Sunday, April 28, 2019

Pygmalion (1938): A Review


PYGMALION

George Bernard Shaw did not think of Pygmalion as a romance as I understand it. In fact, he thought the idea that his male and female leads would end up together a thoroughly silly idea. As with many things involving Bernard Shaw, I disagree with our playwright. this adaptation of Pygmalion is quite witty, almost wholly well-acted and surprisingly brief.

Haughty linguistics professor Henry Higgins (Leslie Howard) makes a wager with a fellow language enthusiast, Colonel Pickering (Scott Sunderland) that he can turn Covent Garden Cockney flower-girl Eliza Doolittle (Wendy Hiller) into a virtual duchess. Intrigued, Eliza takes him at his word and offers to pay for elocution lessons so she can work at a flower shop.

Higgins plunges into this with the joy of a child making mud pies, but he is quite brutal to Eliza, constantly berating her skills and keeping her up all hours to perfect her diction and manner. A trial run at Higgins' mother's house is a disaster: Eliza's words are polished but still reveal her lack of education. She however has entranced young Freddy Hill (David Tree). More lessons ensue, exhausting and taxing Eliza until her triumph at an embassy ball.

Her triumph is short-lived however, as Higgins makes clear he really does not think much of her. She makes the decision to leave him, shocking the arrogant man. Could he have fallen for his own creation? He seems quite sad at the thought she might not return (though he'd never admit it). She does come back, but on what terms for both we can only speculate.

Image result for pygmalion 1938Pygmalion does a remarkable job of keeping things brisk. This is due in no small part to the pacing by its co-directors. From the dramatic moments of Eliza's despair to the comedy bit involving Freddy taking Higgins' hat things move quite well. Exactly how much credit should go to Anthony Asquith or Howard himself is unclear, though for my part I will give it to Asquith because of Howard's performance.

I understand Higgins is meant to be a brute and thoroughly unsympathetic, but at times Howard was to my mind wildly over-the-top in his reactions. It was as if Howard decided Pygmalion was more farce than comedy. His wild gestures made it hard for me to take him seriously.

Hiller on the other hand was thoroughly delightful as Eliza, this squashed cabbage leaf turned elegant lady. Her transformation is a mix of innocent, even naivete and quiet strength. She plays comedy quite well, such as at the tea party where she elegantly replies to Freddy's request to take a walk in the park with "A walk? Not bloody likely. I'm going in a taxi". It is both Eliza's thorough lack of understanding about what she said and how she said it that sells the comedy.

When it comes to the more dramatic moments, Hiller is equally adept, and she does not even need Shaw's brilliant verbiage to play it. When she goes back to Covent Garden as the more refined version of herself, she observes that world in which she no longer has a place in. It's a beautifully played moment.

Image result for pygmalion 1938The other performers were quite good. Tree was appropriately sappy and insipid as Freddy, forever besotted by the enchanting Eliza. Sunderland's Pickering was proper and polite, and Marie Lohr as Mrs. Higgins played things in a quietly exasperated manner. Surprisingly, while Wilfrid Lawson's Alfred Doolittle had decent moments he was only in two scenes and could easily have been cut from the film, as could Leueen MacGrath's Clara, Freddy's sister.

The pacing is also helped by the series of montages for both the elocution and etiquette lessons. These were done by David Lean, who would become one of the Great Directors himself.

No commentary on Pygmalion would be complete without commenting on its screenplay by Shaw himself with W.P. Lipscomb, Cecil Lewis and Ian Dalrymple. There is a wit mixed with cynicism that pervades in the film. Commenting on a rival linguistics expert at the embassy ball, Higgins remarks "He can learn any language in a fortnight. Knows dozens of them--the sure mark of a fool".

Pygmalion is opaque on the future of Eliza and Henry. The ending works despite Shaw's dislike for it because it is ambiguous. It suggest a happy ending but it does not openly declare one. There is a wealth of possibilities that allow for us to think what we will.

Will they find love with each other? Will they part and if they do will it be as friends or rivals?

Will we ever really learn what actually in the end happens to our fair lady?

Not bloody likely.

DECISION: B-

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Isn't It Romantic (2019): A Review

ISN'T IT ROMANTIC

No. It's not. It's awful. It's the worst movie I've seen this year and almost a sure-fire entry in the Worst of 2019.  Isn't It Romantic attempts to give us a female empowerment film by mocking the romantic comedy conventions. However, it is not as clever or intelligent as it thinks it is, its main character is not someone you root for and there is just a nasty undertone to it all.

Natalie (Rebel Wilson) is a somewhat successful architect who suffers from low self-esteem. At the heart of her issues is how she was taught since childhood that romantic comedies like Pretty Women built up a false world and that as a heavyset woman she would never find that kind of love.

Proudly feminist, Natalie trashes rom-coms and is barely tolerant of her assistant Whitney (Betty Gilpin) watching them. Natalie's very platonic male friend Josh (Andy Devine) keeps inviting her to things like karaoke but she keeps turning him down.

It isn't until she hits her head after escaping a mugger that she finds herself, to her horror and anger, in a PG-13 romantic comedy. All the men want her, the world is very colorful, she has an outlandishly large apartment filled with fantastic clothes and she has an outrageously stereotypical gay best friend, Donny (Brandon Scott Jones) to offer advise between finger snaps.

The outrageously handsome and wealthy Australian named Blake (Liam Hemsworth) is besotted with Natalie. She convinces herself that 'the spell' will be broken once he tells her 'I love you', but that doesn't work. She then thinks that she must follow the conventions of romantic comedies to escape this psycho world, which involves voiceovers, slow motion running and stopping My Best Friend's Wedding: that being Andy's wedding to 'yoga ambassador' Isabella (Priyanka Chopra).

In the end, she discovers 'the greatest love of all' and that despite her manner and looks she is worthy of love in all its forms.

Image result for isn't it romanticThere is a difference between spoofing romantic comedies and trashing them. Isn't It Romantic thinks its going for the former when it is actually doing the latter. Even that could be embraced as there are many awful rom-coms that do send a bad message. Films like Made of Honor and The Ugly Truth in particular spring to mind. Their message is an element in modern romantic comedies that pretty much appall me: the idea that an intelligent woman with her own career would willingly become romantically involved and even fall in love with a loutish man who treats her shabbily.

Curiously though, Isn't It Romantic does not take on deeper elements of some of the negative aspects of romantic comedies. Instead, it merely tackles the surface elements: the characters, the look, the scenarios. Even in execution Isn't It Romantic is nowhere near as clever or insightful as it thinks it is. The 'getting knocked unconscious' is itself a cliche. Shockingly, it was much better done in I Feel Pretty, another film that wants to play with conventions to give a 'positive' message and that also doesn't land its mark.

To be fair though, I Feel Pretty had some qualities that made it tolerable. Isn't It Romantic has none.

I wonder about the Hemsworth Brothers Liam and Chris. I personally find them both very attractive people with extremely limited acting abilities. Fine: you cast either as Hamlet or Willy Loman and see how far you get. They also seem to have a penchant for being in faux female empowerment films that end in musical numbers: Chris with the all-female Ghostbusters, Liam with Isn't It Romantic. Coincidentally or not, both brothers opted to resort to their native Australian accents in their respective films. I figure to make it less taxing on whatever passes for their acting abilities.

It's not so much that Liam cannot act (though I do think that) so much as there is no character to act out: both his dismissive or besotted manner towards Natalie has no basis. Moreover, the plot point that he was really 'evil' may be another romantic comedy cliche but that too has no basis for being.

Image result for isn't it romantic
This is, to my memory, the first Rebel Wilson film I have seen. Her Natalie is surprisingly unlikable to start with, making her anti-romantic comedy case with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Despite having a career her frumpy wardrobe and at times dismissive manner make Natalie someone you don't care about. I know Isn't It Romantic is about her evolution but given she either lets others walk over her or has contempt for others one wonders why people would want to be around her.

I found that it was not her appearance that alienated me but her manner. It also may have to do with her performance itself, where she is so overtly going for the 'I'm making a female empowerment' style that it comes across more as speech-making than anything remotely resembling a human.

Chopra too was far too broad even for a romantic comedy to be believed.

Devine had the benefit of essentially playing the same character in both universes, so he came across as an actual human. Curiously, that's a romantic comedy convention Isn't It Romantic didn't bother to alter: the average guy who actually likes the female lead for herself, something else the film shares with I Feel Pretty, Sweet Home Alabama and perhaps among better films to use this trope The Devil Wears Prada and In A World... all of which did the characters and scenarios better. As Jones is playing a parody of a parody, I can roll with how awful it is.

Isn't It Romantic is neither romantic or funny. It also isn't intelligent, which it thinks it is. There are many things to critique about romantic comedies and they are ripe for spoofing. Isn't It Romantic never settled on either. It also failed to entertain, which is deadly no matter what genre.

DECISION: F

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

F For Fake: A Review

Image result for f for fake criterionF FOR FAKE

Deceit. Sleight of hand. Fraud. To a certain point, people enjoy being fooled if they know ahead of time that there are tricks up one's sleeves. F For Fake is not so much a documentary about fraud but a meditation on deception in a myriad of forms. It's a fascinating portrait of professional shysters, not least of which is director Orson Welles.

F for Fake is ostensibly about infamous art forger Elmyr de Hory and his biographer Clifford Irving with Welles serving as guide, narrator and commentator on a story simply too outlandish to be plausible. Welles tells us that for at least the first hour everything he tells us will be absolutely true.

Truth here however is wilder than fiction in this cascading story of liars and the liars who lie about liars. Elmyr's forgeries were well-known to where he became a celebrity for his fakes, able to not just imitate the styles of painters like Picasso and Modigliani but fool the experts and even the painters themselves. Irving's Elmyr biography, Fake!, chronicles his story, but it looks like Irving picked up a few tricks of his from the legendary bon vivant forger.

Irving himself later claimed to be collaborating with famously reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes on his autobiography. He produced letters purportedly from Hughes, which were authenticated by experts. It wasn't until Howard Hughes himself, via a telephone press conference denied meeting or even knowing Irving, let alone working with him, that the jig was up.

Image result for f for fakeMixing in the footage of these deceptions upon deceptions is Welles' views on the nature and truth of 'art' and of receiving credit. He meditates on Chartres Cathedral, noting its architect is unknown. He mentions his own career starting in Ireland where he hoodwinked a theater company to letting him act by claiming to be 'a big American stage star' and his own act of fraud with his infamous War of the Worlds broadcast.

"That's how it got started. Began at the top, and have been working my way down ever since," he says.

F for Fake ends with the story of Oja Kodar, a beauty who so bewitched Pablo Picasso that he did what he'd never done with any other of his muses: surrender the twenty-one paintings he'd done of her to Kodar. When Picasso learns that a small art museum is hosting an exhibition of 'new Picassos' he's enraged and confronts Kodar, only to learn that the paintings are her grandfather's forgeries. In confronting her grandfather, he discovers an unrepentant old man who delights in his deception.

That delight extends to Welles himself, who informs us that the hour of truth has passed and he's created the entire Picasso/Kodar story.

Image result for f for fake
I think of F for Fake as an amusement park ride where we know it's not real but go along with it for the enjoyment of fantasy. You should go into it knowing that you are going to be fooled, that things are not as they are presented. As such, F for Fake more than lives up to its title.

This is a film where you must simultaneously accept and reject the truth of what is presented because the show show is About Fakes (which is the title Welles presents us in the credits). Everything is a fake: Elmyr's paintings, Irving's Hughes biography, the Picasso/Kodar story. What is to say that Welles' own stories of Irish sojourns or the claim that Citizen Kane was originally going to be about Howard Hughes before switching to William Randolph Hearst are true?

Most viewers take narrators, particularly in documentaries, as oracles of truth. Welles shows that this may not be truth but a selective truth.

I confess part of my enjoyment of F for Fake comes from my knowledge that Kodar was Welles' mistress and muse, so I knew the Kodar/Picasso story was a sham. However, knowing as such I could roll with the fantastical and outrageous story, especially given how well Welles and co-editors Marie-Sophie Dubus and Dominique Engerer put the film together. Wildly spinning from one oddity to another and yet more F for Fake goes all-around, but in a most delightful way.

As a side note, F for Fake does reveal truths about Welles: his erotic fixation on Kodar, which the film lavishes nude shots of her (as he did to a greater extent on The Other Side of the Wind), and his observation about his career's downward trajectory post-Citizen Kane. Even among professional charlatans the truth can emerge.

Image result for f for fakeWhile the Clifford Irving/Howard Hughes story has been made into a film (The Hoax), curiously no film has been made of the fascinating and enigmatic Elmyr, who outdid Welles in the Art of Deception. Here we see him give glimpses of his story, along with some rather curious observations. On his living on the Spanish island of Ibiza he comments, "It's not a place for snobbish society. It's not London. It's not Paris. It's not Omaha".

How our fair Midwestern city became a hotbed for the elites is left unexplained.

Seeing the forger's biographer explain Elmyr's life while a monkey pecks at his hair lends a touch of the bizarre to an already bizarre story. The whole Elmyr/Irving stories seem to delight Welles to where his wild yarn of the temptation of Picasso by Kodar seems his own contribution to delightful yarns.

If anything, F for Fake has as an unmentioned subject the contempt for 'experts'. Experts were fooled by Elmyr's work. Experts were fooled by Irving's work. Experts essentially condemned Welles to live in Citizen Kane's shadow. "God's own gift to the faker", Welles remarks on experts.  The lesson of "don't be spooked by the experts" that Elmyr worked under apparently inspired Irving when he tried it with the Hughes 'autobiography'. Perhaps even the reclusive Hughes himself, Welles speculates, pulled off his own deception by forever hiding.

If you go into F for Fake expecting a straightforward narrative on a couple or maybe trio of conmen you might be disappointed. The wild stories of Elmyr's forgeries and Irving's fake autobiography are covered but not the central premise. As a side note, Welles' pronunciation of 'biography' as 'bee-ography' may throw viewers off. Instead, go into F for Fake knowing that the wool will be pulled over your eyes and enjoy the deceptions.

It's like that game Two Truths & A Lie. Here is my version:

I was on a Broadway stage.
I once got five bowling strikes in a row.
I built my own house.

Which version of the truth would you like?

DECISION: A-

Abe Lincoln in Illinois: A Review



ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS

Abe Lincoln in Illinois keeps to a more reverential tone that seems par for the course on any biopic of the 16th President. Here we see that the man before the legend pretty much becoming the legend. Abe Lincoln in Illinois gives us not just a Presidential portrait but a mirror to look at the times in which it was released.

Covering the years 1831 to 1861, Abe Lincoln in Illinois hits some highlights to young and middle-aged Abraham Lincoln (Raymond Massey). There's his short but interesting voyage down South to New Orleans to sell hogs, whose highlight is first meeting the beautiful Ann Rutledge (Mary Howard).  After New Orleans, he decides to settle in New Salem, that quiet town where Miss Ann lives.

He fights the town bully Jack Armstrong (Howard da Silva), earning not just Jack's respect but that of the town. Abe silently pines for Ann while she's engaged to another man. Eventually, Ann does turn to Abe, who despite his apparent ineptness has become Postmaster. She, however, dies just as his reluctant political career begins, leaving him heartbroken.

Image result for abe lincoln in illinoisAbe equivocates with his new love, Miss Mary Todd (Ruth Gordon) and finds a worthy opponent in Senator Stephen Douglas (Gene Lockhart). It seems that everyone but Abe believe him not just capable but necessary to be President. Mary Todd certainly thinks so, openly stating she will be the engine to push Abe into the White House. Also advocating is his law partner Billy Herndon (Alan Baxter), who berates Abe for wavering in his nation's call.

Eventually, Abe comes to his senses, especially after a well-fought Illinois Senate campaign where in a series of debates with Judge Douglas, Lincoln declares that 'a house divided cannot stand'. He is eventually selected by the Republican Party as a compromise candidate and wins the Presidency. Now he makes his own Illinois Farewell Address to his community before heading to Washington and his destiny as Commander-in-Chief.

Abe Lincoln in Illinois, adapted from the successful Broadway play, does much to put Honest Abe on a pedestal. Roy Webb's score is very worshipful and John Cromwell's direction also at times seems to border on the theatrical.

Of particular note is a short scene where we see the Harpers Ferry Raid. John Brown is cradling his dead son in almost a Pieta-like manner, and his own manner is rather grand given the chaos and death of the Raid. It is curious though that it was Robert E. Lee who led the raid against Brown's attempted slave revolt.

Image result for abe lincoln in illinoisAs a side note, none other than John Wilkes Booth witnessed Brown's execution. If memory serves correct, Booth said of Brown's final moments, "He was a brave old man", but I digress.

We do get scenes like these, where the 'importance' of moments and foreshadowing almost bludgeon us. Early on, Abe is sworn in as a vote-counter, and that moment is treated with odd reverence for something that was more casual in nature. It seems to telegraph that later on he will be sworn in as President, but it robs us a bit of the evolution of the man.

One thing that was not explored and I wish they had was Lincoln's journey down South. I think this journey began his evolution towards being anti-slavery, particularly seeing the slave auctions. It's unfortunate and a weakness in Abe Lincoln in Illinois that Lincoln's evolving views on the "Negro", while still not as advanced as we might have hoped, were more progressive than others.

In terms of performances I admit Massey did an excellent job as the lanky, seemingly rustic Abe. He showed that rare image of Lincoln as a spinner of yarns and witty comments versus the more popular conception of Lincoln as a dour, depressive individual. His 'aw-shucks' manner and folksy delivery make him a strong Lincoln.

Howard was a bit overly dramatic as Ann, perhaps the only real love of Abe's life, but her death scene is moving. I didn't like Gordon as Mary Todd, but I think this is more a response to how Mary Todd was. She seems too brittle this early on, having little sense of any coquettish or playful nature to balance out her more somber husband.

Lockhart did quite well as the shrewd Douglas, aware that Lincoln was no country rube but a formidable opponent. Both he and Massey had standout moments at their debates, bringing fire and fury as they battled it out. I might have seen a whole film just on those debates and can see why they are still reenacted more than a century later.

I think Abe Lincoln in Illinois says as much about when it was released as when it was set. The film was released in 1940, where we were coming close to entering another great war and the current President was also highly regarded to almost worshiped. As such, films that elevated the President would be in good standing order. I cannot say that Abe Lincoln in Illinois was a de facto celebration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but it is not beyond the real of possibility.

Abe Lincoln in Illinois is a good primer to our most admired and beloved President (sorry Barry, sorry Donny). It does not delve much into his political evolution or even his private life (we get no proposal scene between Abraham and Mary Todd). However, with strong performances from Massey and Lockhart along with excellent cinematography by James Wong Howe, Abe Lincoln in Illinois is worth the time even if it does not capture the man in full.

1809-1865


DECISION: B-

Monday, April 22, 2019

Gotham: They Did What? Review

Image result for gotham they did what

GOTHAM: THEY DID WHAT?

As we end Gotham, They Did What? plays like a good mid-season finale mixed with a rush to finish everything before we get to the end. There were elements that were a bit hurried but on the whole They Did What? put in elements of human emotion and complexity within it.

Nyssa al Ghul (Jaime Murray) is enacting her final vengeance on Gotham, holding Barbara Kean (Erin Richards) and her new baby hostage. Nyssa' henchman Bane (Shane West) is leading the attack on the final pockets of resistance in Gotham, primarily the Gotham City Police Department Headquarters.

Captain Jim Gordon (Ben McKenzie) and Detective Harvey Bullock (Donal Logue) find unexpected help from former mayor Oswald Cobblepot (Robin Lord Taylor), who feels too strongly about his city to let it fall. More reluctant to join him is Edward Nygma (Cory Michael Smith), but join them he does.

Bruce Wayne (David Mazouz) with Selina Kyle (Camren Bicondova) do their part to stop Bane or at least slow him down enough to buy Gordon time. Nyssa's plot backfires with Bonkers Babs finishing her with Gordon's help. Bane for his part fails when the regular troopers refuse to fire on unarmed civilians and turn their weapons on him and his few loyal troops.

Bruce carries so much guilt over all that has happened and flies off after Gordon is finally appointed Commissioner, leaving Selina devastated. Barbara can now raise their daughter Barbara Lee Gordon, whom she names after "the three people she can count on": herself, Jim and Jim's wife, Lee Thompkins (Morena Baccarin). Penguin and Riddler, the original frenemies, decide to retake the city.

Image result for gotham they did whatIt may be unintentional but They Did What? has something of a theme involving pairs. There's Bruce and Selina. There's Nyssa and Bane. There's Barbara and Gordon. There's even Riddler and Penguin. Each pair brings out the best and/or worst in each other, and all but one seem to deserve the other.

The highlight for me has been what has been the highlight for me in previous Gotham episodes: the interplay between Bicondova's Selina and Mazouz's Bruce. Bat-Cat has been among the most solid of storylines, aided by their fine performances. Mazouz here to my mind seemed a bit removed from things, but I think that was closer to how the part was written than how he is an actor. In his guilt misplaced or not and in his desire to atone for said guilt Mazouz does excellent work.

Bicondova does him better as Selina, who has found her heart only to lose it to Bruce's quest for absolution. Whether assuring her unofficial boyfriend that "I will be here whenever you need me" or watching helplessly as Bruce flies off she excels.

The double-act of Smith and Taylor brings out the rage and humor of this wicked duo. Taylor is powerfully convincing as someone who finally has allowed his heart to put something above his own interests. Smith showed he too could show Riddler's moment of caring for his frenemy by lying about Penguin's eye injury. In their final interaction, when despite their own interests they cannot bring themselves to kill the other, there is a mix of menace and mirth.

Image result for gotham they did whatThey Did What? allows for brief moments of gallows and dark humor. When Penguin offers to help, Gordon remarks that he knew he was there before Pengy announced himself. Jim says he carries an odor, "part dandy, part snake".  When killing Nyssa, Bonkers Babs cracks that she and her father have a connection: 'a thing for this knife' (the dagger that killed them both).

Intentional or not, They Did What? made both Nyssa and Bane amusing given their repeated habit of monologuing. West was still to my mind not menacing but I'll say he took a good stab at it. Their continued speeches did become tiresome, but 

One issue I had was in the camera work, particularly in the many fight scenes where I got a bit lost. Add the monologuing and the perhaps too-quick and convenient answer to the problems they caused and I am dropping a few points to the episode.

However, what we have in They Did What? was a well-acted, well-written and fast-paced episode that will lead us to the Gotham series finale. It's almost a pity given how well the show has done that we're about to close this Nightwing Project.

8/10

Next Episode: The Beginning...

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Breakthrough (2019): A Review

BREAKTHROUGH

I found Breakthrough to be a surprising step in the world of Christian cinema. Unlike past Christian films, Breakthrough was not about a spiritual conversion for any of the characters main or secondary. Unlike most more mainstream films with Christian characters, Breakthrough did not make the Christians out to be dangerous, stupid or hypocritical. Instead, Breakthrough did what few films both Christian and secular have done with characters of faith: portray them as actual people, ones with virtues and flaws, neither saintly or satanic.

It may come as a genuine surprise, but Christians are people too.

Based on a true story, Breakthrough is about the Smith family. John Smith (Marcel Ruiz) is a basketball-obsessed preteen who carries anger despite the love of his parents Joyce (Chrissy Metz) and Brian (Josh Lucas). John was adopted by the Smiths when they served on a Guatemalan mission. As such, he has a sense of being unwanted. This, coupled with the more traditional pulling away of all teens causes tension within the home.

Joyce has more tensions with their church's minister, Pastor Jason (Topher Grace). He is far too progressive for Joyce's taste with his funky hair, California manner, introducing rap into the praise and worship and drawing parallels between Christ and The Bachelor. He also bungles things by being clueless about her women's ministry, though John seems more receptive to Jason's modernizing (the rap in particular to his liking).

Over the 2015 Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend, John goes to stay with friends when all three fall through the ice. Two of the boys are rescued quickly, but John is under the cold waters for at least a quarter of an hour. While he is rescued, the prospects for John surviving are almost none. Joyce calls upon her faith to revive her only son, prayers that appear to be answered.

Over the next three days as John continues to fight, Joyce, Brian, Jason, the specialist Dr. Garrett (Dennis Haysbert) and atheist EMT Tommy Shine (Mike Coulter), along with others in their circles pray, fight, forgive and accept things both temporal and eternal.

Image result for breakthrough movieBreakthrough has a quiet manner to it, thanks in large part to director Roxann Dawson and Grant Nieporte's adaptation of Joyce Smith's book. Where in other films certain moments such as John's last-minute basketball shot, his fall through the ice or Joyce's desperate cry to the Holy Spirit for essentially John's resurrection might have been big, Dawson keeps them low-key.

This makes those moments carry more impact or power because they don't call attention to themselves. John's fall through the ice, though expected, comes through quite quietly, no big dramatic music or shots of crackling ice. Similarly, when Joyce is at John's lifeless body, we get shots of the hospital staff hearing her cries of pain and calling out to God along with shots of her. This I think adds to the drama by allowing us to see how both the pain of losing a child and the genuine shock of his sudden revival affect others.

Breakthrough also does well by portraying our four main characters (Joyce, Brian, John and Jason) as decent but flawed. While one would expect Joyce to be shown as the best character, she is given negative qualities: she is judgmental, hard and harsh on her somewhat hippie-drippy pastor and at times tyrannical on those who don't hold to her faith be it the agnostic Dr. Garrett or Brian. She can lack compassion towards her husband's doubts and fears and resistant to Jason's sincere overtures.

John can be dismissive, Brian as mentioned doubtful. Sometimes though the flaws are played for laughs, such as when in a moment of enthusiasm Jason blurts out a "Hell Yeah!", startling Joyce before a sheepish Jason realizes what he said. Joyce too is allowed some moments of humor, such as when she accidentally reveals she was the 'anonymous' writer of a single-spaced two-page letter complaining about the rap in the worship.

Image result for breakthrough movie
Breakthrough is held aloft by some good performances, particularly Metz as Joyce. Whether she is openly hostile to Jason or mournful with John or accepting of whatever God's will is, her tenacity mixed with vulnerability wins you over. Grace as Jason seems a little unsure of himself but he does a commendable job as the progressive pastor who wants to be a shepherd to his flock. Colter as the EMT who struggles between his atheism and his confusion and Ruiz as John, prickly but also soft-hearted, also do well. Haysbert excels as Dr. Garrett, professional physician who won't sugarcoat anything and sees John as an interesting case but whom he works to save.

It's a pity that Lucas is reduced apart from the beginning and end of the film as perpetually weepy, with only one moment where his struggles between faith and doubt come up.

I think Breakthrough's best quality is that it does not lock things away neatly. A subplot is introduced where others on the periphery of the story question why John survived and their loved ones did not. Some of his Christian school classmates can be mean-spirited and obnoxious (though another subplot involving John's frenemy is not deeply explored). Breakthrough cannot offer answers on these questions on why he lived while others died.

It would put too much of a burden on his young shoulders; however, the fact that issues of doubt and legalism even among believers are introduced in a Christian film, that the Christian characters are shown as flawed and the non-believing characters are shown as decent is a positive step in Christian cinema.

My experience has been that too many Christian films, particularly in the oeuvre of the Christiano and Kendrick Brothers, sin barely exists and doubt is virtually nonexistent. Non-believers either don't exist or are malevolent. Their films tend to be about conversions, usually the main character or the audience. In Breakthrough, the Christian characters have doubts and flaws, the non-Christian characters have virtues and positive qualities.

Breakthrough is indeed that: a breakthrough in how Christians are portrayed to both secular and believing audiences. It's a moving story that asks questions, trust audiences to come to their own answers and keeps our attention.


Image result for breakthrough movie

DECISION: B+

Saturday, April 20, 2019

The Departed (2006): A Review

THE DEPARTED (2006)

The Departed got director Martin Scorsese his long-sought Best Director Academy Award. Scorsese's remake of the Hong Kong film Internal Affairs keeps to some excellent moments, some wobbly Boston accents and a good though not great film.

Boston crime lord Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) grooms preteen Colin Sullivan to eventually become his mole inside the Boston State Police. Colin (Matt Damon) rises through the ranks and his information keeps Costello one step ahead, but there's a hitch. Another department stubbornly refuses to give Sullivan the name of the mole in Costello's organization who like Sullivan has worked his way up.

That mole is Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), himself a scion of a Boston crime family who wants to break away from his family's past. Under Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and his right-hand man Sergeant Dingam (Mark Wahlberg), Costigan uses the family name to work his way to Costello's side.

It soon becomes a game of Spy vs. Spy to find who is the rat. The subterfuges of Sullivan and Costigan isn't the only deception going on, as both of them become romantically involved with the same woman: psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga), though the former has a longer and deeper relationship to where she moves in.

As both groups start figuring out who is on the level, things start going haywire. Costello himself is unmasked as an FBI informant, which does not help his increasing paranoia. The investigations cost lives until both rats find their corresponding figure, leading to an orgy of death, deception and fierce retribution.

Image result for the departedNot having seen Internal Affairs, I cannot say how close or far The Departed is from the source material. I can say that The Departed kept that balance between the separate moles rather well until the climatic drug bust, with still at least half an hour to go. That perhaps is one of the film's weak points: it seems to go on much longer than it should. Granted, we needed to wrap up the story but some things felt a bit off.

The subplot with Madolyn seems not just absurd but unnecessary, at least the idea that she would end up sleeping with both rats. It's as if William Monaghan's screenplay wanted to make the parallels between Sullivan and Costigan be a bit too exact.

You also had a rather odd denouement where Madolyn discovers Sullivan's deception. Rather than turn the information to the police, she just locks the door after confronting Sullivan. Even more bizarre is the whole ending: Costigan's fellow officer was apparently contacted by him but he still struggles to accept Sullivan is the traitor. Add to that the end of both a second and never-hinted-at mole and Sullivan's own end and things just felt rather rushed.

As if the rat crawling on the ledge of Sullivan's posh apartment at the end of The Departed was not an exclamation point enough.

Other elements, such as Costigan's growing prescription pill addiction or Costello's FBI protection were dropped in but not made much of.

Image result for the departed
Monaghan's script, however, did have some positives. Costello calls Sullivan 'Collie', subliminally pointing out that for all Sullivan's intelligence and the faux-paternal manner between them Costello considered him essentially his dog. The younger men are tasked to essentially become what their 'father' Costello wants them to be. As such, both deny their true natures (rotten for Sullivan, dutiful for Costigan).

The Departed is a film drenched in Catholicism, particularly in a sense of guilt that comes from betrayal. Both Sullivan and Costigan betray their fathers be it biological (Costigan's decision to be a cop versus a hood) or spiritual (Sullivan causing Queenan's death to take attention away from himself).

Scorsese has some excellent visual moments, such as Costigan's pursuit of Sullivan (though he cannot see Sullivan's face), Queenan's death, an attempted bust on Costello and the climatic drug bust that brings them all into conflict. He also gets strong performances out of his cast.

Damon and Wahlberg, both Massachusetts natives, handle the Boston accent best. I'm surprised that the latter was the one singled out for his performance given that playing a foul-mouthed hair-trigger tempered working-class Bostonian is not exactly a stretch for Wahlberg. As the false cop, Damon was better though by the end he seemed surprisingly dim and detached. DiCaprio was hampered primarily by his efforts to drum up a convincing Boston accent. I found his character a bit one-note but on the whole I think he did well.

As much as Nicholson may be criticized for being over-the-top as the arrogant and increasingly bonkers Costello, I thought well of his performance and thought he played the part as it was written. Farmiga was given a somewhat thankless job as the only female character of note who serves as little more than the bedmate to both men. The standouts were Ray Winstone as Mr. French, the ever-loyal second to Costello who brought menace even when calm and Sheen as the moral Queenan, the only untouched man in this sleazy business.

The Departed is a strong crime drama that keeps the audience within the loop to the game of cat-and-rat. I don't think it's Martin Scorsese's best film, but it is a good film if a bit too long in my view.

DECISION: B-

2007 Best Picture Winner: No Country For Old Men

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Shazam!: A Review (Review #1205)


SHAZAM!

I confess to having the vaguest knowledge of Shazam the character. The only reason I know the name itself is because of Gomer Pyle. Shazam!, the newest entry in the DC Extended Universe, took the criticism that the films were too serious and somber by going the opposite route and being almost a straight-up comedy.

Therein lies the problem.

1974, Upstate New York, Christmas. Thaddeus Sivana is driving up with his father (John Glover) and brother Sid when he's spirited away by a wizard (Djimon Hounsou). Thad might be worthy to carry on the wizard's legacy as a champion, but the wizard finds Thad's heart is not pure, so he sends him back. In his confusion and anger, Thad causes an accident that we eventually find leaves his father wheelchair-bound.

Move up to today, where teen foster kid Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is continuing his search for his birth mother. If it means repeatedly running away from good foster homes and stealing police cars, so be it. He is placed in yet another foster home run by former foster kids Rosa (Marta Milans) & Victor Vasquez (Cooper Andrews). Billy won't bond with the other foster kids: college-bound Mary (Grace Fulton), tech guru Eugene (Ian Chen), quiet Pedro (Jovan Armand) and precocious Darla (Faithe Herman).

Image result for shazam movieThe closest bond he's made is with Freddy (Jack Dylan Glazer), superhero expert, but it's a tenuous one at that. Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong) has found the wizard and taken greater powers of darkness, it's more imperative that the wizard find his champion to face Sivana. The wizard selects Billy, whom he gives great powers by calling out his name: Shazam.

Now as Shazam (Zachary Levi), he is still a kid inside and clueless at the superhero business. With help from his guru Freddy, Shazam stumbles into learning his powers. He also becomes a media sensation and raging egomaniac, causing havoc through his ineptness. Shazam also has to face off against the more experienced Sivana, ultimately learning not only how to be a superhero, but embrace his real family.

I ended up rooting for the villain in Shazam! more than the superhero, which is not a good sign. I think it's because if one thinks about how Henry Gayden's script sets things up, Thaddeus Sivana has a genuine case. He's swept up into this otherworldly universe, presented a chance to 'be somebody' versus the loser his father and brother (and I figure his classmates) tell him he is, and just because this kid comes close to falling to temptation this wizard too essentially tells him he is a loser too. To top that off, the trip ends up almost killing everyone and leaving his father disabled.

I don't know about you, but if that had happened to me I'd be pretty angry, bitter and resentful too.

Related imageShazam! has a tonal imbalance, particularly with its main character. Asher's Billy is morose, haunted, mournful. Levi's Shazam borders on blithering but gleeful idiot. I kept wondering if the transformation from one to the other could cause such a radical change in personality. Up to a point I could accept that Billy would be amazed at being a physical adult but still a young teen. However, Shazam is almost always jolly to where you wonder how he could continue to be constantly clueless.

Try as I might, I could not imagine the same Billy who methodically tracked down every potential birth mother could also be so manic and inept as a superhero. Even The Greatest American Hero's Ralph Hinkley was more competent when wearing his superhero suit.

I found the younger cast pretty much outdid their older doppelgangers. Asher was excellent as Billy, this lost boy who grows into a more embracing figure. His scenes brought Shazam!'s drama and some light moments too. Grazer too had a great knack for being the Seth Cohen to Asher's Ryan Atwood, the geeky fanboy who serves as Billy's guide to the world of superhero stuff. It's not a surprise then to have a little The O.C. vibe given the original Seth Cohen (Adam Brody) played the adult Freddy when they all speak "Shazam!". Fulton's Mary has some good dramatic moments and Choi is a delight as the technologically adept Eugene.

The standout though is Herman's Darla. I rarely say this when it comes to reviews, but she was adorable as the chipper and sweet little sister. When this multicultural family become superheroes themselves, Meagan Goode's adult Darla matched Herman's sweet and enthusiastic version without it being parody.

Image result for shazam movie
As much as like Levi I quickly grew tired of his "look I'm a kid in an adult's body!" shtick. You can only grin and mug a performance for so long before you want to say, "Enough! We get it!". I figure that he played the part as written correctly, but Levi never convinced me he was Billy. He convinced me Shazam was a near-total idiot. Strong's run on villains continues and I found him limited by the screenplay, but at least he had motivation for his revenge.

I was surprised by one aspect in Shazam! that I don't think has been mentioned enough. For a movie targeted at family audiences and even with a PG-13 rating, I was surprised at the scenes of violence and gore. We have one woman disintegrating, Sivana throwing his brother out of a high-rise window, the Seven Deadly Sins almost graphically devouring an anonymous board meeting (we almost saw one of them bite a person's head off) and Shazam himself shot in the head at Freddy's encouragement. All this makes me wary to let young kids, at least younger than 13, see it despite the suggestion that Shazam! is a cuter comic book film.

Shazam! is a pastiche of other works: it seems to have nods to among other things Big, The O.C., and The Greatest American Hero. There are pluses with it: the themes of family, the positive portrayal of foster homes, the good use of a multicultural cast without it being overt or heavy-handed. However, Shazam! is very pleased with itself, and that soon starts to grate to where I wanted Sivana to win.

Finally, with all the calls to "Say My Name" and no one thought to bring up Destiny's Child?

DECISION: C-

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Christopher Columbus (1949): A Review

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS

Long before our revisionist age, long before he was held personally responsible for everything from slavery, rape and genocide to white supremacy and climate change, Christopher Columbus was thought of as a good guy. We even took Columbus Day off. As such, Christopher Columbus can be almost a time capsule of when our Italian sailor was seen not the embodiment of all evil but as a noble even courageous figure. The film trades in some myths and is perhaps a bit too posh for the story it wants to tell. However, Fredric March can make just about anything worth the time.

Christopher Columbus (March) comes to Spain to attempt to court Her Majesty Queen Isabella (Florence Eldridge) to fund his expedition. He believes a faster and cheaper route to the East can be had if ships sailed west rather than around Africa or travel through Asia. He faces strong opposition at Court from Don Francisco (Francis L. Sullivan). Part of his objection comes from his refusal to see the world is as round as he is. Part of it comes from fearing that his family fortune will evaporate if a faster route is found.

Columbus waits while the Court hems & haws, but he gets an unexpected ally in the Widow Beatriz (Linden Travers), who has eyes for intelligent men. She has a plus in that she's Francisco's cousin, but a minus in that randy King Ferdinand (Francis Lister) has designs on our merry widow. Columbus also has another friend at Court, Diego (Derek Bond), a royal notary who pledges to sail with Columbus once he finally wins Her Majesty over to his side.

At long last, Columbus gets his three ships and sails towards the New World, but as the crews of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria keep sailing, it takes all of Columbus' wits and force to keep the crew from mutiny. Finally, he discovers his new world, but it's not all happiness at the end.

Related imageChristopher Columbus suffers from a curious tone of stuffiness and unearned poshness. Director David McDonald went overboard in making most of the acting very mannered and theatrical. Almost everyone at Court behaved as though they knew they were in some grand epic situation versus playing up Court intrigue.

This is not helped by some curious decisions McDonald and screenwriters Muriel & Sydney Box and Cyril Roberts made. Of particular note is in giving two characters the same name: both the merry widow and Diego's supportive cousin are named 'Beatriz'. Soon it becomes muddled trying to remember which Beatriz one is referring to. Christopher Columbus also forgets about Chris' son, introduced in the beginning and not only never mentioned again but almost erased altogether. At one point when Cousin Beatriz offers her views on marriage, Christopher comments that he as an explorer should not be tied down with a wife and child.

This is odd given he already has a child, which he doesn't seem to remember.

Giving two characters the same name is bad enough, but for the longest time Christopher Columbus resisted giving his antagonist a name at all. It's more than halfway through the film that the fat 'learned friend' with whom Columbus must battle against is given a name.

Finally, Christopher Columbus seems to be a whole slew of films put together. There's Columbus' efforts to win Court favor, the hints of interest with the Lady Beatriz of which Chris is mostly oblivious to and the actual voyage. It's a curious mishmash that ends up undercutting the others.

Image result for christopher columbus 1949
Even then the ideas that Columbus knew there was a New World or was one of the few who knew the world was round was wildly inaccurate. Moreover, the willingness of the Native population to embrace these newcomers comes off as patronizing, as does the explorers' intentions of only seeking converts to Catholicism with a little gold-hunting on the side.

However, Christopher Columbus has some positives. At the top of the list is March, who makes Chris into a committed and passionate advocate for his 'crackpot' theories. He even makes Chris' obliviousness at Lady Beatriz's pursuit slightly amusing. It's only at the end when he faces Their Majesties one final time that he slips into a bit over-the-top manner. March's real-life wife Eldridge was elegant and appropriately posh as Her Majesty Queen Isabella, while Travers' Lady Beatriz was not quite the vixen or supporter she was tasked to play. Both veered towards the more theatrical manner but it's not a deal-breaker for me.

Bond's Diego seemed superfluous to the film and a bit over-the-top, while Sullivan's Don Francisco shifted from menacing to mirthful depending on what the script asked. The imbalance of the role lies more in the script than in his interpretation.

Christopher Columbus is not a particularly good film. Despite its short running time it felt like a slog and by the end one starts losing interest. However, Fredric March makes it worth the time. The film adds to the myth of Columbus versus the almost gleeful tearing-down of Chris' legacy popular today. A bit stage-bound but not without some merit, Christopher Columbus could have been better but if it's any good it's due to Fredric March's performance.

Circa 1451-1506


DECISION: C+

Monday, April 8, 2019

My Fair Lady (1964): A Review

MY FAIR LADY (1964)

Many see My Fair Lady as a charming, light romantic musical. Having revisited My Fair Lady now, I'm surprised to find how nasty some elements are. It still is a sumptuous visual feast with some extraordinary music, but perhaps time has dulled my enjoyment of it.

Haughty linguistics professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) encounters Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) one night. He makes an offhand comment to Colonel Pickering (Wilfrid Hyde-White) that he could pass this lower-class woman as a duchess at an Embassy Ball with his elocution techniques. Taking him at his word, Eliza goes to Higgins' home and offers to pay for lessons.

Higgins takes her on and puts her through a brutal set of techniques. He's an absolute terror to Eliza, with only Pickering's rather fussy manner to tamper down Higgins' worst excesses. Eliza's father, Alfred Doolittle (Stanley Holloway) is no help: he has no problem 'selling' Eliza for five pounds.

Eventually Eliza does adopt a more posh manner of speaking, but one can't quite take the Cockney out of the girl, as a disastrous debut at the Ascot races proves. Despite this flop, Eliza has enchanted Freddy Eynsford-Hill (Jeremy Brett), who is besotted with her. A little more tinkering and Eliza adopts an elegant persona which leaves even Henry Higgins astonished. Once the ball is over, both Pickering and Higgins seem to have completely forgotten about Eliza or her future.

Eliza finds she has no future with Higgins but cannot return to her roots as she's now too posh. With few prospects, she contemplates marriage to Freddy, but first stops at Mother Higgins' (Gladys Cooper) home for refuge. Higgins is astonished Eliza would defy him. Could he actually have fallen in love with his own creation? At the end, Eliza does go to Higgins' home, where he appears enchanted and asks where are his slippers.

Image result for my fair lady (film)As I saw My Fair Lady with perhaps a more critical eye, I was surprised to see not just how brutal Henry Higgins was, but how pretty much everyone was towards her. Higgins really was a lousy teacher. He never showed Eliza any patience or even basic instruction.

For example, he never bothered to explain why her Cockney vowel pronunciations were not the same as his more refined ones. Rather than show how changing one's lip movements shifted her Cockney 'ay' to the Queen's English "A" all Higgins does is shout "A" at her. To her mind, she was pronouncing "A" correctly even if she wasn't. Essentially, Eliza was meant to learn by osmosis.

The staff too didn't show Eliza any sympathy or kindness. One of the weaker Lerner & Lowe songs, Poor Professor Higgins, express sorrow for what he (and by extension the staff) is enduring, but not once do they see or express any sense that Eliza is essentially being bullied and yelled at for hours or even days on end.

That was the unexpected discovery in My Fair Lady. The fact that Higgins is a brute, in his own way a snob and a sexist bordering on misogynist is not. Higgins expresses his disdain for the fair sex in two songs: I'm An Ordinary Man and A Hymn to Him, while his contempt for people in general comes through in Why Can't The English Learn to Speak?.

As a side note, it's curious that at least two of Higgins' numbers revolve around questions: Why Can't The English Learn to Speak? and A Hymn to Him, where he asks variations of the question 'why can't a woman be more like a man?' Perhaps this was to help Harrison, who was not a singer and didn't pretend to be. In order to carry a tune, he essentially 'talked on pitch', speaking within the melody without carrying notes.

After some thought I think Harrison did the part correctly as the ever arrogant, ever dismissive Higgins. I still struggle to be convinced that Harrison's Higgins actually ended up falling in love but in his recreation of his Broadway role Harrison did much better than I first thought.

Image result for my fair lady (film)
It is well-known that Harrison and Holloway recreated their roles for the film version of My Fair Lady but Julie Andrews was not asked to recreate hers. As such, Audrey Hepburn's performance has perpetually been overshadowed by Andrews'. The fact that Hepburn was dubbed only added to the perception that Hepburn was 'bad/wrong' for the role.

It's an unfair slam on Hepburn, who in some parts was simply divine. Of particular note is when we see her coming down the stairs for the Embassy Ball and she is breathtakingly beautiful. She is also quite adept at the comedy elements such as the Ascot Gavotte sequence where her efforts at small talk sound posh but bonkers.

Having said that though, at times Hepburn is simply too posh and elegant to be a believable Cockney flower girl, particularly when we first meet her. Hepburn comes across as too intelligent to be seen as ignorant. Also, Eliza's hysterics and surprisingly Victorian prudishness became more irritating than endearing (though her screams when the female staff demand she take her clothes off for a bath while keeping to censors by having the steam rise is hilarious). That aspect of her performance was on her. The dubbing was not, and here we come to a more damning problem.

Hepburn's singing was done by professional dubber Marni Nixon, which was a terrible mistake. Nixon's voice is elegant, crystal clear and pitch-perfect, but that's the problem. It is simply too perfect, too elegant, too posh and worse too articulate to come from a Cockney flower girl. The contrast between Eliza's speaking and singing highlights the difference. Nixon could not master sounding like a Cockney, so in the Wouldn't It Be Loverly number Eliza sounds as if she already has mastered Higgins' elocution. Eliza's singing sounds very refined and technically skilled. It just doesn't sound right.

Related imageThe highlight in performances is Holloway, like Harrison recreating his stage role. We shouldn't like Alfred P. Doolittle, but Holloway makes him a charming rascal and a chance to belt out two great songs from the musical: With A Little Bit of Luck and Get Me to the Church on Time.

Other roles were played well and in the correct manner: fussy Pickering, unamused Mrs. Higgins, cartoonish rival phonetic instructor Zoltan Karpathy (Theodore Bikel).

For a musical, the songs are what make or break it. My Fair Lady has an extraordinary catalog. There's the sweetness of Wouldn't It Be Loverly, the joyful cynicism of Get Me to the Church on Time, the faux-elegance of the Ascot Gavotte. We also have a curiosity in that we don't have love songs per se. The two closest, On the Street Where You Live and I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face are not-quite love songs. They are more 'besotted' and 'what am I going to do without you' songs respectively.  I Could Have Danced All Night, another highlight, is also not a straight love song. She herself says "I'll never know what made it so exciting, why all at once my heart took flight".

Director George Cukor brought all these elements together in an excellent form, though perhaps more credit should begin to choreographer Hermes Pan and costume designer Cecil Beaton for their respective work than has been.

However, for every I Could Have Danced All Night there is a Just You Wait, for every The Rain in Spain there is a Without You. Those songs are hardly bad, but sometimes we get too much of a good thing.

I'm surprised at how My Fair Lady did not enchant me as it has on other viewings. It's still a wonderful adaptation of the Broadway musical, with beautiful sets and costumes, a magnificent score and strong performances. However, I think perhaps people have loved it more than perhaps is reasonable, though how can one resist Audrey Hepburn at her most regal and stunning?

If anything, Audrey Hepburn is My Fair Lady indeed.

DECISION: B-


1965 Best Picture: The Sound of Music

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Ladies' Day: A Review



LADIES' DAY

Welcome to Rick's Texan Reviews annual Salute to Opening Day (my favorite day of the year), where I review a baseball-themed film. This year, it's the comedy Ladies' Day, focusing on baseball wives. Ladies' Day is a delight from beginning to end, with delightful turns and zany situations.

Sox pitcher Wacky Waters (Eddie Albert) is a phenom, unless a pretty thing catches his eye. His amorous adventures always end up distracting him to where the team loses. Fortunately, he is currently single, and both his teammates and their wives are set on keeping it that way.

Then comes Latin bombshell Pepita Zurita (Lupe Velez) on a war bond drive through baseball stadiums. One look from the 'hot tamale' and Wacky goes bonkers. Pepita equally falls head over heals for her 'Wah-key', and the baseball wives all but kiss their World Series winning bonuses goodbye. Even after their quickie marriage Wacky is still unstable.

A bit of good news comes their way when Pepita is recalled to Hollywood to star in Twenty-One Nights, forcing the couple to separate as the Sox chase the pennant. With Wacky able to concentrate on the game and Pepita filming, the team and their wives can breathe easy, that is until they discover Pepita has finished filming early and is rushing back to her Wacky.

Now determined to keep Wacky and Pepita apart until the Sox beat the Acorns in the World Series, the Mrs. Sox collective, led by Hazel Jones (Patsy Kelly) decide to take matters into their own hands. They get to Pepita first in Kansas City and essentially hold her hostage until the Sox win.

Little did they count on her escape, but after more screwballs things end happily for everyone.


Image result for ladies day 1943
Ladies' Day pretty much starts out as a comedy with the idea of Eddie Albert as both a Lothario and the object of Pepita's affection. Albert is not a leading man type but he has a way with lines that make things funnier.

As he contemplates reuniting with his beloved Pepita, he muses, "Ain't that romantic? Kansas City at midnight", making his lovelorn statement all the more hilarious.

The film is filled with professionals able to deliver comic lines with a perfectly straight face. Patsy Kelly is the standout of the Sox wives, each determined to get their World Series bonus no matter what. If it means literally beating up her husband and push him around, so be it. If it means all but cajoling Pepita to get out of town, so be it too. As she pushes Pepita to return to her eager public, she tells her, "Think of it: Twenty-One Nights with Pepita Zurita".

Velez, matching Kelly in the quips, gives her a somewhat startled, somewhat unamused double take. "Twenty-One Nights STARRING Pepita Zurita", she quickly corrects her. "It's in my contract to put that way," she adds. It's as if Pepita 'gets' what Hazel is suggesting and is more than able to stand up to her.

Part of the humor comes from the "Mexican Spitfire" mangling her English and being extremely broad and even a little dim. She clearly does not know anything about baseball, loudly cheering for her "Wah-key" every time he throws balls thinking they're strikes and at the end shouting, "Wacky, please knock me a run home. Please do!". When she calls him to tell him she finished filming early and is on her way, she says "Yo te adoro" (Spanish for 'I adore you'). Responding to an off-air comment about 'a door', she tells him, "I tell you in English when I see you in Spanish".

Velez is a natural comedienne, using her jumbled English to enhance the good-natured humor. As she reproaches the Sox players, she tells Wacky that their wives "kid-snatched" me. Velez makes Pepita a delightful comic character without becoming ridiculous, basically sweet but unaware of the chaos she unleashes.

Image result for ladies day 1943For classic short-subject fans, there's a cameo by George O'Hanlon, best known as the voice of George Jetson and known to contemporary audiences for playing the hapless Joe McDoakes in the Behind the Eight-Ball short subject films.

Ladies' Day makes clear they are not selfish or greedy: each plans to use the money for their families whether in buying a small farm, setting up a little shop or bringing up a new baby (only one yearns for a fur coat). We also know that Pepita is essentially goodhearted, clearly in love with Wacky and unaware that she is a distraction. Perhaps this is why we can forgive the Sox wives for not just "kid-snatching" Pepita but at least twice knocking her out with a baseball bat. We only hear the sound effect of a light clunking and Pepita's soft moan but again given it's a comedy not meant to be taken seriously we forgive that.

Ladies' Day focuses on the wives of baseball players. More often than not, particularly in biopics like Fear Strikes Out, Pride of the Yankees, The Stratton Story or The Winning Team, tend to have the wives look on their men adoringly and be fiercely protective and loving, almost worshipful. Ladies' Day, contrarily, makes them the bosses: sarcastic, sometimes belittling and even bullying towards the men they do love.

It's a nice little comedy, with standout performances from Lupe Velez, Eddie Albert and Patsy Kelly.

DECISION: B-

2017 Opening Day Film: Eight Men Out
2018 Opening Day Film: Fear Strikes Out

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Doctor Faustus: A Review (Review #1201)



DOCTOR FAUSTUS

Doctor Faustus is not just a film version of a successful play its star, Richard Burton, had starred in. It is the only film Burton directed, or rather co-directed with Nevill Coghill. Doctor Faustus is a cautionary tale of hubris, and the film is a cautionary tale too of a bad production done in by pseudo-artistic pretensions.

Doctor Faustus (Burton) an esteemed educator and scholar, has achieved the apex of human wisdom. Now he seeks greater knowledge, as well as power, riches and his own earthly delights. Now having degenerated into practicing the dark arts, he summons the demon Mephistopheles (Andreas Teuber) from Hell to be his personal slave. Mephistopheles tells Faustus he is already serving Lucifer himself and can only serve Faustus if the Devil himself permits it.

Faustus will not be denied and agrees, despite hearing the Voice of the Good Angel to turn away from his blasphemy, to surrender his soul to Lucifer in exchange for Mephistopheles' services, granting him every wish and power. Faustus signs away his soul with his own blood, and now Faustus sees the personification of the Seven Deadly Sins, plays parlor games with The Emperor (Ian Marter) and tricks on The Pope's Court. He also sees the beautiful Helen of Troy (Elizabeth Taylor), beckoning him into temptations of the flesh.

Every so often Faustus comes close to repenting and turning to Christ for redemption, but that only angers Lucifer who holds him to his pledge. Moreover, Faustus keeps coming back to his own thoughts, which are not built on divine but earthly things. Eventually, his twenty-four years are up and despite his faint pleas Helen drags him to Hell.

Image result for doctor faustus 1967As Doctor Faustus came from a stage production, Burton and Coghill opted to keep many of the stage trappings. They also opted to keep the Oxford University Dramatic Society players that were part of the original Oxford production.The term 'amateur theatrics' was pretty much created for such things, and seeing the still-training actors attempt to match Burton's almost self-parody is not a good way to begin. The acting from all but one seems to be quite theatrical as to almost be farcical.

Burton does himself no favors with his performance. I imagine that on stage, where one can be broader and louder with not much fussy, his Faustus would have been a bang-up job. On screen though, he looks in turns bored and hysterical in every meaning of the word. Sometimes the Burtonesque qualities that would make for dynamic or at least entertaining staging becomes a bit bizarre on film.

As he ponders what he would accomplish if he had ultimate power and wealth, he says he would "ransack the ocean for pearls". Only thing is, his pronunciation of 'ocean' is 'oh-SEH-ahn', which comes across as, well, bonkers.

The ever-lovely Liz is mute in Doctor Faustus, the most action she has is to beckon the bad doctor apparently in the nude. Her one sound is a cackle as she leads him to Hell, and here the whole scene is hilarious: Burton's wild hysterics, Taylor's glances, the scenery, cinematography and music all conspiring to make this sad.

Image result for doctor faustus 1967Only Teuber as Mephistopheles shows anything of promise. In his quiet yet creepy manner, he makes Mephistopheles the more sympathetic character, the demon who knows that Hell is a place of misery and torment because of the absence of God.

The visuals also are interesting in a bad way in Doctor Faustus in that they call attention to themselves. Sometimes the decisions Burton and Coghill made seem quite strange: the gauze in some scenes, the glowing skull, the Garden of the Seven Deadly Sins being so insufferably artsy. Same goes for the 'comedy' at the Pope's Court, complete with choreographed dancing that seems to mock Catholic ritual but fail to provide any genuine wit to things.

Perhaps Doctor Faustus' greatest sin is that we do not get an interesting or complex lead character. Whatever internal struggle within Faustus, whatever sense of guilt or pleasure he had isn't there. He is nothing, and his fall is just a series of sets and scenes that have nothing going for them.

If there are one or two qualities in Doctor Faustus it is in Mario Nascimbene's score (even if at times it becomes intrusive) and some wit in the screenplay, though I suspect that was from the original material. "Nay, and tell me what good will my so do thy lord?", Faustus asks his potential slave. "Enlarge his kingdom," Mephistopheles answers calmly. "Is that the reason why he tempts us thus?", Burton thunders. "Wretches find comfort in fellow suffers," is Teuber's calm reply.

Doctor Faustus is worth watching only if you want to see how late-era Richard Burton would have been on the stage. It's almost a game to see how this production would have matched the Oxford stage version. Apart from that it is not worth seeing.

Beelzebub, part of Lucifer's unholy trinity, admonishes Faustus from attempting to return to the path of redemption. "Remember, Faustus, sweet pleasure conquers deep despair. In Hell is all manner of delight". I know this to be not true, for sitting through Doctor Faustus would be Hell and there is no manner of delight there.

DECISION: D+

Monday, April 1, 2019

Gotham: I Am Bane Review

Image result for gotham i am bane

GOTHAM: I AM BANE

It seems such a shame that Gotham is about to call it a day given how generally good I Am Bane is. You have a legendary figure from the Batman mythos, some surprising twists and turns, tender moments and even a bit of levity. Yes, there are things in I Am Bane that I wasn't overwhelmed with but on the whole it looks like Gotham will end on a high note.

Things are finally looking up for Captain Jim Gordon (Ben McKenzie). Not only is reunification with the mainland about to succeed, but he is weeks if not days away from being a father. Granted, the mother is not his wife Lee Thompkins (Morena Baccarin) but his one-night stand Barbara Kean (Erin Richards), but why be picky? Unfortunately for him, a new threat has come when Gordon's newest nemesis Eduardo Dorrance is now stalking the streets under orders from 'Secretary Walker' to take Gordon, Bruce Wayne (David Mazouz) and General Wade (John Bedford Lloyd).

Bonkers Babs for her part has her own ideas however. She is about to join her frenemies Oswald Cobblepot aka Penguin (Robin Lord Taylor) and Edward Nygma aka The Riddler (Cory Michael Smith) on their submarine when her contractions start. Pengy & Riddler were going to leave her behind but she took a major part of their sub, forcing them to find her.

Image result for gotham i am baneBonkers Babs is pretty much the woman of the hour, for I Am Bane centers around everyone finding her. We learn that 'Secretary Walker' is really Nyssa al Ghul (Jaime Murray), daughter of Ra's al Ghul who now wants revenge on both Bruce and Gotham as a whole. Nyssa's revenge involves psychological torture on Bruce and getting her mad scientist Hugo Strange (B.D. Wong) to reprogram Wade and Gordon for her own nefarious schemes.

To complete her vengeance, Nyssa needs to kill Barbara so she sends Bane, with both of them uninterested that Barbara is going into labor. Pengy and Riddler are forced to join forces with Bonkers Babs to keep her alive, but they have a few tricks up their own sleeves. Barbara gives birth to a girl, but Nyssa will not be denied. Bane is halted by Alfred (Sean Pertwee) and Selina Kyle (Camren Bicondova) but Alfred gets a brutal Bane beating. For their part, after a daring escape General Wade issues "Special Order 386": the bombing of Gotham into oblivion, as he is under Nyssa's control.

Image result for gotham i am baneI Am Bane curiously has as its weak point Bane himself. Perhaps I still cannot accept Shane West as this nearly-unstoppable massive force. As much as I would like to not think on it, West cannot match Tom Hardy's take on the character from The Dark Knight Rises. West isn't as massive physically as Hardy was, but West's weakness comes from more than not matching Hardy's massive bulk.

Even with just his eyebrows West somehow manages to overact, making Bane almost amusing. Same goes for Murray's Nyssa, who has that 'female villainess as slightly campy character', all cooing her lines.

Give I Am Bane credit though for some spectacular moments and camera work. The opening is visually arresting when we see Strange create Bane. There's Bane's arrival at the Gotham City Police Headquarters, almost cinematic. The most outlandish yet fascinating is when Barbara managing to shoot her way out of the hospital while being wheeled out screaming in labor pains, down to giving us Bonkers Babs point-of-view.

The script also manages to fold all the plots into themselves very well. So many agendas and plots going on and I Am Bane manages to hold them well.

Again, West is still not Bane to me. I'm also not convinced that General Wade could not have come to blow up Gotham on his own volition. After all, he was kidnapped and that is prone to make anyone give up on thinking that Gotham is safe. I Am Bane also kept Bicondova's Selina to almost observer. However, so much of I Am Bane went right why obsess on what was not great.

With only two episodes left it seems that I Am Bane might be anticlimactic but through no fault of its own. Still, I Am Bane is a strong episode to start shutting down a series that sadly did not reach its full potential.

8/10

Next Episode: They Did What?