Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights. A Review

 

DIRTY DANCING: HAVANA NIGHTS

I think that one can enjoy a film that is not good. Such is the case with Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights. I was expecting a disaster, yet Havana Nights ended up being pleasant. I did not say good. I did not say Havana Nights is anywhere close to the original Dirty Dancing. I said, "pleasant", which is in the end works at least for me.

It is November 1958. Katey Miller (Romola Garai) is unhappy about having to move to Cuba. She is there because her father Bert (John Slattery) is working there. As such, the entire Miller family has to move to the tropical paradise: Katey, Bert, his wife Jeannie (Sela Ward) and Katey's younger sister Susie (Mika Boorem). Susie easily fits into the other young American expatriates like James Phelps (Jonathan Jackson), whose father is Bert's boss. Katey, more intellectual, does not mix well in this circle. She especially does not fit in with mean girl Eve (January Jones). 

Katey does have an easier time with hotel waiter Javier Suarez (Diego Luna). They meet when she accidentally knocks out his tray and gets berated for "his" clumsiness". Javier, who does speak English, is the son of an opponent to the current Batista regime. Javier's brother Carlos (Rene Lavan) is a supporter of Fidel Castro and the revolution. Javier is nominally sympathetic, but he would rather be at La Rosa Negra, where he can free himself in sultry Latin dancing.

As Bert and Jeannie were once skilled dancers themselves, Katey has some background in the art of movement. She also finds Javier's world more exciting than the WASPish world people like James and Eve live in. A dance competition piques her interest, especially with a chance for the winners to go to America. Taking the advice of the hotel dance instructor (Patrick Swayze), Katey eventually talks the now-fired Javier into being her partner.

How much of a partner will the erotic Latino become? Will the Millers find the prospect of a Cuban boy squiring their daughter a pleasant one? Will the impending revolution upend all their lives? Will Katey and Javier win the dance contest?

As I reflect on Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, I think that Boaz Yakin and Victoria Arch's screenplay (from a story by Kate Gunzinger and Peter Sagal) pretty much drew from the original Dirty Dancing. It is almost a surprise that Javier didn't go up to the Miller table and say, "Nadie pone Bebe en una esquina". You have the opening voiceover. You have the parents and two sisters, one bookish, one flirtatious. You have the luxurious hotel setting. You have the guy from the wrong side of the tracks with the moves. You have the young man that the parents would prefer for their older, bookish daughter. You have a dance rehearsal montage. You have a climatic dance.

Granted, there are some differences: you did not have revolutionaries attempting to kill people at Kellerman's Resort. Overall, though, Havana Nights is a bit of a Dirty Dancing clone. 

Things get more complicated when you see Patrick Swayze in Havana Nights. Technically speaking, he is not recreating his role as Johnny Castle. He is not billed as "Johnny Castle" but as "Dance Class Instructor". He appears briefly in the film, giving Katey a pep talk and cheers our dancers on the sidelines. I think people assume that Swayze is playing Johnny Castle, but he is strictly speaking not. I do not know exactly why Swayze could not be Johnny Castle. He could have served as a mentor to both Javier and Katey. Instead, his character, whatever he was, was just there and could have been cut out.

In terms of performances, Havana Nights does not ask much from our cast. Romola Garai makes a valiant effort, but sometimes her British accent slips through. It would have been easier to have made her an American who grew up in Britain with her family having lived there before being transferred to Cuba. That way, she could speak in her natural voice versus trying to sound like an American. To be fair, Garai's American accent was serviceable, though not always convincing. She was fine as the hesitant young girl who discovers the rhythm of the island. 

I cannot say that Garai and Diego Luna had chemistry, but they were fine with each other. I find it slightly amusing to see Luna in something like Havana Nights. I do not know if in retrospect, he is particular about being a Mexican playing a Cuban. He was fine in the part of this working-class man who found freedom in the steamy Havana clubs. I think he did as well as he could with what he was given. 

Both Jonathan Jackson and January Jones early in their careers were all right in their roles. I think it might have been better if Jackson's James had not taken a particular action against Katey and been more a dupe than a semi-villain. Jones' efforts to be the mean girl were again, fine, but she was not given much to do.

The real crime is against Sela Ward. She is a talented and beautiful actress who somehow just did not become the star that she I think could have and should have been. While she has done well on television, Ward has never fully broken into film. Havana Nights misused her. I would not go so far as to say that she is miscast. I will say that her efforts to be snobbish and hostile towards Javier and Katey fell a bit flat. It is as if Ward was trying too hard to be harsh. Slattery looked slightly sleepy in the role, but in fairness when he and Ward take to the dance floor, they do look nice.

A major compliment that I can hand Havana Nights is in its soundtrack, full of good Latin music. I cannot extend that to the dance sequences. Guy Ferland filmed some of them poorly, using many midlevel shots and spins, sometimes cutting excessively. While we did get some good numbers, the training montage felt choppy. Worse, we did not get Garai and Luna in full-form shots.  

I did find the ending curious. It is ostensibly a happy ending, with everyone going to La Rosa Negra shortly after Batista flees. Are we supposed to believe that everyone is celebrating Castro's takeover of Cuba? Maybe Luna in real life thinks this is a wonderful thing. I would have thought it would be more realistic to think that the Millers would have fled in terror versus hitting the clubs.

I did not end up hating Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights. It is inoffensive. Yes, it has no reason for being, coasting on the Dirty Dancing name and being a prequel in name only. Still, if you go into Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, you could end up Havana good time.

Sorry, I could not resist. 

DECISION: C+

Terminal Station: A Review

TERMINAL STATION

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Jennifer Jones. This review is also for Terminal Station, not its revamped version, Indiscretion of an American Wife.

While watching Terminal Station, the thought that came to mind was, "how could you make a mess of something so simple?". It is not that Terminal Station is a bad film. Far from it: in many ways, the film's simple story is quite good. The problem is the conflict between director and producer. Their battles over a film would lead to essentially two films from the same material. Terminal Station, version one, is a pretty good film that leans more Italian than American.

Philadelphia housewife Mary Forbes (Jennifer Jones) has been in Rome visiting her sister. During that time, she began an affair with half-Italian, half-American professor Giovanni Doria (Montgomery Clift). Now, she is determined to leave her lover and the Eternal City. Mary must get back to her husband Howard and daughter Kathy. She goes to Giovanni's apartment, then decides not to and rushes to the Stazione Termini to take a train out of Rome. She first opts for a train to Milan, where she will then another to Paris. She also hurriedly calls her sister and gets her nephew Paul (Richard Beymer, billed as Dick Beymer) to bring her a suitcase with some items.

Mary buys a child's Sicilian costume for Kathy and is ready to leave. She, however, spies Giovanni at the station. He has pursued her there, and she leaves the train. They, however, do not leave Stazione Termini. Instead, Giovanni continues to try and talk Mary out of leaving Rome. She has decided to take another train, this time a direct one to Paris. Paul, who has lingered at the station looking at various items, is one of the people who sees an enraged Giovanni slap Mary. Despite this, Mary still struggles to leave. Will Giovanni woo her into leaving Howard and Kathy for him? Will their affair be discovered due to the accidental intervention of the station police?

Terminal Station is Italian director Vittorio De Sica's American debut. Perhaps it was too much to ask him to fit his style to the designs of a Hollywood production. He might have been more successful had he had a sympathetic American producer who would let De Sica's realism play out. Instead, De Sica had the terrible misfortune to deal with Hollywood maverick producer David O. Selznick. 

The man best known for producing Gone with the Wind and Rebecca was never the easiest person to deal with. Selznick was notorious for sending out endless memos to his directors and rumored to be the inspiration for the tyrannical producer in The Bad and the Beautiful. Most directors tended to disregard his incessant memos and micromanagement. De Sica had the added advantage of not reading English. He, however, had a major disadvantage in that Terminal Station's star was Mrs. David O. Selznick. In his crazed obsession with making Jennifer Jones the focal point of everything, Selznick decided to ruin what could have been a great film.

Again, the problem is not Jones herself. She is at times a bit overdramatic as the adulterous house frau, but on the whole Jones handles the material well. Jones has a wonderful moment early in the film when she tenderly caresses the package containing Mary's gift to her daughter. In that scene, we see the character's hopes and longing for her child. Jones makes it plausible to believe Mary's inner conflict, especially as I thought that Mary was an especially stupid woman to want to stay with Giovanni. In his small role, Richard Beymer was fine as Paul, the nephew who soon grows leery of this strange Italian man.

A minor problem is Montgomery Clift. I figure that Clift agreed to the role for the chance to work with De Sica. However, it is pretty outlandish to believe that Clift is Italian in any way. Terminal Station tries to paper over that oddity by having him mention that his mother is American. However, you never believe Clift is this fiery Italian who would smack his woman around because "that's what Italian men do". I do not think the majority of Italian men go around slapping their broads either in public or private. Clift's stabs at an Italian accent never work. I think there were times when he flat-out forgot that he was supposed to have one. 

It simply would have been better to have made the Clift character an American expatriate that Mary fell in love with or cast an Italian or Italian-American in the role. Rossano Brazzi would have been a better choice. You could have had perhaps a Sal Mineo or even Bobby Darin, who would have been more plausible if the film opted for a younger plaything. Clift, I think, did his best, and he was one of the finest actors of his generation. Terminal Station, however, was the wrong material for him.

Terminal Station has some wonderful moments that I put down to De Sica's Italian neorealism. The film is filled with quick bits of outside characters popping in and out. We see priests ordering ice cream. We see a heavily pregnant woman and her brood. Terminal Station has a nice section where, on their way to the station police office, Mary and Giovanni accidentally walk on a red carpet set down for the railroad company president. 

I think an issue is that despite its brief runtime, Terminal Station feels a bit padded. I got the sense that things were padded to keep things going. Then again, perhaps the length was due to people waiting for the Italian trains to get going. 

If we look at Terminal Station, I think we have a good introduction to Vittorio De Sica as a filmmaker. He brought in as much neorealism as I think he could get away with. The film is filled with strong moments. The entire film could be summed up in the question the station police chief asks Mary. "Do you still plan to take (the train)?" he asks her when deciding whether or not to drop charges which would expose the affair. The hesitation to the answer holds you. 

Perhaps Indiscretion of an American Wife, which I have not seen, pales in comparison to Terminal Station. That is for another day. As it stands, minus Montgomery Clift's miscasting, Terminal Station works well. Jennifer Jones did mostly well, though at times again was a bit overly dramatic. Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but even he would have been no match for David O. Selznick and his interference. 

DECISION: B-

Murphy's Romance: A Review

MURPHY'S ROMANCE

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is James Garner.

What happens when you find Love for the Last Time? Murphy's Romance shows that in matters of the heart, wisdom can be stronger than passion.

Divorcee Emma Moriarty (Sally Field) is starting a new life in Arizona with her young son, Jake (Corey Haim). Here, she will train and house horses for the local ranchers and cattlemen in her new home. The house itself may be dilapidated, but it will be just fine for them. As she starts finding her way, metaphorically and literally, in Eunice, Arizona, she encounters idiosyncratic pharmacist Murphy Jones (James Garner). Murph both fits into Eunice and is distinct from his fellow residents. The eligible widower plays fiddle in a local honky-tonk band but also has No Nukes and Re-Forest America stickers on his prized old-style automobile. Murph insists on parking it outside his pharmacy and detests the parking meter the City imposed there, paying the parking tickets but refusing to pay the meter. Eventually, he offers the suggestion that he will not trouble the Eunice council in exchange for the City putting up a tree in place of the meter at Murph's expense.

Emma and Murphy develop a friendship and perhaps start harboring feelings for each other. However, things take an unexpected turn when Emma's ex and Jake's father Bobby Jack (Brian Kerwin) comes to call on his ex-wife. Despite her dislike for Bobby Jack, she knows that Jake loves him. She also finds that she cannot fully let go of her hunky ex-husband and lets him stay at her ranch. All this irritates Murph, who is surreptitiously helping Emma by giving Jake a part-time job and sending business to her via his friends and neighbors. Will Emma go for the older but wiser Murphy or be entangled with Bobby Jack? Fate has a few twists and turns before the Emma finds the right man.

While Sally Field is the central character in Murphy's Romance, the film gives James Garner a plum role that earned him the sole Oscar nomination of his career. One can see why he alone was singled out for his performance as Murphy Jones (the film receiving a second Oscar nomination for Cinematography). Murphy Jones is a well-rounded individual. He is a salt of the earth person who keeps to his code. I would figure that he would be a liberal politically, putting him at odds with the community at large. "You can carry a gun, but you can't get an abortion", he tells Emma on their first meeting when talking about what kind of town Eunice is.

However, Murph also reads the letters of Stonewall Jackson and will not pay the parking meter where he stations his beloved roadster out of principle. That puts him closer to a libertarian, which again is out of step with his town. Murphy is also quietly appalled at the violence that he sees in the rare movie that he is talked into going to with Emma, Jake and Billy Jack. Murphy is his own man, and James Garner makes him believable and wise. Despite their age difference (the film ends with Murphy telling Emma how old he really is, a question that he has either dodged or refused to answer), we can see how they can develop a romance. 

The scene where the four of them go to the movie perfectly captures what kind of people they are. Director Martin Ritt shows Emma, Jake, Billy Jack and Murphy in various reactions to an unseen violent scene. We see shock, confusion, enjoyment and dismay. Each actor reveals what kind of people they are in this scene. It is a well-directed and acted moment.

Sally Field gives Emma a quality of gumption, a woman who is strong despite her small stature. She expresses irritation to downright anger when told by a female bank officer that they will not give her a lone because she has no husband to cosign. Emma grows in the film while making her vulnerable. Her reaction after a car accident is both funny and endearing. It is a delightful, amusing and captivating performance.

It is a shame that Corey Haim was never able to overcome his personal demons. We see such promise from him in Murphy's Romance as Jake. He is clever, loving towards his parents but also able to play a teen who is a mix of innocent and knowing. Late in the film, he tells Murph that he is aware of the card tricks that the father he loves was pulling. Yet, Jake clearly loves Billy Jack for all his faults. 

Brian Kerwin is quite good as Billy Jack. We can believe that he can charm his way back to Emma's heart (and maybe even bed) despite her common sense. He is shown as a schemer and dreamer, but one who does not fool Murphy. The tug-of-war between them has funny moments, such as when they keep cutting in to dance with her, leaving her in a bizarre loop. It is to where we do not hate Billy Jack, but we do not think well of him either. Billy Jack is a loathsome scoundrel, which makes Kerwin's performance so good.

Harriet Frank, Jr. and Irvin Ravetch's adaptation of Max Schott's novella gives the actors strong material to work with. 

Murphy's Romance is also blessed with Carole King writing both the score and at least two songs for the film. The opening and closing songs, Running Lonely and Love for the Last Time, capture the feel of the story. It is surprising that she was not singled out for Oscar consideration for either the songs or score, which all work well and are enjoyable.

Murphy's Romance is a delight. The film flows well and makes the title believable. We end up not only liking Murphy and Emma but wanting them to get together despite their own hangups. Murphy's Romance is a lovely film that should be better-known. 

DECISION: B+

Roman Holiday: A Review

ROMAN HOLIDAY

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Audrey Hepburn.

We all dream of taking time for ourselves to be someone else, to free ourselves from the constraints of our lives. Roman Holiday packages up that fantasy with a dash of romance and true and elegant beauty as our avatar. 

Princess Ann (Audrey Hepburn) is on a goodwill tour of Europe. Young, naive, sheltered, she is soon worn out physically and emotionally from the burden of constant state work with no time for herself. Ann yearns to see what life is like outside the embassy gates. Given a sedative to calm her, Ann still manages to escape the embassy and begins wandering the streets of Rome until the sedative takes hold.

American journalist Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) stumbles upon this young woman. Thinking that she is merely drunk, he tries to help her find her home. The girl, however, is basically incoherent and slipping into sleep. Reluctantly, he takes her to his apartment so she can sleep it off. The next day, he misses a press conference that Princess Ann was meant to give. However, when his lies about having attended the conference are exposed, he is shocked to find that the young woman in his apartment is the runaway princess.

Realizing that he has the scoop of the century in the palm of his hand, he pretends not to know who she is. For her part, she hides her true identity to him, calling herself Anya Smith and claiming to have run away from school. Now, she is free to explore the Eternal City on her own and see how the other half lives. Joe gets his friend, photographer Irving Radovich (Eddie Albert) to join him as they cover this story of "the princess goes slumming". Various hijinks ensue, with Ann discovering la dolce vita and Joe finding himself falling in love. Ann's courtiers, however, are alarmed at having no princess. Will they manage to get Ann back into their fold? Will Ann and Joe find love, or will their duties separate them?

Roman Holiday is pure fantasy, but it is wise enough to know it. The film is meant as a delightful romp, and a delightful romp it is. We pretty much forgive that this romance is built on mutual deception. If one thinks on it, Joe is pretty reprehensible for taking advantage of Ann's predicament and naivete to further his own career. However, Roman Holiday shows that character evolution into someone who begins to genuinely care for this girl. Her deception is softer, more due to her position. She, however, is also attempting to deceive a man she does not know.  

Director William Wyler and screenwriters Ian McLellan Hunter and John Dighton (from a story by a then-uncredited Dalton Trumbo) take time to build up their separate situations until they finally meet. From there, they build on what has come before to keep their mutual deceptions going. However, Roman Holiday also has a great deal of charm and sweetness to it.

One thing that did surprise me is how much physical comedy there is in Roman Holiday. One great sight gag is when Ann tries to walk into Joe's apartment. As he leads her, she inadvertently misses the staircase, forcing him to lead her around again. Right after, Ann is about to bang on the wrong door, forcing Joe to do almost contortions to stop her from waking his neighbors. The film begins with a nice sight gag of Ann losing her shoe underneath her gown and trying desperately to get it back on. Neither Audrey Hepburn nor Gregory Peck were known as physical comedians. As such, seeing them be so adept at these bits shows not only their own talent, but that of Wyler to keep things both funny and grounded.

Audrey Hepburn made her American film debut in Roman Holiday, having already done a few films in Europe. She is beyond excellent in the role. She as previously mentioned had a rarely tapped ability for physical comedy. Here, she is the perfect blend of elegance and innocence. Breathtakingly beautiful and elegant, her Princess Ann is also able to handle the dramatic moments in the film. Her farewell scene with Peck is a moving moment in Roman Holiday, showing her courage to sacrifice her own happiness for duty. 

As this is a romantic comedy, Hepburn does not have many such moments. She brings a lightness and joy of the young girl discovering life and love as she galivants around Rome. One feels the joy she has when she gets a new hairstyle more to her liking. One also laughs when she fights off her country's secret service attempting to abduct her back to the embassy. Elegant and charming, her gamine figure and lovely face reveal Ann's delights and frustrations. 

Gregory Peck towers physically over everyone. He too is not often associated with comedy or romantic pictures. However, he is quite handsome, with a strong voice that makes Joe's lies if not believable at least plausible. I wonder if their 13-year age gap made me a bit uneasy as it was noticeable. However, for some reason Hepburn tended to be paired with actors as romantic leads who were in some cases old enough to be her father. Peck just happened to be the first.

Eddie Albert received an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actor as Irving Radovich, Joe's shady photographer friend and accomplice. He had great moments of physical comedy, such as whenever Joe had to spill something on him to stop Irving from blabbing. He was pleasant enough as Irving, a man who seemed always a step behind Joe's schemes. 

Roman Holiday is a concoction of wish fulfillment. Earnest, sweet and charming are qualities that can describe both Roman Holiday and Audrey Hepburn. The film is a delightful romp, able to win all but the most ardent cynics.     

DECISION: A-

Conquest (1937): A Review (Review #1975)

CONQUEST (1937)

The saying "behind every great man is a great woman" is usually not applied to the two wives of Napoleon Bonaparte: the Empresses Josephine and Marie Louise. In fact, the phrase, "Not tonight, Josephine" is used as a byline for turning down sex. However, can that phrase be applied to one of his mistresses? Conquest is surprisingly embracing of adultery and out-of-wedlock childbirth, shocking at a time when the Hays Code was being enforced. Lavish if a bit overacted, Conquest is better to look at than to watch.

Countess Marie Waleska (Greta Garbo) is devoted to her much older husband Anastas (Henry Stephenson). She, however, loves three things: her brother Paul (Leif Erikson), Poland and the Emperor Napoleon (Charles Boyer). She sees the Emperor as a champion of the people, one who will restore an independent Polish state. Her ardor is so great that she sneaks into his camp, where Napoleon is enchanted by this beauty. As fate would have it, Anastas has arranged an audience with Napoleon at a ball, where the Emperor and the Countess begin a flirtation.

The Polish aristocrats essentially pimp Marie out for Poland, begging her to use her feminine wiles to seduce Napoleon into reestablishing Poland as an independent state. Soon, they become lovers and then they fall in love. Anastas has his marriage annulled and Napoleon divorces Josephine, which works out for Marie, who is expecting a child. Unfortunately, Napoleon has opted to marry a Hapsburg princess to create a new royal bloodline. Marie does not tell the Emperor of his new child, though she does tell Napoleon's mother Laetitia (Dame May Whitty).

As Napoleon rises, falls, is exiled to Elba and then attempts a comeback, Marie eventually goes to him and reveals their child Alexander to him. Will our lovers be truly together, or will history conspire to keep them apart?

If anything, Conquest is lavish with a capital L. The film received two Oscar nominations, one of them for Best Art Direction. It more than earned that nomination, for Conquest has grand sets that sometimes overwhelm the audience. Of particular note is when at the Emperor's welcoming ball. The palace is opulent and massive, filling the screen with its grandness. 

Even in scenes that do not require such visual splendor, Conquest delivers. An effective moment is during the French retreat from Russia. Napoleon is berated to his face by a soldier who initially does not recognize him. The sets provide a plausible Russian winter, which gives the scene an extra touch of sadness at how Napoleon's arrogance has led to misery for his men.

The second nomination was for Charles Boyer as Best Actor. Here, I will quibble with the nomination. I found his performance acceptable. He does have some good moments, such as when attempting to learn to dance. The sight of the Conqueror of Europe attempting to cut a little rug brings a touch of levity to something as opulent as Conquest. The aforementioned scene of his retreat is also effective. However, for the most part, I found Boyer a bit exaggerated as Napoleon. 

He and Garbo had an unofficial battle of accents (his French vs. her Swedish), and while they are playing foreigners, it does lend an accidental level of humor; sometimes their scenes together seemed a bit overly dramatic. A case in point is when Marie goes to Elba to reunite with Napoleon and introduce him to his hereto unknown son. As Napoleon goes on about his decision to return, they both started becoming almost unrealistic in playing her disillusionment and distress to his blind ambition.

I think today people would look upon Garbo as also slightly exaggerated in her manner. However, she more than makes up for any overacting with her luminous quality. As she sees Napoleon ride off, Garbo's tearful eyes glisten, making her look more beautiful.

The supporting cast was better, particularly the female supporting players. Marie Ouspenskaya and Dame May Whitty are not in Conquest long. However, they both lend Conquest a bit of humor to what could have been a stodgy period film; there is a great scene where Napoleon calls on Marie. Ouspenskaya, as the addled Dowager Countess, does not recognize the Emperor and thinks that he is merely the corporal Napoleon told her that he was. While playing cards, the illogic of the Dowager Countess' beliefs builds to a humorous rage, with her violent anger and threats to call on Louis XVI to deal with this impertinent soldier almost charming.

The same goes for Dame May Whitty as Napoleon's mother. Initially hostile to his son's newest mistress, her imperious manner soon gives way to an almost motherly affection. Whitty also has a great scene with Boyer when Napoleon is on Elba, advising him that looking through his telescope won't bring France any closer. 

The male supporting cast did not fare as well, all of them coming across as stiff and grand.

Conquest is worth watching for the grand sets and the beauty of Greta Garbo. You also have fun turns from Marie Ouspenskaya and Dame May Whitty to enjoy. While I found the leads a bit overly dramatic, I think Conquest met its goal to tell its story of epic love. 

1786-1817

DECISION: C+

Tom & Viv: A Review

TOM & VIV

I know that many people find poetry boring. I know that many people find T.S. Eliot incomprehensible. I now think that if any of those people end up watching Tom & Viv, they may find themselves justified in their opinions. Unbearably slow, unbearably boring, Tom & Viv plays to all the worst tropes of Oscar-bait biopics and maybe throws in a few new tropes just for fun.

American expatriate Thomas Eliot (Willem Dafoe) is an aspiring poet. This restrained young man is in love with outrageous free-spirit Vivienne Haigh-Wood (Miranda Richardson). Our English rose is also interested in this Yank, and to coin a phrase, they got married in a fever as they elope. Vivienne's family is displeased by this, but not strictly because the idea of elopement is tawdry to them. In truth, her brother Maurice (Tim Dutton) and her mother Rose (Rosemary Harris) are concerned for Vivienne's mental health.

As well they should be, for Viv is pretty much bonkers. She, based on the film, would have today been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but at the time was thought to have some physical ailment that has her act irrationally. Viv is very mercurial in her manner with Tom. Sometimes she is his fiercest champion, almost screaming at everyone including him that he is the greatest poet in all human history. Sometimes she is vicious towards him, such as pouring melted chocolate into his office's mailbox when his office won't let her in. Occasionally running to her sole friend Louise (Clare Holman) for comfort, Viv also attacks other friends like Virginia Woolf (Joanna McCallum). These are literal attacks, with Viv pulling a knife on Woolf and others in the street, insisting to them that she is not Mrs. Eliot.

Even after his conversion to Roman Catholicism, Tom finds life with Viv nearly impossible. Eventually, the family, albeit reluctantly, decides it is best to institutionalize Viv in an asylum. There, she lives out the rest of her life as T.S. Eliot's first wife, never divorcing but never seeing each other again.

Right from the get-go, one senses that Tom & Viv thought more highly of itself than the final product turned out to be. Debbie Wiseman's lush, grand score suggests a great tragic romance. Once we get past the elegant music and Martin Fuhrer's pretty cinematography, the audience is in for almost two hours of a snoozefest, a slow, boring and overacted film that tells us nothing about T.S. or Vivienne Eliot.

The fault for this disaster is shared between director Brian Gilbert and cowriter Michael Hastings, who adapted his own play and had Adrian Hodges cowrite the screenplay. Hastings and Hodges fail to translate what I presume worked on the stage (not having seen Tom & Viv live myself). So much seems confused and illogical. T.S. Eliot was American, so why does Willem Dafoe spout some vaguely British accent? Why are we not introduced to their mutual friend, Bertrand Russell (Nikolas Grace)? 

Worse, in the opening scene of Tom, Viv, Bertie and Maurice on a riverbank excursion, we get little idea as to whom these people are. It is a guess to figure out why Maurice, whom I do not remember mentioned that he is Vivienne's brother, is telling Russell that he is a virgin and wonders whether Tom and Viv are virgins themselves. In what is meant to be a horrifying scene near the end of the film, Viv pulls out her trusty knife and attacks Rose. Whatever jolt the audience may have at this moment is immediately undercut when it is realized that the knife was a rubber toy knife.

If Tom & Viv was suggesting that somehow Vivienne was aware that these were all pranks, it didn't work. Moreover, even if it a toy knife, lunging these things at people does not make things better. 

There is so much ACTING with a capital A in Tom & Viv that it soon becomes laughable. Both Miranda Richardson and Rosemary Harris received Oscar nominations in Lead and Supporting Actress respectively for Tom & Viv. Harris' nomination is somewhat defensible. She has a great moment near the end of the film, where she contemplates to Tom the difficulty of being a respected and respectable family forced to commit one of their own to a looney bin. OK, she would never have used the term "looney bin" as Rose is far too posh and British for such terminology. You get my point.

There is, however, no justification whatsoever for Miranda Richardson's nomination. Richardson DEVOURS the scenery with crazed, unhinged abandon. Her eyerolling and manic manner in Viv's manic phases made her look as if she were literally possessed by the ghost of Betty Boop. I think Betty Boop would have been more nuanced and restrained than Miranda Richardson was. As she attacked Woolf and her companion, one was not sure if Richardson was playing things straight or playing them for laughs. It was meant, I presume, to be shocking and dramatic. It ended up looking like spoof, as if Vivienne herself was playing a joke that only she was aware of. 

Frankly, I was embarrassed for Miranda Richardson while watching Tom & Viv. There have been bad Best Actress Oscar winners before, let alone bad Best Actress nominations. I think though that Miranda Richardson's failed Oscar bid should rank among the Ten Worst Best Actress Oscar Nominations of All Time.

Willem Dafoe did not get an acting nomination for Tom & Viv. All the better, for he was stilted, boring and lifeless in the role. To be fair, the screenplay did not help him. We do not know, for example, what motivated him to embrace Catholicism. We also do not know why Vivienne attempted to storm into Tom's baptism, how she knew about it, or why there was a priest at the locked door, ready to keep her out of the ceremony. Apart from Harris, everyone's efforts to ACT in Tom & Viv had the opposite result. In that opening scene, I genuinely wondered whether Dafoe, Richardson, Grace or Dutton even knew HOW to act.

Tom & Viv reveals nothing about the tortured romance of the literary giant and the woman who loved and exasperated him. Boring and slow, whether with a bang or a whimper, Tom & Viv is a film to avoid.

T.S. Eliot
1888-1965

Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot:
1888-1947

DECISION: F

Of Human Bondage (1964): A Review

 

OF HUMAN BONDAGE (1964)

Thirty years after the first adaptation of Somerset Maugham's tale of twisted love hit the screens, we have our third and so far, final version to Of Human Bondage. With some surprisingly good performances, Of Human Bondage is a strong way to end the various adaptations.

As a child, Philip Carey was always bullied and self-conscious about his club foot. When he grew older, Philip (Laurence Harvey) thought of becoming a painter until he found that he had skill but no talent for it. Philip was prodded into going into medicine, where he did better albeit not as the most enthusiastic of medical students. Trained and bullied by stern Dr. Jacobs (Robert Morley), Philip does reasonably well. 

That is until he meets Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Kim Novak). She had caught the eye of many a male admirer, including some of Philip's fellow students. Philip, however, has become slowly besotted with our working-class wench, a flirt who is not above sleeping with men whom she knows are engaged. Philip soon begins a relationship with Mildred, but she does not see it as exclusive and eventually goes after a wealthier admirer.

Philip forges a new romance with writer Nora Nesbitt (Siobhan McKenna), but it is not long before Mildred comes back, knocked up and tossed out by her husband. Philip, like a moth to a flame, takes her in and moves away from Nora. Mildred is still up to her old tricks, fooling around with his best friend, stealing Philip's money, treating him like dirt and pretty much forgetting her child. Philip, now a full-fledged doctor, has finally forced himself away from this luscious monster. They do meet once more, under tragic circumstances brought about by Mildred's wanton and wasted life.

It is interesting that Of Human Bondage had three adaptations in 1934, 1946 and 1964 but has never been brought back since. I wonder why that is. I cannot say that the 1964 adaptation is the definitive version of the Maugham novel. I do think that Of Human Bondage is a strong film, with some good performances that work well.

I do not know if Kim Novak has been given enough credit for being a capable dramatic actress. In Of Human Bondage, she is a very good Mildred. She kept a convincing Cockney accent and initially came across as fun, slightly flirtatious and appealing. Novak made her into less a shrew and more a thoughtless albeit selfish creature. I do think that perhaps she was at times a bit too soft-spoken. On the whole, though, I think Novak did quite well in the role. 

Laurence Harvey is also good as Philip. He makes Philip into someone you can believe became so possessed by this tramp that he would forsake so much for her. Again and again, no matter what abuse Mildred heaped on him, Philip would go back to her. Harvey manages that elegance that I think Philip would have, a more upper-class manner. For good or ill, he and Novak had at times somewhat soft voices. I think that did help when either of them finally started raging.

A big surprise is Robert Morley as Dr. Jacobs. While his part was small, he dominated his scenes, showing a gruff manner that is a surprise. Morley had a jollier public persona and in Of Human Bondage, he did have a blustery and slightly comical manner. However, Morley also showed that behind that bluster was someone who could be harsh, even downright cruel, to his students. Belittling them in order to get them to work harder, Of Human Bondage picked up more in Morley's brief moments. 

The film is also helped by Ron Goodwin's lush score, which gives the film that sense of doomed romance.

I think that despite the more open manner that the times had, Of Human Bondage still pulled some of its punches. The film closes with Philip seeing the effects of Mildred's moral and physical decay, but it is filmed in such a way that most of it is in shadow. Granted, even in shadow the effects are still ghastly, so that is not too bad. However, I think that perhaps we could have seen Mildred's thoroughly wasted state rather than focus on keeping Kim Novak still a bit appealing.

I also think that despite its hour-and-forty-minute runtime Of Human Bondage skimped out on Philip's other romances with Nora and Sally (Nanette Newman). I won't say that they were rushed through, but perhaps underdeveloped.

Still, this Of Human Bondage adaptation works well and I think makes for good viewing. 

DECISION: B+

We Live in Time: A Review

 

WE LIVE IN TIME

You have two of my favorite actors along with the director of one of my favorite movies, so one would think I would adore We Live in Time. I did like it but could not shake the idea that it was a touch manipulative in its presentation. 

Told in a nonlinear manner, We Live in Time tells the love story of Tobias Durant (Andrew Garfield) and Almut Bruhl (Florence Pugh). Putting it in a more linear manner, Almut and Tobias meet cute when she runs him down as he is crossing a highway while he is in his bathrobe. He is in his bathrobe because he impulsively went to a store to buy a pen to sign his divorce papers and was distracted, coming across the highway too fast for Almut to stop. 

Almut feels horrendous about the accident. As a chef in an up-and-coming restaurant, she offers him and his wife a dinner on the house as compensation. Tobias sheepishly admits on arrival that he is now divorced, and they begin a romantic relationship of their own. Tobias' first marriage failed, in part, because of his desire for a family. Almut herself is not thrilled with the idea of motherhood, but after some stumbles in their relationship and tumbles in bed, they continue their romance until she does end up pregnant. She ends up giving birth in a convenience store on New Year's Eve after they get stuck in traffic.

Things seem to be going well with them and their daughter Ella (Grace Delaney) until Almut is diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She undergoes treatment and it looks like it went well. Unfortunately, the cancer returns. Almut is determined to keep going, though it means pushing herself secretly to compete in the Bocuse d'Or, a major and prestigious culinary competition. She hides this from Tobias because she knows that he will want her to focus on her treatment and Ella. Almut, however, wants to leave a legacy for Ella in case Almut does die. Will Almut be able to push on to victory both at the Bocuse d'Or and her cancer treatment?

We Live in Time certainly moved the audience that I attended the film with. I heard a lot of soft sobs as the story progressed. I am sure that those sobs were not over the sight of the physical beauty of both Pugh and Garfield, the former doing more nudity than the latter. Nick Payne's screenplay is somewhat relatable in its story of young love potentially cut down. The scene where Tobias confronts Almut about forgetting to pick up Ella, a result of her intense focus on rehearsals mixed with physical pain of her cancer, is effective. 

I do, however, wonder if We Live in Time would have worked better or at all if it had kept a linear structure. I think, ultimately, that it probably would not, though after a while the various pieces did not fit as well as they could have. When Almut is about to give birth, a sequence that brought about appropriate laughter, Tobias refers to her as his "partner". If I understand things correctly, they did eventually marry. However, the flashforward/flashback nature of We Live in Time muddled that plot point. 

I also go back to the use of "somewhat relatable" in that someone working in this very niche industry, complete with a major competition that I figure almost no one outside culinary circles has ever heard of, does keep Almut and Tobias a bit at a distance. I understand that a minor executive at a food company and a chef are not completely foreign occupations. I do, however, think that making the Bocuse d'Or a big part of things does come across as slightly elitist. I wonder if Payne might have made the characters less upper-class. I do not think we need to go to kitchen-sink drama levels, but I did not connect with Tobias and Almut (whom I thought was named Alma) as much as I could have.  

Payne's script also has other parts that perhaps we could have done without. When Tobias and Almut were attempting to explain Almut's cancer, he put in a bit where a clown was attempting to entertain Ella as her parents were trying to tell her about Almut's health. Eventually they snap at the clown, but while many laughed, I thought it was unnecessary.

Director John Crowley got good performances out of his cast. I thought both Garfield and Pugh did well as Tobias and Almut. I do think that Garfield's Tobias is the ultimate beta male, forever crying, crying, crying. Frankly, he struck me as a bit of a wimp. While Garfield did well in the role, playing it as I figure it was written, I still could not shake the idea that Tobias would have in reality have collapsed long ago. 

Much better was Pugh insofar as she had a character who was more complex. Almut could be standoffish, but she could also be vulnerable and driven, depending on the time we found her in. 

As I look back on We Live in Time, I found that I was not as impressed with it as others, critics and non, were. However, part of my job is to see how audiences reacted to it, which I use as part of my overall evaluation. I have always believed in judging a film, in part, on what it is attempting to accomplish. As such, We Live in Time works better than I thought it did. While I was less than impressed by the whole thing, particularly the nonlinear narrative, it was not a bad movie. If you want a good cry, We Live in Time certainly will do that for most, though you probably won't cry as much as Andrew Garfield did.

DECISION: B-

Mogambo: A Review (Review #1850)

MOGAMBO

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Grace Kelly.

There was a Frank Sinatra television movie or miniseries that I remember. In it, there was a scene where Sinatra, in a career downturn, looks to his second wife Ava Gardner for help. She had been cast in Mogambo, the remake of the 1932 film Red Dust. He asks her to help him play her costar. "Who is playing the Clark Gable part?", he asks. A visibly irritated Gardner snaps back at him, "CLARK GABLE!". Mogambo tells our tale of lust among the white savages in darkest Africa with surprising restraint, but with lush African footage on the whole the film flows well. 

Big game white hunter Victor Marswell (Clark Gable) has a successful safari and animal capture business with his business partner John Brown-Pryce or "Brownie" (Philip Stainton). Into this world comes Eloise "Honey Bear" Kelly (Ava Gardner), a chorus girl who was supposed to join a safari with her maharajah lover. "Bunny" however, cancelled at the last minute, and Kelly is enraged at being trapped in this dark continent for a week.

That week does not go to waste, however, as Honey Bear bonds with animals of all kinds, including eventually Vic. She is expected to leave on the next boat, which also brings anthropologist Donald Nordley (Donald Sinden) and his patrician wife, Lisa (Grace Kelly). Donald takes sick in Africa, temporarily holding his planned safari back. It isn't long before sparks begin to fly between Lisa and Vic. Eloise's sudden reappearance due to a boating mishap now add fuel to the fire, the passions igniting all over the place. Will Lisa succumb to the manly arms of Victor? Will Eloise hold her man or see him fall to more dangerous prey? As the expedition to find gorillas begins, the passions collide to their almost-murderous conclusion. 

Both Ava Gardner and Grace Kelly received Oscar nominations for Mogambo as Lead and Supporting Actress respectively. On the whole, I think both acquitted themselves well, if at times their acting was a bit more on the stiff and dramatic side also respectively. Gardner was initially stiff, hesitant and breathy when first meeting Vic. As the film went on, however, I started liking this brassy broad who had a heart. Gardner has a wonderful moment of physical comedy with a baby elephant and rhino. 

There is also a well-filmed sequence by director John Ford when they arrive at a missionary station. In essentially silent film acting, Eloise Kelly, woman of the world, places a scarf over her head and makes the sign of the cross at the makeshift Catholic church. She later, again silently, goes to make confession with the Catholic priest. This actually reveals more about Honey Bear than much of John Lee Mahin's adaptation of Wilson Collins' play.

Kelly for her part did well as the very patrician and elegant Lisa, caught between the love for her husband and the desires of the flesh with Victor. I did wonder whether it was right to make her character British when being American would have been just as acceptable. Kelly, for example, used the British pronunciation of "schedule" versus the American "ske-dule". However, sometimes she seems to speak like an American, albeit a posher one. There was also a scene where she faces a rampaging gorilla that leaned into a more theatrical and exaggerated manner.

As a side note, while Kelly is beautiful, I think Lisa should have been eaten by panthers when she decided to walk alone in the jungle. Also, if it is a contest between them, my choice is Honey Bear.

Gable was all rugged and business as the white hunter. It is not often that we see an actor recreate a role for a remake of an earlier success. Mogambo gives us a rare chance to see the same actor play the same role in two different films. The comparisons between Red Dust and Mogambo are for another day. However, this version shows that Gable, older but no less commanding, had lost none of his power and appeal. His Vic is sensible and professional on all matters save one: women. There are great moments of subtlety that reveal Vic's nature. When Lisa faces that rampaging gorilla, Vic almost casually pushes her away. His actions, while correct in saving her life, also show that he really does not think much of her. He is better with the earthly, lusty Honey Bear, whom he has a love-hate relationship.

The film has some wonderful location footage, though the rear-screen projections are amusingly bad. It also has a natural music score built around indigenous African music, giving us a greater feel for the environment Mogambo is in.

I think the ending is a bit rushed and not as impactful as it could have been. On the whole, however, Mogambo is an entertaining if perhaps a tad longer than it should be. 

DECISION: B-

The Only Game in Town: A Review

 

THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN

Las Vegas, Nevada can be a center of vice, where love is sometimes treated as a gamble. The Only Game in Town, based on a play, has our couple roll the dice to see if they come up winners amidst the glitz and glamour of Sin City. 

Fading Las Vegas showgirl Fran Walker (Elizabeth Taylor) wanders through her life and into a pizza parlor where she spots piano player Joe Grady (Warren Beatty). They go back to her place, where after a tryst they learn about each other.

Joe is close to having $5,000 saved up to leave Las Vegas and start a new life in New York. Fran waits for her married lover, Thomas J. Lockwood, to finally leave his wife and marry her. Despite themselves, they begin what both insist is a no-strings-attached relationship, friends with benefits before the term existed.

Joe manages to hit it big and wins $6,000 on his $2,000 savings. However, their celebration is short-lived as he succumbs to his gambling addiction and loses it all. With nowhere to go, he accepts Fran's offer to stay with him. Their relationship grows despite both wanting to keep things casual. Things become complicated when Tom (Charles Braswell) unexpectedly shows up. He now is finally free, presenting his mistress his divorce papers and urges her to marry him and go to Europe. Will Fran pick up and leave Joe? Will Joe keep repeating his pattern of coming up a winner only to not know when to quit? 

It is a major credit to director George Stevens in his final film that one rarely if ever notices that The Only Game in Town is essentially a two-person filmed play. Fran and Joe do almost all their interactions with just each other, even when we see them out such as a trip to Lake Tahoe or a supermarket. Most of the action takes place in Fran's apartment, with some in the pizza parlor where Joe works. The Only Game in Town keeps its focus on the two characters to where while you may be conscious of the staging, it never feels dry or dull.

Rather, the audience is focused on the situations these two people are in. Their sense of loneliness, of inertia as Fran puts it, their ability to connect when they do not plan to all works well in the film. That they spend so much time together, arguing one moment, laughing the next, gives those few times when they are outside a bit more poignancy. A very moving scene is where Joe, happy to have more than enough to leave, squires Fran about town. He hits a craps table and soon becomes focused on that. Fran is initially happy, but slowly sees that he has an addiction. She moves further and further away until she leaves, he oblivious to her absence.

It is a well-crafted moment, carried by Taylor and Beatty's looks and Maurice Jarre's excellent score that blends upbeat and downbeat jazz. The Only Game in Town gives viewers strong acting performances from both Taylor and Beatty. Taylor does quite well as Fran, this lonely showgirl pining for something more.

I can see how perhaps her scenes with Braswell when Tom makes an unexpected visit might be a bit overdramatic. To be fair, her character is put in a very difficult situation, so I cut her some slack for being a bit overwrought. However, Taylor handles silences well and is capable of holding her own whenever Beatty's Joe makes quips. In fact, it is through Frank D. Gilroy's adaptation of his play that we see the counter between Fran's more direct manner and Joe's need to make his idea of clever comebacks and jokes.

"Make yourself comfortable," Fran tells Joe before they go to bed. "I always do," is his response. As they negotiate terms for him staying with her, Fran remarks about how he will be good for when Tom does not come. "So, you're with me for immoral support," he wisecracks. Beatty is not naturally funny, but in The Only Game in Town it works for Joe's poor efforts at humor, which mask a great fear of falling in love.

The Only Game in Town offers the actors a chance to have intelligent things to say. Realizing that Joe has become her lover and perhaps her friend, Tom acknowledges that he has no right to complain. "A man who doesn't call for six months deserves an unexpected surprise," he tells Fran. His monologue about their Sunday in Monterey, while Fran is calling Joe in a failed effort to say goodbye, works quite well among Taylor, Braswell and Beatty. 

As previously mentioned, Maurice Jarre's score is wonderful, enhancing the drama and romance underneath both Fran and Tony's hard shells.

I think the film may be longer than needed, perhaps in an effort to make it less stagey. Ironically, it had the opposite effect to where you felt it was padding when a simpler take would have been better. The film does not move too far away from what one could see as a stage adaptation, but it was of a major distraction or hindrance.

The Only Game in Town touches on themes of reluctant love, these two ships passing in the night which end up finding themselves. Again, perhaps longer than it should be, The Only Game in Town is an undiscovered and underappreciated film. 

DECISION: B-

Red Dust: A Review

RED DUST

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Jean Harlow.

Passion among the white savages abounds in Red Dust, a sultry story of steamy romance in the jungle. With strong performances and a fast run time, Red Dust tells us a lot without showing us all.

Rubber plantation head Dennis Carson (Clark Gable) is forever barking at his workers and desperate to have a good product. He has little time for anything else, which is why the sudden appearance of brash Vantine (Jean Harlow) startles and irritates him. Vantine is a good-time girl who is trying to hide out from the Saigon cops for some unspecified but shady reason. Despite his initial hostility, they do manage to hit it off in more ways than one soon enough.

Things are looking all right until engineer Gary Willis (Gene Raymond) shows up with his patrician wife, Barbara (Mary Astor) show up. Gary's constitution is not up to the jungle surroundings and has to be nursed to health. Barbara and Dennis soon start being drawn to each other, much to Vantine's displeasure and Gary's obliviousness. As the rainy season begins, the passions collide in fiery ways. Dennis now has to decide whether it will be the tart or the lady, but will both reciprocate or find that even in the sweltering Asian heat, there is room for only one mistress?

Red Dust is full of fiery passion from Gable and Harlow, these two figures obviously drawn to each other but generally unwilling to admit it, at least outside the bedroom. Harlow is wonderful as this tough broad, mouthy, belligerent and unafraid to speak her mind. In the beginning, she seemed a bit hesitant and mannered in her performance, but she soon got into the spirit of things.

"This place is full of lizards and cockroaches as it is," she tells Dennis when attempting to find another room after she unexpectedly shows up at the rubber plantation home. Gable's Dennis merely looks her over and replies, "One more won't hurt". I don't think Vantine got what he said. However, their scenes are always wonderful to watch. Shortly after this scene, Vantine can wax rhapsodic about how Gorgonzola cheese is made, which is in turns funny and almost daring. 

That is the quality that Harlow brings to Red Dust, a mix of tawdry and gleeful sensuality with a hint of naivete. Whether she is aware of how dumb she sounds attempting to explain slapping methods to get cows to make milk or toying with Dennis, Harlow excels in Vantine's brazen manner. The scene where she is openly bathing is daring for even pre-Code Hollywood. 

Dennis, horrified that Vantine might be seen by Barbara, demands that she draw the curtains specially placed for Barbara. Vantine reminds Dennis that everyone has gone far off so there is no risk of her being observed nude. He insists on drawing the curtains, which only makes her more mocking in manner. "What's the matter? Afraid I'll shock the Duchess?" is Vantine's quip to Dennis' faux moralism. 

She is obviously contemptuous of Barbara and especially her liaison with Dennis for a variety of reasons. While she is jealous, she is also upset that Gary is being deceived. Vantine may be a tramp, but she has a heart and knows right from wrong. At the end, Vantine stands by her man, proving that she was right for Dennis. We end up liking Vantine, and that is a credit to Jean Harlow's performance.

Gable is surprising beyond how he does not have his usual mustache in Red Dust. He is rugged and daring, commanding the screen whenever he is there. It is easy to see why both Vantine and Barbara fell for him. To be fair, given how milquetoast Gary was, it was no competition. Nevertheless, Gable was abrasive when it was necessary, romantic when needed and even playful. He and Harlow worked so well together, like seeing two of a kind square off.

I think that Astor was more mannered as Barbara, coming across as a bit stilted in her performance. However, as she was meant to be something of a grande dame, I think director Victor Fleming got the correct performance out of her. 

Fleming also managed to move things quickly, with Red Dust running at a brisk 83 minutes. He gets great performances out of his cast, able to shift from Vantine's brazen manner to a more contemplative Dennis when Gary tells him about how much he loves Barbara. While Red Dust could not show everything (the camera movement when Vantine and Dennis first kiss with her on his lap away from them to the observing parrot being suggestion enough), it was quite open about the sexual goings-on.

I think some things don't work so well, mostly due to the changing times and technology. Some of the rear screen projections look awful. The comic relief from servant Hoy (William Fung) might not be palatable to some viewers today. The pronunciation of Saigon as "Say-Gone" versus the more familiar "Sigh-Gone" was always odd.  

Red Dust is a showcase for Jean Harlow, revealing what made her both beautiful and a popular character. Daring and funny at times, Red Dust is like Vantine: bold, brash, sometimes outrageous but never dull.  

DECISION: B-

Revenge (1990): A Review (Review #1818)

REVENGE

When I think of Revenge, the term "generic" fits. Everything in Revenge is generic, starting from the title down to the plot and performances. Revenge, I figure, tries for something. One, by the end though, is not sure exactly what.

Michael "J" Cochran (Kevin Costner) has just retired from the U.S. Navy. With nothing but time and some disposable income on his hands, he opts to visit an old friend down Mexico way. That would be Tiburon "Tibby" Mendez (Anthony Quinn), a powerful kingmaker in Mexican politics. J once saved Tibby's life and Tibby has been forever grateful.

He might not be so grateful if he figured out that his much younger, beautiful trophy wife Mireya (Madeleine Stowe) needed some love, attention and affection. It does not help that despite her requests, Tibby will not impregnate her. It is not long before the hunky American and the luscious Latina begin a very torrid affair.

Their affair takes a while to be discovered, but discovered it is. Despite Tiburon having a slew of mistresses, he is quietly enraged at Mireya's own unfaithfulness. Tibby appears duped, but he's anything but. Tibby's revenge is brutal: burning down J's Mexican love nest, brutally beating J and leaving him for dead, slashing Mireya's face and dumping her in a whorehouse. Here, he gives instructions that she be used 50 times a day, using colorful language to make himself understood.

J, however, is not dead. He survives, is nursed back to health, finds a kind but dying American horse vendor and begins his own march to find Mireya. Along the way, others join J for their own motives against Tibby, but Tibby's revenge against Mireya has taken and unexpected and deadly turn. Will J and Mireya reunite before it is too late?

Revenge is surprisingly long at slightly over two hours. I think this is due to Jim Harrison, who wrote the novella on which Revenge is based on and cowrote the screenplay with Jeffrey Alan Fiskin. It is nearly a whole hour before J and Mireya consummate their desires, so the audience is left with a lot of buildup to the inevitable.

Same goes for once J is fully revealed in more ways than one. I do not know if Harrison thought having the dying horse vendor would make us sad or sympathetic to both that character or J himself. It did end up coming across as more a cliché than a real element of sadness. It is not as if he served much of a purpose apart from getting J his vehicle. 

As I think on it, a lot of Revenge does not have things that fit together. Late in the film, Sally Kirkland comes on as a rock band road manager. She flirts with a nonresponsive J, is there when other men come to join him to get their own revenge on Tibby, and then honestly I forgot what happened to her. From what I understood, the timeframe between when J and Mireya meet to when they have sex is five days. 

I think one of Revenge's great issues is with director Tony Scott, who seemed more interested in the look of the film than the film itself. We get lots and I mean lots of images of flowing curtains when Mireya and J are together. We even get them when they are apart, such as when Mireya is trapped in the whorehouse. Revenge focuses on looking very pretty but not on much else.

Revenge is so sluggish in its pacing as to be glacial. That goes for almost all the acting. It becomes an informal contest to see which of our leads can appear so disinterested and disengaged from things. Costner, I think, is the winner, his J coming across as less ardent lover and more as bored throughout. Stowe at least has something of a rationale for coming across as drugged: Mireya was drugged at a certain point in the film. That, however, does not excuse how bored and removed she is prior to her dramatic turn. She can't be bothered to show that Mireya loves Tibby, likes Tibby, tolerates Tibby, hates Tibby. Stowe's performance shows she does not even think about Tibby. She might not even be aware of Tibby.

Anthony Quinn is more engaged, though that is not always a good thing. He is close to hamming things up, but only skims the edges of camp. It might have been more fun if he had gone over-the-top, especially when seeing his goons go after J and Mireya in their love shack. I will say Quinn is fun to watch. I can't say whether he is fun to watch because he is good or because he is so bad it's good. The man's name is literally "Shark" (which is what Tiburon translates to). 

Revenge is too long, too dull and too focused on how it looks to be worth watching. If there is any Revenge to be had,  it is on the unsuspecting audience who endures all two hours of it.

DECISION: D-

The Abdication: A Review (Review #1805)

 

THE ABDICATION

The story of Queen Christina did not end with Greta Garbo. After the Swedish Sphinx went into exile after giving up the crown, the real former monarch went to Rome to be received as a loyal daughter of the Church. The Abdication is not a sequel to Queen Christina. It is, however, a dull film that treats its characters as another element of its lush production.

Queen Christina of Sweden (Liv Ullmann) has renounced the throne and finds freedom and liberation from its heavy responsibilities. Now, she arrives at the Vatican sooner than expected. She has converted to Catholicism and wishes to receive the sacrament of Communion from His Holiness the Pope and no one else. That she is a former Queen also entitles her to this privilege. The College of Cardinals, however, are alarmed at the various tales of debauchery and decadence that come with Christina. To investigate the allegations and verify the truth of Christina's conversion, Cardinal Azzolino (Peter Finch) is sent to question her.

Christina is disgusted at the idea of being questioned at all. Nevertheless, she submits to Azzolino's inquisition. Sometimes haughty, sometimes sincere, Christina reflects on her past and present. Azzolino is soon drawn to the beautiful and contradictory ex-monarch. Could they be falling in love? The matters of the heart and the matters of faith collide, but will both make more sacrifices for the other? Will they remain true to their individual vows?

The Abdication should work. Its director, Anthony Harvey, is an old hand at royalty in crisis, having successfully filmed The Lion in Winter six years earlier. The screenplay is by Ruth Woolf, who wrote the play on which The Abdication is based on. It has two fine actors in Ullmann and Finch. It has a beautiful Nino Rota score and lush production design and cinematography. Therefore, why is it such a slog to sit through and ultimately so boring?

I think it comes down to how the material is treated. All the elements that should have made The Abdication a good film were poorly handled. Harvey directed all his cast to be so serious and grand versus real. Christina and Azzolino came across as dull and lifeless. There were a few moments when Ullmann and Finch individually were strong. However, when they were together, each looked as if they were in an informal battle to see who could be grander in their performance. 

There was a brief moment when we could have even had some fun with things. When she arrived in Rome, Azzolini confronts Christina with the accusations of her allegedly libertine journey to the Holy See. He presents her with a book: The Pleasure and Depravities of Christina, Queen of Sweden. This appearance of the Fifty Shades of Grey of its time maybe wouldn't be played for laughs, but it would be fascinating to learn what those "pleasures and depravities" were, especially given how almost stern and serious Christina appears to be in The Abdication. 

The Abdication seemed to care more about the visuals than about the people. All that lush cinematography, from the opening scene of Christina renouncing the throne to her flashbacks in the royal gardens end up drowning the film in some almost mystical vision. The music, equally grand and to be fair quite beautiful, also makes things almost too unreal. The film should be about the inner conflict, spiritual and carnal, between Christina and Azzolini. It ends up being about how majestic and opulent things can look.  

There is such a seriousness running through The Abdication that no one appears human. Moreover, there were some odd choices. The initial inquiry from Azzolini to Christina is abruptly cut by two cardinals discussing how Azzolini may use this inquiry to his advantage only to return to the Azzolini/Christina interview. It is a strange cut that only serves to force the foreshadowing of their alleged romance. 

There are to be fair, some good lines in the film. When Azzolini remarks that her successor and cousin Charles X Gustav is reported to have no character, she quips, "It seems to be an advantage for a King, to have no character". Later, when questioned over her struggle to sleep and habit of moving from bed to bed in her temporary Papal palace, she remarks, "Sleep is the refuge of idiots". Azzolini replies, "We can assure you of beds, but not of sleep". The sequence where a Vatican friar, Dominic (Louis Fiander) keeps showing bedchambers to Christina's disapproving dwarf (Michael Dunn) is amusing.

In retrospect, my note of "Poor Dominic: unable to satisfy a dwarf" reads funnier than intended. It is also about the only amusing part in a film that takes itself far too seriously.  

This, I imagine, plays better on a stage than on a film. That may be the big issue with The Abdication: that the translation from stage to screen failed. More than once did I write how GRAND everything was in the film. Too lost in its own sense of grandness, The Abdication is a poor follow-up to Her Majesty's story. 

1626-1689

DECISION: D+