arbarnes Reviews

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)

A Genteel Comedy

[6/10 · 19 May 2016]

I remember being pleasantly enchanted by this rather winsome film version of Shakespeare's romantic comedy/fantasy when it first appeared, and it certainly looked beautiful on the big screen with its gorgeous, warm cinematography, composition and production design. It created a pleasant, warm feeling in the audience, delivering a comforting experience, and drawing a few chuckles here and there; smiles rather than belly laughs. For here the comedy is fairly genteel, and often also quite melancholic –there is always another dimension to each moment of laughter, a story beyond, especially with the band of craftsmen who put their heart into performing, despite their lack of any real talent. Their preparations for and ultimate performance of "Pyramus and Thisbe" is where much of the comedy of the play lies, but in this film the traditional comic moments are toned down a great deal. I admire the restrained performances of both individuals and the amateur group as an ensemble, because it is so easy to go over the top with their part in the story. Here we smile affectionately rather than laugh mockingly, and our smiles are warm and sympathetic, as they sometimes are when someone in the family performs at a wedding or similar despite a lack of talent. Kevin Kline as Bottom naturally takes much of the limelight, and gives his character a whole deeper life than is normally seen, as does the very underrated Roger Rees as Peter Quince –he gives an immensely dignified and rather beautiful performance here, full of subtle details that I only really appreciated upon viewing the film again.

I found many of the magical scenes with the fairies to be quite mesmerizing, and the careful use of special effects was just right in creating moments of fantasy and wonder without overwhelming the picture. Much of the beauty of the play lies in the lines spoken by Oberon and Titania and Puck, and Rupert Everett, Michelle Pfeiffer and Stanley Tucci give great respect to the language and poetry of Shakespeare, without falling to the traps of prettifying it or making it bombastic –it's poetry, yet living dramatic interaction too. By and large, I think most of the cast do quite well with the text, making it alive and personal, and I certainly am not one of those who despair at American voices uttering Shakespeare; quite the contrary. Here, there is a nice mix of American and British voices, and it is to the film's credit.

If I were pushed to criticize the film it would be for its lack of "edge" or danger –passion, if you like. This applies both to the two pairs of young lovers, and the fairy characters and their escapades. Everything is a little too mellow and tame, so that we are lulled more than provoked. A little more spice or audacity would have perked things up considerably, and the story certainly gives room for and even suggests this.

But the director has his own vision of the play and is at least consequent in his presentation of that, and it's perfectly acceptable. The interesting thing is that A Midsummer Night's Dream may be tackled in many different ways, and the "world" that is presented here in all its lush, green, dream-like beauty is no less valid than other more provocative versions of Shakespeare's magical comedy.

Love's Labour's Lost (2000)

Dancing With Shakespeare

[6/10 · 22 April 2016]

"Dancing With Shakespeare" is the direct translation of the title this film was given in Norway, and it is quite an apt description not only of the film's content, but the fundamental, gnawing weakness of the film: a play that above all plays with language seems ill at ease in a jacket marked "dancing". When you dance with Shakespeare you don't want to get out of step, and Love's Labour's Lost doesn't QUITE come together. And it's very sad because it's a film you so much WANT to work, because its heart is in the right place, and its intentions are good and creative and exciting and bold. Yes, it's enjoyable and frothy, silly and sincere in equal measures, beautifully shot with a camera that plays a part in the best Hollywood-golden-age manner, and sometimes it's very funny and works beautifully. But frequently the novelty of turning one of Shakespeare's most language-reliant comedies into a nostalgic romantic musical simply works against itself, and the result is then flat rather than uplifting. And this is not because people don't TRY –everyone involved in the film really gives it a good go, and clearly wants to try to make it come off. It very nearly does, but not quite –there is an unevenness about it that keeps us from getting fully engrossed in what we see, and this is the sort of film that needs that to work.

I was lucky enough to see this film originally at a special screening introduced by Kenneth Branagh and Alicia Silverstone, which boosted the preview audience into a higher gear of excitement and expectation than would be usual, so the experience was a little like the prospect of drinking lots of champagne –delightful, but somehow never as good as the idea of it!

Upon re-watching the film recently, I think the film in fact rather MORE resembles one of those very fancy, colourful cocktails you order when on holiday, with tiny umbrellas and exotic fruit and flowers sticking out and looking enormously tempting on the menu and when brought to you, but always somewhat impractical to drink and with ingredients that don't quite mix together satisfyingly enough. With Love's Labour's Lost the conceit of transforming Shakespeare's rich ideas into classic Hollywood musical numbers to bring across certain moods and emotional moments is a fun recipe, but it seems to me to clash too often with the actual text the film is based on. Now, admittedly much of Shakespeare's play is very obscure and difficult to understand compared to other plays he wrote, and severe editing was going to be inevitable; but putting in musical number after musical number as a replacement seems more a way of padding the film to arrive at a decent length rather than really moving the story along. In fact, many of the musical numbers –skillfully and cheekily staged though some of them are– just get in the way of things, and frequently I found myself wishing that Branagh had been even more faithful to Shakespeare and instead kept in more of the actual play itself. Thus I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of deleted scenes on the DVD of the film that sadly never made it to the final cut. I think these should have been kept in because they help make more sense of the story.

The diversity of performers that comprise the cast is quite interesting and there are some magnificent individual performances, though again the range of different styles doesn't always gel on screen. To a certain extent this was also true of Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. Everyone is doing their own little film, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Timothy Spall's Don Armado is perhaps one of the most outrageous performances ever seen on screen, but it is totally in keeping with the character as written. And both he and Nathan Lane (as Costard the clown) bring an essential element of sadness to their otherwise comic roles that is very moving. But the double quartet of lovers that form the central romantic story of the film is a very mixed bag indeed. Branagh understandably gives the plum role of Berowne to himself and sells his Shakespeare with that admirable deftness that is uniquely his, but he is really too old for the part and this works against him here. I also feel at times he should have directed himself more astutely or had better assistance at doing so, for it is largely the scenes in which he does not appear that work best –simply because at such times he, as director, is able to concentrate fully on the other performances. The film also seems unable to break itself totally free from its staginess to become the truly filmic musical it aspires to be.

So, I am quite ambivalent about this film. I DO like and enjoy it, and applaud Branagh for tackling a lesser-known Shakespeare comedy, and with such gusto, but I SO wish I were able to like it more and be fully satisfied by it –and by the greater film that is in its heart..

Richard III (1995)

More than History

[8/10 · 6 April 2016]

Placing one of Shakespeare's history plays in another specific historical period is always a bit of a risky thing. Such a ploy more frequently works better on stage than on screen –our suspension of belief being somewhat more liberal in a theatre than in front of a screen. Often the transfer in time is to a "generic" future historical setting, with a bit of this period and a bit of that. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. The reason I think placing this version of Richard III in the 1930s works so well is the faithfulness to that conceit, which is carried through impeccably in every detail, though never in a forced or laboured way. It is a clever, often witty, adaptation of Shakespeare's masterly examination of one man's relentless pursuit of power –and has both elegance and a style of its own aside from the play it is based on, and a healthy respect of Shakespeare's glorious language and characters.

Perhaps the language is what may deter some people from fully enjoying this, though I would argue that it merely demands paying a little more attention to what is being said than when watching a "normal" film. Contrary to what many may think, Shakespeare's language is not difficult or obscure –quite the opposite– but you do need to listen to it! Here, of course, you are helped by having some of the finest actors around, with not only great command of that language, but the ability to present clearly defined yet complex characters, so that we are able to keep track of who is who in the web of family connections and intrigue. The film is much shorter than the play (Shakespeare's longest), and does away with some characters and combines others into one figure. This polishes the narrative somewhat, but does not take anything vital away from the unfolding tale. I do, however, recommend going back to the original play if you enjoy this film, because it will give an even broader appreciation of the story. And what a story!

Centre-stage (or centre-screen, in this case) is Ian McKellen as Richard. It is surely his finest screen performance, and is certainly the one that really made me appreciate his work when I first saw the film upon its original release. Like Olivier before him, his Richard is a performance perfected through countless performances on stage in the role, and with devilish charm he milks each ounce of scheming, determination and wickedness from his scenes. Yet, unlike Olivier, he also shares with us a certain clumsiness and even pathos, which though it does not excuse in any way his actions does give us some understanding of why he has become the grotesque figure he is.

Of the other performances I particularly like Jim Broadbent's take on the Duke of Buckingham –his beaming face has eyes of steel, and he seems to be silently scheming, listening, and judging in every scene in which he appears. Anette Bening also does a terrific job and makes more much of her part than is written. But all the actors do wonders in conveying their own particular "angsts" and concerns. Seeing the film again now, I only wish it was longer and we saw even more of some of them.

Finally I must applaud the designers of the production –both visual and aural– who have created a totally believable alternate English setting of the 1930s. It is both familiar and alien at the same time –which is what makes the film's central idea so chilling: That such a thing could have happened in England at this time as it did in Germany and Italy and Spain. Shakespeare may have been writing about the 15th century, but the scheming of despots, hungry for power, goes on and on and on.

I rate this as one of my favourite Shakespeare films!

Richard III (1955)

Courting the Camera

[7/10 · 24 March 2016]

Of the three Shakespeare plays that Laurence Olivier directed and starred in, Richard III is my favourite, though I think both Henry V (1944) and Hamlet (1948) are more filmic and wide-reaching visually. Richard III is more stagy, more theatrical. This is not necessarily a bad thing, for it captures probably one of the finest, most delicious performances ever in a context that respects its theatrical heritage (Olivier famously played Richard on stage earlier), and there is something about the very construction of the play that is very theatrical – essentially it is a series of small dramas or set pieces: scenes that in themselves are works of art, and beautifully crafted that way by Shakespeare. The staginess works best when Olivier speaks directly to us, because then he is using an unconventional film device (actors don't normally talk to the camera) to improve upon a common theatrical device, creating a bond between role and audience. That this is not employed throughout the play is as much Shakespeare's fault as Olivier's, because it is written that way –we get no direct address from Richard in the crucial demise at the battle, and are thus relegated back to being observers rather than "confidents".

Upon re-watching it, I was struck by how much what seeing was itself an historical document –of a style of acting and staging that perhaps to us now seems dated, but which at the time was perfectly relevant and true. When diction counted for something and clarity of expression and utterance was all important. Some of the performances come across as more dated than others, perhaps because of their shameless heightened theatricality. This is particularly true of some of lesser characters whose have no star appeal to buoy them up and are dependent merely upon their craft. Yet someone like Ralph Richardson is such an interesting screen personality that his performance –like that of Olivier's– remains fresh and vivid. Michael Gough does wonders with his small part, and Claire Bloom is marvellous –the scene in which her character is wooed by Richard is one of my favourite in both the film and in all of Shakespeare.

People have remarked upon the unevenness of the final act, with a sunny Spanish landscape so clearly standing in for soggy England that it distracts our attention away from the narrative; the theatricality is gone and we are suddenly made of this being a film location. The way this necessary shift from studio to outdoors is handled is much more deftly achieved in Olivier's earlier "Henry V", which also has a more satisfying battle scene, but that was written more precisely too; the battle scene in Shakespeare's Richard III only has a few lines and few directions so any film version will have to expand upon these. I think in this case there must have been many logistic difficulties with the location filming because this section of the film is sadly not on par with what has come before.

Yet, though these points may seem somewhat negative, I am merely pointing things that I feel could have been better. They do not affect my enjoyment of the film, nor my high regard of Olivier as a director and performer. And of all Shakespeare films, this is the one I return to again and again.

Titus (1999)

Marvellously Shocking!

[7/10 · 18 February 2016]

Having just read Titus Andronicus for the first time I was eager to take a look at the 1999 film version. I found it an uplifting experience, because though the film was quite different to my own visualization of the story, it was a perfectly consistent modern take that both respected the language and construction of the original play and provided an exciting, personal interpretation –respectful of Shakespeare but true to itself. In fact, I rate it as among the best screen versions of Shakespeare's work. Perhaps because it also succeeds in balancing on a line that is purely theatrical on one side and purely cinematic on the other –so that though I often feel I am watching a film of a stage production, I never feel constrained by this, for the film is genuinely and richly cinematic. I am also extremely glad that a certain amount of restraint was shown in the direction –it could so easily have been totally overloaded with effects, forced gimmicks and gore, but here the visuals –and impressive they are– never overpower the language and the interaction between the characters.

The performances are of a high level throughout, and the actors are all comfortable with the language, which is a relief because so many other "modern" versions of Shakespeare suffer from an inconsistent mixing of acting styles that distract us momentarily from the story. Here there is no attempt to slur the dialogue to make it seem "real" –it succeeds because it retains its metre and theatricality. I think Anthony Hopkins' performance is interestingly low-key and playful –the character itself is a difficult one to fully sympathize with– but Hopkins takes us down many different paths. He is both former hard general, ambitious and later grieving father, warm grandfather figure, madman, avenger –a complex character indeed. And again, the restraint in his performance says more than any rant. I also particularly like the pairing of him with Colm Feore as his brother. Alan Cumming gives a very memorable performance as the emperor –I found this character difficult to fully get hold of when I read the play, but the boldness and audacity shown by Cumming makes him very clear –and again it's never over- the-top as it so easily could be.

I think it does help to know at least something of the play before seeing the film as there is no real explanation of exactly who is who to begin with and this may cause some confusion – the unravelling of characters and their relationships is equally challenging in the opening of the play, so the fault (if it can be called that) lies with Shakespeare. The whole first act is a bit of a mess –perhaps intentionally– and though we are able to work out who is who and what their relationship is to the next person, it does demand a bit of extra concentration at the beginning of the film that could perhaps have benefited from some form of narration or on- screen signing. This is, however, my only complaint –otherwise I found the film marvellous; utterly shocking, of course, but marvellously shocking!

The Taming of The Shrew (1967)

A Romp of a Comedy!

[8/10 · 27 January 2016]

Shakespearean comedy has not always fared too well on film, and there are far fewer successful film versions of these than there are of the tragedies and other dramas. But there are one or two that do stand out and The Taming of the Shrew belongs to this select group. I think there are several reasons for this: the casting -which is magnificent and inspired; the acting -which balances just on the edge of "over-the-top" without succumbing to out-and- out farce; the pace -which is boisterous and bonny; and the profusion of little touches and details of scene, direction and picture. It is like a series of rather fine paintings from the Renaissance that are brought before us and taken away just as we start to think a little deeper about what is being shown. Here, as in most good comedy, we are never allowed to dwell too long before the next chapter unfolds. Zeffirelli's vision for this film is very theatrical, almost operatic, and he sees it through, so that it is a well-rounded whole; it's certainly beautifully designed and fascinating to look at. I quite understand why the choice was made to focus on the main story of Petruchio and Katharina (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are terrific together), though purists may claim their histrionics flourish at the expense of the sub-plot, which is more heavily cut compared to its place in the original play.In Shakespeare's play much of the business involving the wooing of Bianca contains references that are less accessible to modern audiences than they would be to those watching in the 1590s. But I think quite enough is kept to retain the gist and thrust of the scheming. Bianca as a character does remain rather bland though, as indeed she does in the play.

The film does away with the framing device –the "Induction" that Shakespeare used in his play, so here there is no opening scene in England with Christopher Sly and thus what we are shown is presented as "real" and not as a play being presented to this drunken character. Many stage productions do away with this frame device too, and most people are probably unaware that it is even part of the original story.

There are many fine and colourful performances here, right across the board, but more importantly the cast works particularly well as an ensemble, each actor embracing the communal spirit of the piece and firing off each other. I find Michael Hordern deliciously perfect as the distraught father of the two girls . His facial expressions speak a thousand words and I think he gives one of the finest performances of his career; as does Burton. And Elizabeth Taylor is just fantastic! Recommended.

Sphere (1998)

Neither Fish Nor Fowl, But Enjoyable

[6/10 · 14 April 2009]

I can well understand why this film gets such mixed reactions from people watching it. I suspect much of the negative criticism is to do with expectations unfulfilled, or confusion over genre –part science-fiction, part psychological thriller, part action drama, but a little too intensely each of these things. Not having seen it when it first came out, I viewed the film on DVD yesterday, with no expectations or prejudices. I found it to be quite a fascinating film, and certainly excellently made in all departments. Its one major flaw is one of construction, which gives thought-provoking arguments precisely at the time one wants action and dramatic resolution. There are also some character issues that do not quite work, or are muddled, but the performances themselves are actually as fine as the script allows, and the atmosphere is wonderfully claustrophobic. There is really a bit of everything in this film, (shades of "Alien", "The Abyss", "Forbidden Planet", "2001") and the underwater effects and the sound-mixing are especially superb. A film that so very nearly works on all levels.

Dr. No (1962)

"That's a Smith & Wesson, and you've had your six."

[7/10 · 9 April 2009]

Well, I just caught the digital restoration of this first, classic Bond film, and it is like seeing it for the first time -which it most definitely is not! The first time was on a black and white television screen when I was a child -but it made an indelible impression even then, and images from the film have been part of my "movie-memory" ever since -as I am sure they have been for many other people. This is, of course, the alpha-movie of Bond stories, where just about everything that came afterwards has its roots: the coolness, the impossibly grand sets, the villain, the pretty girl, the exotic locations, the high style, the chase, and the screen character of Bond himself, brilliantly portrayed by Connery. Though it is not the best Bond film, being the first gives it the right to be on any required viewing list. It has a relatively simple story, but it moves along with such an interesting and (for the time) fresh, dynamic style, that you really don't think much about plot or story. You just enjoy. And there is much to enjoy. Marvel at the fantastic, imaginative sets by Ken Adam, the truly weird and underrated Joseph Wiseman as Dr.No, the beauty of Ursula Andress rising from the sea and witness the birth of screen legend in countless iconic images. In the centre is Sean Connery - and what an entrance! He dominates the film with a raw coolness that is particularly striking in the interior scenes. In the scenes on location he is at times quite uneven in his performance -seemingly unsure of his characterization at times. But I am really splitting hairs here -it comes from having seen the film so many times; his contribution to screen iconography is enormous, and the Bond films would never have been as successful an adventure without him.

The Rack (1956)

Underrated gem

[9/10 · 8 April 2009]

Paul Newman's second film (but released after "Somebody Up There Likes Me") demonstrates that, even then, he was the truly finest screen performer around. But the very nature of his style has always placed him behind –or to the side of– more "bravura" actors of the time. Unlike Brando and Clift and Dean- he is much less self-centered; in other words he is a sharing actor. This puts the SCENE in focus more than the performance, and in this extremely underrated (and almost forgotten) courtroom drama you have one of the best scenes I have ever come across - a simple dialogue between Newman and his father, played by Walter Pidgeon (who gives one of HIS best performances here). The short scene takes place towards the end of the film and is pivotal to the story. It is a miniature master-class in technique, communication (or lack of it) and truth. There are clear parallels to "East of Eden" but somehow the shading here is less stark, which makes the confrontation so much more -real. Courtroom dramas, especially American ones, almost always work as on screen. The inbuilt tension and clear pattern of procedure, with gradual unraveling of facts and insights, is compelling, no matter what the case or period. This one is no exception. There are many cadences and moral issues are raised that one sometimes wishes could have gone even further. Otherwise the screenplay (based on a tele-play) is taut, careful and intriguing. So are the characters: Wendell Corey and Edmond O Brien as defense and prosecuting counsel respectively are particularly noteworthy, and utterly believable in parts that could easily have been stereotypes. If one must criticize, I would have to say that the first part of the film, before the court case begins, could have been curtailed slightly. Not because it is in any way uninteresting, but because it seems somehow rather unnecessary -as if just placed in to flesh out the film. But this is a minor criticism of a film that really deserves to be better known.

An Awfully Big Adventure (1995)

The Show Must Go On...

[6/10 · 30 March 2009]

This is one of the better films about theatre and what it does to some people. It resembles "The Dresser" in atmosphere to a certain extent, and in the portrayal of many of its characters. Both are set in Northern England during the 1940s, in rather faded theatres. Characters from one film could quite easily have inhabited the other. Here however we follow primarily the journey of a stage-struck young girl as she enters the strange and often unpredictable world of a repertory theatre -her own awfully big adventure. Note the irony of the title. Secret desires and yearnings linger under the surface, bitchiness and petty jealousy escort humour and the spirit of "the show going on" no matter what. It is however quite a dark film, and bravely allows us to get to know characters who are unsympathetic but not altogether unlikable. Alan Rickman underplays beautifully as always, and a restrained Hugh Grant demonstrates his considerable skill as a character actor. This is one of the most interesting of all his screen performances. Georgina Cates gives a stunning performance of the innocent (but not THAT innocent) girl drawn into the world of the theatre, and the supporting cast are faultless. Prunella Scales, Carol Drinkwater and Peter Firth deserve special salutes however. Lots to like here, but it is not at all a feel good movie. Nor is it meant to be.

Hot Shots! (1991)

Hot comedy!

[6/10 · 30 March 2009]

I recently caught up with this one for the first time since it came out and it still made me laugh heartily throughout, and hysterically in places. This is from the time when spoof movies were really FUNNY and not disasters of scripting and direction, relying purely on visual gags. This one has a story that is expectedly thin ( but consistent) and characters that shine -and none so more than the wonderful Lloyd Bridges as Admiral Benson. He is pricelessly funny every second he is on screen with such intense deadpan delivery that one cannot help laughing, even before he opens his mouth. Characters who are so mad and bizarre are always fascinating, but especially so when figures of authority and power are portrayed, and a great actor inhabits the role. The two leads play tongue in cheek performances with the proper seriousness, and the supporting cast is a mixed bag. There are some great visual gags and also many movie references, which is always part of the fun of this type of movie. I have to also say the flying scenes were excellent.

Above Suspicion (1943)

A Romp of a Honeymoon!

[6/10 · 22 March 2009]

A lot of people seem to deride this film, but I found it quite enjoyable. It was Joan Crawfords last contract film at MGM, and far from walking through the part I personally think she sails along quite breezily and relaxed, which is just right for the character she plays. Basil Rathbone always makes a great, charming villain, and the much underrated Fred MacMurray comes across quite well as the hero. Casting of all supporting parts is excellent, and the MGM production values are faultless. The first half of the film is considerably better than the second as €"things become a bit chaotic and muddled towards the end -but its great to see a Hollywood film where the Germans actually speak German. There are also one or two quite extraordinary tracking shots, especially one in the concert hall, and in fact this whole sequence has an intensity that one wishes the entire film had. Still, if you can swallow the premise of the film and follow the logic of the "trail" you will perhaps be as entertained as I was by this one.

West Side Story (1961)

Plays it cool...

[9/10 · 21 February 2009]

"West Side Story" has an eternal sort of resonance in its theme and story, which we can thank Mr Shakespeare for, but also stands as a powerful product of its age and location. It is classic Broadway and classic Hollywood in its most urban musical style, often harsh and dangerous, but containing enough old-style production-number work to satisfy traditional film-musical aficionados. The opening sequence is one of the best film openings of all time, and the dancing (and direction of the dance sequences) incredibly exuberant and yet clear in its purpose. There is little cross-cutting and fast-editing here, yet the dances have all the energy of any modern music video. The film also interestingly has supporting characters who outshine the leads. Unlike many other comments here, I have nothing against either Natalie Wood or Richard Beymer in these parts; they are in many ways given an unfair deal in their very characterization (which I regard as something of a weakness in Romeo and Juliet, upon which the film is based). Their characters are simply not as interesting as those around them. Under the circumstances I think they do as good a job as they can. "West Side Story" is best seen on a big screen in 70mm if you get the chance!

Valley of the Kings (1954)

Egyptian locations shine

[5/10 · 21 February 2009]

Nice colour photography in Egyptian locations helps this rather lame story shine a little more than it would had it been entirely studio bound, and the locations scenes are certainly the most interesting aspects of this melodramatic yarn. Eleanor Parker is admirable, as always, and Robert Taylor merely...Robert Taylor, as always, but none of the characters really grab enough of our attention or hold our interest, and the plot is hardly interesting enough to bother about. A stronger story and script would have made a huge difference and put the film in a much more memorable bracket. But there are some genuinely exciting moments, particularly in the second half of the film, and the film makes great use of the Egyptian locations in ways that I doubt would be allowed today. A perfectly watchable little adventure, but don't expect too much.

The Oklahoma Kid (1939)

Better than its reputation

[5/10 · 1 August 2008]

Everyone goes on so much about how misplaced it was to place Cagney and Bogart in a western, but the characters they play are totally in line with the gangster figures they are more commonly associated with, and present compatible shadings of good and bad and lawlessness and justice that fit equally well into a western as well as a gangster picture. And Bogart and Cagney both inhabit their roles in their own, unique way. Quite frankly it is a huge treat to see them in such a setting, and there should be no need for detrimental sniggers. Some of the supporting characters are interesting in their moral shading too, especially the judge –Donald Crisp in one of his best parts. The film is extremely fast-paced. Sometimes one could wish for more depth to a scene, or a greater exploration of character development, but the narrative has a clear purpose and doesn't allow us this luxury. The film is never boring and far more interesting than its reputation would have us believe. My only complaint is to do with the hat Cagney wears. It is more than a little too big for this short actor, and though it may perhaps be a quirk of the character of the Oklahoma Kid, I think somebody in the costume department should have gently led him to another hat.

The Prodigal (1955)

A disappointing spectacle

[4/10 · 24 June 2008]

A sadly boring spectacle of a biblical film, even though almost all the production values are of a high quality (except that special effect vulture). The script and direction of are simply too bland for the story, but more importantly we simply do not care about the character, and most of them are rather unsympathetic. The one redeeming performance is that of Frances L. Sullivan - and this was his last film. He deliciously adds something to each of the scenes he is in, whereas Edmund Purdom gives little throughout the film. Lana Turner is beautiful, but not sensual and her character seems too undefined to be really intriguing -that is until her demise. It is interesting to see a film such as this, where no expense has been spared, with great MGM art direction and costume design, intriguing choreography and movement, the then novel CinemaScope cinematography, and realizing fairly quickly that is simply does not hold. The above mentioned factors prevent it from being utterly boring, but my overall reaction is one of disappointment.

That's Entertainment! III (1994)

A film that will make the grayest day considerably brighter!

[8/10 · 12 June 2008]

This last edition to the That's Entertainment family of films celebrating MGM is a magnificent coda, and pays particular tribute to a number of those MGM stars who were somewhat neglected in the other two. All the greats are there too though, like Fred and Gene and Judy and Frank, and there are some wonderfully unusual and fascinating clips and a number of very illuminating behind-the-scenes extracts and revelations.

The editing and the sound editing is particularly well done, and the various introductions are all rather touching. Whatever your level of interest in musical films you should certainly make time to see all three "Thats Entertainment" movies. The talent on display is staggering, and the craftsmanship of all involved is so vividly apparent. Marvel at the costumes, lighting, choreography, direction, singing, art-direction and sheer energy of MGM film musicals.You are definitely left gasping for more ...

My favourite bit? How does one choose? Gene Kelly's newspaper dance from the often overlooked film "Summer Stock" always excites me into immediately trying the same dance with whatever newspaper is at hand -and it is certainly not easy!

Ask Any Girl (1959)

A Charming Romp of a Film

[7/10 · 7 June 2006]

It is a long time since I have sat alone and laughed out loud at a film, but this one made me chuckle, chortle and hoot enough times to make it an immediate success in my mind. Most of my laughter was because of Shirley MacLaine, who gives a wonderful performance -not as quirky as she is in many of her other films of this period, but full of fabulous subtleties in facial expression, tone of voice, body language and screen expression. Being a big fan of David Niven too, I was delighted to see how good the chemistry between him and MacLaine was -he often plays a little bewildered to her forthrightness, and is a perfect match to her good-meaning clumsiness ..always the gentlemen! The other actors give great performances ..especially Gig Young, and the film is superbly cast right down to the smallest one-liner part: they all have their little moments and are allowed to shine, which adds to the enjoyment of the film. The story swings along nicely and is thoroughly enjoyable, even though you know where its going ..but that may be part of its charm.

The War of the Worlds (1953)

Frightening Entertainment

[8/10 · 17 April 2002]

One of the first films I remember seeing as a child was War of the Worlds. I was probably only around 7 at the time, and the film was shown as one of a series of classic science-fiction films from the fifties and sixties. Even on a small black and white television set many of the images in the film burned themselves on my mind and and stayed with me throughout my childhood. Images such as the priest boldly walking towards the martian craft; the eerie pictures of empty streets in an evacuated Los Angeles; the panic of the people trying to escape –and above all the frightening images of the alien craft rising slowly from the gully, pressing forth despite the massive fire-power directed at them. Their cold stateliness and absolute impregnability terrified me, but held great fascination, and I so easily managed to feel great empathy for all the human characters who were forced to evacuate the city, or face the consequences. I yearned for the film to be shown again, but it never was.

However, a number of years later, when I was in my twenties, this was one of the first films I bought on video. Though excited at the prospect of seeing once again one of the most memorable movies of my childhood, I was also somewhat worried that the film could not live up my expectations and give me the same thrill when viewed with an adult sensibility. Happily my worries were unfounded, for I found myself being affected by the film in almost exactly the same way I had as a child. And having now seen War of the Worlds about a dozen times all in all it has lost none of its fascination. True a number of its flaws become quite apparent after so many viewings, and one does wish that some of the acting had a greater depth at times, but one cannot help being eternally intrigued by the predicaments facing the characters and their despair at their weakness in the face of such adversity. Above all there is a fascination for the effects which for the most part not only stand the test of time remarkably well (does it really deter anyone's enjoyment that a wire or two is visible occasionally?), but which unlike many films of today are there to serve the story, not the other way round. And yet the effects have so many grace notes that it would be wrong not to give them well deserved attention in a review such as this. Take for example the sound- effects of the martian craft as they patrol –a disturbing, totally alien sound, with an eeriness that I believe is unmatched in film history. A lot of what frightened me as a child was the sound of this movie, which is also demonstrated by the remarkably forceful sound of the 'blasts' of the martian weapons. These sounds are 100% destructive, and matched perfectly with the streams or rays of the optical shots, which have themselves a disturbing strength.

Despite what a number of people have said about the model work I think it is remarkable, and in most cases extremely convincing.(possible spoiler ahead:) There is just one shot towards the end of the movie, where a martian craft crashes into a building, which is not up to the standard of the rest of the film, but otherwise I always find myself totally convinced –and if there are wires, I mostly don't see them because the film's atmosphere and narrative convince me not to!

Another thing worth mentioning is the lighting. I find this extremely effective in the colouring of certain areas of the screen, which in the case of the martian nest are truly alien. The somewhat misty brightness of the green/turquoise associated with the martian's is contrasted nicely with the warmer, often earthy colours of the scenes involving humans. A lot of the film takes place at night, yet there is always colour even in the darkness. The photography of George Barnes certainly contributes to the fascination the film holds.

In other words this is a movie that continues to intrigue, and deserves multiple viewing. If seen at home I recommend turning out the lights and watching it in the dark!

Brief Encounter (1945)

WORTH A LIFELONG RELATIONSHIP

[10/10 · 20 June 2001]

I am no doubt biased in writing about this film, because it is my all time favourite, and has been for many years. But I only recently had the chance to see it on the big screen for the first time, and the experience has left me dazed ..again. Previously, when I had seen the film on television or on video I had marvelled at the precision of David Lean's direction, the complex simplicity of the story, the mastery of Noël Coward's fairness to his characters and the marvllous use of music in unfolding and reflecting the narrative. Seeing Brief Encounter in a cinema made me far more aware of the subtleness of the acting than before, and of course Robert Krasker's brilliant cinemaphotography. I cannot praise Celia Johnsen's performance enough -the truth in her eyes at every moment of the story becomes so much more impressive when experienced on the big screen. Both her performance, and that of Trevor Howard are wonderfully contained -searching, unsure, and above all vulnerable. It is, for me at least, the vulnerability of their relationship that is the core of the film's appeal and longevity. It is their reasoning and attempt to resolve their dilemma which intrigues us, but it is as much the telling of the story that fascinates as the story itself. Big screen viewing allows appreciation of detail. Note the many signs that adorn the background throughout the film -signs displaying names of places far away, which seem to heighten the theme of transition; of the constant attraction towards other places to everywhere but where we happen to be. Note the word 'Room' displayed back to front in the cafe window as Laura at the height of her despair wonders whether to og back to Alec's borrowed flat. The word reads as; MOOR, and conjectually 'more room' is precisely what Laura needs at that moment. Other details that help weld the theme of transition and change are the frequent uses of clocks to denote anxiety. Clocks and watches represent the inevitablity of life -Time cannot, alas, be frozen at moments of happiness. Each shot of a clock or timepiece heightens this. Most revealing is the choice of present Laura makes for her husband -a desk clock with a barometer (another signal of change). The clock plays a part in the deception she creates -telling a story about having to travel some way in order to buy it, while actually spending time with Alec, and is also a persistent metaphor for the urgency of making the best use of time while one can. The obvious symbols of trains traveling in opposite directions as separate destinies and the railway station as the crossing point have been well documented, but manage to grip our attention and imagination every time. The railway station itself, though not glamourised in any way, manages to evoke incredibly romantic images in it's ordinariness. And the sounds of trains moving, continuously, and the other noises of the station -bells, clanks, the rattle of coffee-cups etc all intrude upon the attempts the two protagonists have of being alone in quiet. In sum there is no film I know that manages so well to marry the various elements of film making with film aesthetics, is more successful in marryings narrative, theme and sub-text in technical use of sound, lighting, editing, photography and music. It is a total film experience, where appreciation of the whole never ends, and where -upon each new viewing- new insight is given into it's myriad of parts.

His Girl Friday (1940)

Just Sit Back and Enjoy

[9/10 · 31 August 2000]

You are in good company when you watch this film -Howard Hawks knows what he is doing, and YOU know it too! He has also got on screen two of the finest comic performances from two of the finest light-comedy actors ever. Rosalind Russell is a rare blend of determination, cool-headed excitement and compassion, and is a formative female protagonist in an otherwise totally male film. Her performance appeals to our sense of fairness as well as our sense of humour, and we both share her desire to escape the newspaper world and see that such a dynamic soul will never be truely happy in the secure but dull arms of Ralph Bellamy's character. Cary Grant is the perfect antagonist, and the perfect opposite to Bellamy. Despite the fact that so many of the qualities Grant displays are morally dubious, we delight totally in his unscrupulous machinations, and have very little sympathy for the morally correct character that Bellamy plays. This is a fascinating observation on the way screen sympathies defy normal day-to-day behaviour. Cary Grant gave many fine performances during a particularly dignified career, but this is in my opinion one of his best, and is certainly my own favourite. There is something of the Falstaff mentality in him -both can lie and exagerate without compuction, and we love them for it even though we are horrified too. And yet there is always a little glimpse of something more in his character than the flippant rogue. The machine-gun retorts, the scheming and the suave "performance" all mask something -though we never learn enough about him to know what. Thus the part is ideally suited to Grant, whose charming screen persona was in many ways a cover for a more introverted psyche. The film cannot lose with these two and the script, and the way Hawks allows his actors to "cover" a scene. Look at some of those scenes and you will see how many of them are done in one shot. The dialogue and the chemisty between Grant and Russell is really allowed to sparkle because of this, and the scenes are very slick in their dynamics. Fortunately the supporting cast are marvellous too, and the scenes in the newsroom at the jail have an intrinsic comic quality of their own which marry very nicely with the "main" body of the comedy in the action between Grant and Russell. There is an invasion of this world when Grant arrives there towards the end of the movie. The pace quickens there as soon as he appears, and it is as if the story goes into a different key -more intense and electric, and it stays like this until the end. HIS GIRL FRIDAY is a movie that demands multiple viewing, and which will continue to delight each time. If you get tired of the plot or the script, just enjoy the performances and note the countless nuances, or take a moment to admire the stylish ease of Grant's suits against Bellamy's awkward costume, or indeed the photography, the lighting, the editing...or if (God forbid) you finds it really boring after a hundred viewings, try counting how many words are said in the first scene between Russell and Grant!

Citizen Kane (1941)

Citizen Rosebud

[9/10 · 24 July 2000]

Like visiting the dentist Citizen Kane is one of those movies that should be seen at least once every year. And preferably on a big screen. It demands (and deserves) a level of concentration that television viewing seldom allows, and the rich photography of Greg Toland is best seen in a darkened cinema. I agree somewhat with those who claim that Citizen Kane has been ruined by the many accolades that have been poured over it, forcing us to take a stand on whether we agree that this is the best film ever made or not, rather than enjoying the experience of the movie itself. It has been subject to so much study, and is held forth as an example of so many different things in film-making that one approaches it almost with caution -again a bit like the dentist. But only if we can put aside all our knowledge of the film's history, its reception and controversies, and forget for a while how much it influenced American film-making, can we get to the underlying core of the film; and the myth of both Kane and Welles. For one cannot help but seeing Kane as at least a facet of Welles himself -he put not only his heart, his wit and his intelligence into the making of the film, but fed many of his subconscious fears and delights into the portrayal of Kane, and thus into the enigmatic aspects of the film. Much attention has been given to "Rosebud". Too much I think, for though the search for Rosebud is the initial and driving motive of the narrative, the film never properly focuses on why this is so important. In one sense the search for Rosebud is the "MacGuffin" of Citizen Kane -it serves only to bring the story forward. Kane's last word is "Rosebud", and the last image we see on screen is the peeling word "Rosebud" on the burning wood. Go back to the beginning of the film and the first word we hear is "Rosebud. So Rosebud is a starting point and ending both for Kane AND for the movie, but has little significance in the broader story of his life.

Citizen Kane is not a film that engages the viewer emotionally, and is as such a very cold film. We have little sense of identification with any of the characters, and though we are treated to insights in certain facets of their characters, we are never given enough to really CARE about them. We see the characters rather as a scientist views his lab animals -interested but detached. None of the characters really reveal much about themselves, only their thoughts about Kane, and as such this is the main weakness of the film. Though seen in another light of course this could be regarded as one of its strengths. Welles glibly focused his attention on technical and narrative innovations rather than emotional studies which I suspect he was incapable of presenting truthfully at this time in his life. It is the showman Welles behind Citizen Kane, not the poet. But the show is so good that it becomes a poetry of its own, and though there is little passion in the way he presents his characters, there is true love in the shooting style of almost every frame. Kane and Welles the director share therefore the traits of being gifted, original and highly successful personalities yet aware of something unattainable on a human level. This is part of the true myth of Citizen Kane , and of the enigma of Orson Welles.

The film is intriguing in style, mood, composition and structure and is in my opinion one of the very best made films of all time, but I cannot say with honesty that it is one of the best films ever made due to its emotional detachment. But perhaps when I see it again next year, I will think otherwise

Gladiator (2000)

OLD HOLLYWOOD MEETS NEW HOLLYWOOD

[7/10 · 17 July 2000]

The great thing about GLADIATOR is the way in which the film combines elements of the classic Hollywood epic with a modern style. It is both respectful of the tradition to which it belongs, and bold enough to step in a new direction. It is not simply a remake of FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (though outwardly the story is virtually the same), but a combination of all the great Roman epics that graced the screen during the fifties and sixties. You have the gladiator school from SPARTACUS, the horrors of the Colosseum from QUO VADIS, the burning conflict between two former allies from BEN HUR, and countless other references to what we have seen before. But, as well as being an example of solid golden Hollywood storytelling the film is stylistically very much of the age. The epic as a genre invariably stretched the scope of film-making, being at the forefront of the latest technical innovations -be they in colour development, sound, format (eg. CinemaScope) or, as with GLADIATOR, computer-generated imagery. But at the heart of any epic is the conflict between (usually) two opposing forces, represented by two characters. And no matter how fine the effects, the art direction and the staging, it is this conflict that must grab our attention. In GLADIATOR, the characters of Commodus and Maximus represent the two opposing forces of insecurity and stability. The dynamics of this conflict, so wonderfully presented by Joaquin Phoenix and Russell Crowe, are classical in form, though with many ambiguities and cadences that make their conflict far more than a simple battle between good and bad. It is in this aspect that GLADIATOR takes a bold step in using classic Hollywood tradition (goodie versus baddie) to unravel and show the complexities of its characters and their dilemmas. This is a successful strategy because the film holds our interest throughout because of the psychology of the protagonists as much as the grandeur of the staging. Simply big is never enough -there has to be a very identifiable human conflict for the film to be personal too. GLADIATOR is both epic and personal.

The film boasts a number of fine performances. Carrying on the Hollywood convention of having English actors play Romans is an echo of past epics -a reverent ploy. Joaquin Phoenix, though American, speaks with a British accent too ..Roman emporers in Hollywood films invariably did so! Such details give a sense of nostalgia, or at least recognition -always a key factor in genre films. Another example of genre convention is the "bad but loveable" supporting character, in this case played by Oliver Reed. He is an instant reminder of the sheikh in BEN HUR or Peter Ustinov's character in SPARTACUS, and serves the same purpose.

The effects are fortunately never allowed to get before the conflict of the story, but one cannot write about GLADIATOR without mentioning them. I have always been sceptical of computer generated imagery, and I think there is still some way to go before I believe "totally" what I see on screen, but GLADIATOR shows a historical accuracy both in the battle scenes and in those in the Colosseum, which can only be commended. I only wish the film had been made and presented in 70mm, for if ever a picture in recent years demanded it, then it was this.

I Confess (1953)

Dark and Brooding

[7/10 · 19 April 2000]

The mood of the film is best summed up in one word: troubled. And there has been no American actor to rival Montgomery Clift in that department, with the notable exception of James Dean. Clift is however a far more complex screen personality, and "I Confess", though generally termed as one of Hitchcock's "lesser" films (no bad thing that though)is one of Clift's best. It is sad that the two men only made the one film together. The darker side of Hitchcock would have found an excellent protagonist in Clift's anguishing persona had they dared to explore further those disturbing areas that Hitchcock mostly only suggests at. "I Confess" is a straight-forward dilemma between the vows of silence a priest must uphold, and the desire for truth. The dilemma of the film is also one between the veracity of Clift's faith and his experiences of secular life, and it is this particular aspect of the film's theme which is both interesting and unresolved. Though Clift's faith is unbending, and his integrity is unblemished through his determination not to reveal the identity of the murderer, it is of particular annoyance not to be given any insight into the background and process of his finding his calling. We merely learn, through a series of flashbacks, that he becomes ordained and is suddenly a practicing priest. The nature of the aspiring love affair is merely sketched, and never fully examined. Clift's character is throughout the film almost annoyingly emotionless -as if he has become a man who has either repressed his feelings, or made to fear them. This is another interesting facet of his personality that we would so much like to learn more of. The story itself may not be the most satisfying amongst Hitchcock's production, but the complexity and ambiguities of the central character make this film a rewarding experience. As in most Hitchcock films there are numerous delights in the supporting cast. Karl Malden is a case in point. His portrayal of a straight-forward police detective is in sharp contrast to Clift, and their scenes together have a streak of realism about them that is not often found in Hitchcock -knowing the starting point of each man we can sympathize with both. The music score of the film is somewhat special -it seems not to reflect or underscore many of the scenes, but lifts them up to a higher -though at times melodramatic- plane. It gives the film an ethereal or dreamlike quality that suggests the theme of yearning in the film.

In Which We Serve (1942)

Possibly the best film yet about war's totality

[9/10 · 18 April 2000]

"In Which We Serve" is not only a wonderful pastiche of British society during the second world war, but a complex, yet correct statement of a very simple theme -namely the duty of a country's citizens to defend the system it believes in. The simplicity of the story is one of the movie's key strengths, but the most appealing aspect of the film is, for me at least, the way in which each scene reflects the preceding and suggests the subsequent one. The motivation behind this may have been to demonstrate the unifying elements of the various different characters and their individual stories, but the skill with which this is done makes for a wonderfully satisfying experience. The film is excellently crafted, moving from a semi-documentary style that would have been instantly recognizable to cinema audiences of the forties, with the then common weekly news reviews; and then moving into everything from light-comedy to exciting action and pure drama. It is a film that for many will seem old-fashioned, but only in some of its sentiments, never its techniques or its wisdom. And the "old-fashionedness" of some of it -such as the love scene between John Mills and his girlfriend on the bench by the water- has a poignancy that is nevertheless almost painful in its innocence. Above all the film expresses one immensely important concern: dignity. It is reflected in the words and actions of all the characters, and shines through the film with the immense pride the film-makers (Noel Coward especially) put into making this film. It is an important film not least because it is not afraid of expressing loss -for many the thought of a film about a sinking British ship was a shocking risk to take in a time of war. And it is an entertaining film as well, in the best tradition of British cinema. Like the other main Coward/Lean masterpiece "Brief Encounter" this film can be enjoyed on so many levels that it demands multiple viewings. And like "Brief Encounter" you will discover new subtleties each time...