However, as I watched Goodbye, Mr. Chips, I was as utterly charmed by it as Arthur Chipping was charmed by Katherine Brisket (Katherine Bridges' original name).  

Chief among reasons to potentially dislike Goodbye, Mr. Chips is Peter O'Toole in the singing department. Attempting a variation of Rex Harrison's "talking-on-pitch" from My Fair Lady, O'Toole does Harrison one better by actually trying to sing. His voice is a bit thin to carry the songs he performs: Where Did My Childhood Go? and What a Lot of Flowers. The songs in and of themselves are fine, both wistful and romantic. It is O'Toole's efforts to sing them that comes across as weak. It is not terrible, but one has to be a bit forgiving to hear Peter O'Toole try to sing them.

The Leslie Bricusse songs are lovely, with almost all of them being lush and romantic. That does have a bit of a negative effect in that they do close to sounding similar. Out of the entire songbook, I think only London is London and Schooldays are upbeat. The rest are solid but if not slow at least more sedate. However, that does not take away from the joy they have. If Goodbye, Mr. Chips is rediscovered, I figure such songs as Fill the World with Love will become anthems of optimism.

Fortunately, Peter O'Toole does better at acting than in singing, rightfully earning his fourth out of eventually eight Oscar nominations for his performance. His Arthur Chipping is pitch-perfect (no pun intended). He is delightful and perfect in Chipping's tight, restrictive manner. He is not naive or unaware of the world. Instead, he is a man aware of himself, not bending his principles for anyone or anything. He knows himself and stays true to himself, even if he does not know what the actual meaning of "hit" means. Chipping is not opposed to women or romance, just in romance with a woman whom he thinks is a bit bonkers. "Musical comedy actresses can't be all that normal, with all that dressing up and skipping about", he tells his best friend Max Staefel (Michael Bryant). 

Despite that, he does fall in love with quirky free spirit Katherine. Petula Clark did not have a major acting career after Goodbye, Mr. Chips. While O'Toole was an actor who gave singing a try, Clark is a singer who gave acting a try. I think Clark has nothing to be ashamed of in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. She is charming, winning and enchanting as Katherine, this somewhat flighty figure who finds her dear Mr. Chips fun, funny and the man for her. Clark carries the bulk of the songbook, and she does a magnificent job with the music.

Walk Through the World and You and I should be simply better known. They are lovely, romantic, yearning and deeply moving. I found myself falling in love with Katherine and Petula as we hear her voiceover rendition of Walk Through the World. As a singer, Petula Clark did a knockout job. As an actress, she more than held her own against a titan like Peter O'Toole in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. She plays the part correctly and well: this woman of the world who is quirky, fun but also longs for stability and respectability, the two qualities that Arthur Chipping holds in spades. Her rendition of London is London is fun and jolly, making her reprise at the end of the film all the more moving. 

While it is a small role, Sian Phillips (O'Toole's wife at the time) steals every scene she is in as Ursula Mossbank, Katherine's very eccentric theatrical friend. Exaggerated without being too silly, Phillips' Ursula is a delightfully quirky figure, genuinely unaware of what is going on around her. Ursula's insistence that Mr. Chipping is an actor she worked with who did a great drunk in the third act is a nice running gag. It may be a bit part, but it is a lot of fun to watch.

Goodbye, Mr. Chips is to my mind an homage to the positive aspects of education. It also is a sweet love story of two totally opposite people who find their perfect mate in each other. It is a true love that only death can separate. I was won over by the songs, the performances from Clark and O'Toole, and the sincerity in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. The film is hampered, again, by some of the songs sounding similar. On the whole, however, Goodbye, Mr. Chips is a delight from start to finish that I hope is rediscovered and reevaluated. I'd be happy to Walk Through the World with this film. 

DECISION: A-

Freud: A Review

 

FREUD (also known as 

FREUD: THE SECRET PASSION)

The mind is apt to play tricks on you. Few men are as renowned for delving into the dark recesses of the mind as Doctor Sigmund Freud. Freud (also known as Freud: The Secret Passion) attempts to cover his genesis into the leading light of psychoanalysis. While a surprisingly punishing length for some viewers, Freud has some positives that make it worth sitting through.

Young Sigmund Freud (Montgomery Clift) rejects the current thinking in 1885 Vienna that there is no connection between the mind and body when it comes to illness, specifically "hysteria". He goes against his first mentor Dr. Meynert (Eric Portman) and turns to renegade Parisian physician Dr. Charcot (Fernand Ledoux). With his instruction complete, Freud marries Martha (Susan Kohner) and begins using hypnosis to enter his patients' minds.

He joins with fellow renegade Dr. Breuer (Larry Parks) in hypnotizing the various troubled people they see. However, one patient soon begins to dominate both their lives: Cecily Koertner (Susannah York). Apparently physically infirm, first Breuer and then Freud begin delving into her mind. Breuer leaves the case when Cecily begins displaying signs of amorous feelings towards him, feeling she does eventually transfer to Freud. 

Freud eventually moves away from hypnosis and into conversation with Cecily. He soon makes discoveries about dreams, the Oedipus complex and sexuality in children. These discoveries help Cecily break free, but also earn Freud the ire of the medical profession, aghast at the idea of children having sexuality. Will he rise to make new discoveries or will the Viennese medical complex close ranks against him?

Part of me is puzzled and amazed that Montgomery Clift played the psychiatrist given Clift's own deeply troubled life. One, however, gives him and director John Huston credit for Clift's strong performance as Sigi.  Of particular note is when we see Freud's own dreams, which almost always involve going into a cave where he meets some kind of being. Those sequences are a bit whacked-out, though they are visually interesting. 

When he is not going into bonkers territory, Clift is mostly stable as Freud. There are times when he does look a bit intense, even for Montgomery Clift. However, Clift is solid when confronting his nemesis Meynert and his small mind. 

I am tempted to go after York for making Cecily a bit too much as the unstable woman who subconsciously lusts after her father and connects herself with prostitution. However, as she was meant to be a bit unstable, I think York played the part correctly. While his role is smaller, Larry Parks did quite well as Breuer, Cecily's first doctor and Freud's friend. 

Freud has, as I said, some strong positives. First among them is Jerry Goldsmith's score, which set the mood for the film as this vaguely eerie experience. Goldsmith, who would earn the first of his eventual eighteen Oscar nominations for Freud (eventually winning for The Omen), is particularly effective when his music accompanies Freud's dream sequences. Douglas Slocombe's black-and-white cinematography along with Goldsmith's music make these sections almost avant-garde in their presentation. 

What makes Freud weak however is its punishing almost two-and-a-half-hour runtime. This is especially glaring when we get to Cecily's story. One could have made a whole film about her and Freud alone. Once she comes to dominate Freud, it feels like everything we have seen before is almost attached needlessly. It might have done better to have had just a brief intro that covered all that came pre-Cecily and then focused more on her and Freud's story. While I did not keep track, I think it is well over an hour before we get to Cecily. Freud's struggle against the medical establishment, his marriage, his studies with Charcot probably could all have been taken care of in fifteen minutes to half an hour. That might have made Freud less of a struggle to sit through at times.

While the movie is very long, Jerry Goldsmith's score as well as a good performance by Montgomery Clift will help ease the mind when it comes to Freud. 

1856-1939

DECISION: C+