Peter Bogdanovich

The King Vidor File – Part Two

Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:20:08 GMT

This part consists of comments on some of his finest and most popular work, including The Big Parade, The Champ, and Street Scene, as well as one of his most provocative, Ruby Gentry.

The films below are listed in the order in which I saw them.

An American Romance (1944; d-p-w: King Vidor).

1962: Very good (Epic, large-scale drama about steel and a young immigrant’s rise from poverty and work in the steel mines to an industrialist and car manufacturer. Superbly edited and photographed documentary footage interspersed among a moving, convincing story. Vidor knows how to handle intimate scenes as well as mass-movement as excellently as anyone. Not as profound or completely successful as his best, this is still an extremely fine piece of Americana, completely personal and typically Vidor’s.)

The Texas Rangers (1936; d-p-w: King Vidor).

1962: Fair (Strange combination of parody, serious drama, and deep-voiced patriotism in this entertaining, minor Vidor film about two robbers who join the Texas Rangers, and slowly become rather gung-ho on the organization. Acted in late-thirties style by Fred MacMurray, Lloyd Nolan, Jack Oakie, effectively directed. Still rather a weird piece in the body of Vidor’s work; it somehow doesn’t quite fit.)

Street Scene (1931; d: King Vidor).

1962: Excellent* (Only slightly dated—in dialogue—but powerful, brilliantly directed and photographed film version of Elmer Rice’s stage play about the happenings on a block in New York City. Confined to a basically small area, Vidor’s camera roams around everywhere freely and inventively, also catching the telling gesture, look, line of speech; his editing and the music help tremendously, as does his flawless moving of actors and their effective performances. A remarkable, often extremely moving achievement.)

Added 2016: Because the play was confined to one street, Vidor told me he was trying to figure out how to shoot in such a small area. He said he was having a haircut and noticed, across the way from him, that a person who was sleeping had a fly walking over his face. Vidor had the thought: to that fly, the man’s face was enormous. So, if he used his camera like a fly, the street had plenty of room to spare.

The Citadel (1938; d: King Vidor).

1962: Very good* (Robert Donat, Rosalind Russell, Rex Harrison, Ralph Richardson, and an equally talented supported cast are all superb in this sensitive and effective Vidor film about an idealistic young doctor, corrupted by the mores of his profession, finally restored to his senses by the death of his best friend. Moving, eloquently acted, filmed, stylishly directed, intelligently written; not one of Vidor’s most personal achievements, but nonetheless a strong and vivid one.)

The Champ (1931; d-p: King Vidor).

1962: Excellent (Extremely moving, touching and stunningly well acted [by Jackie Cooper and Wallace Beery] story of a washed-up boxer and his young son who adores him; simple, starkly, yet eloquently directed, written, photographed. One of Vidor’s most poignant pictures, and a particularly memorable one.)

Beyond The Forest (1949; d: King Vidor).

1963: Very good* (Bette Davis, Joseph Cotten, David Brian are all excellent in this exciting and fascinating Vidor picture about an evil, restless, opportunistic small-town woman and her destruction; effectively written, personally directed, expertly photographed, well written.)

The Big Parade (1925; d-p: King Vidor).

1963: Exceptional (Brilliantly directed, written, acted, elaborately produced, long and exciting, moving and comic, stirring and eloquent drama about the First World War, centering on the adventures of one American in France; effective performances by John Gilbert, Renee Adoree, a cast of hundreds; certainly an American classic, one of Vidor’s finest works, and one of the great films of the twenties.)

Comrade X (1940; d: King Vidor).

1963: Good* (Clark Gable, Hedy Lamarr in a generally amusing [Ben] Hecht-[Charles] Lederer script about a reporter (American) and a female streetcar operator (Russian) in Moscow; satirical barbs at the Soviet, most of them well-aimed, lively pace, nice performances; not really Vidor’s meat, but efficient and completely likeable.)

Ruby Gentry (1952; d-p: King Vidor).

1963: Excellent (Striking, erotic, vividly directed and passionate love story—a kind of modern “Duel in the Sun”—about a lovely, willful, vital woman from the wrong side of the tracks who, not getting the man she loves and persecuted by the class-conscious hypocrisy of the town she lives in, proceeds to destroy the town and her beloved—and herself. Powerfully written and well cast or played by Jennifer Jones, Karl Malden, Charlton Heston, exciting, personal and uncompromising.)

Added 1965: (Even better the second time—among Vidor’s most typical and effective works.)

War And Peace (1956; d-s: King Vidor).

1963: Fair* (Certainly not among Vidor’s better achievements, but still an engrossing, strikingly beautiful—in décor, color, composition—and continuously interesting adaptation of Tolstoy’s mammoth novel; long, nicely acted, particularly by Henry Fonda as Pierre, generally effective, if less personal than the bulk of Vidor’s work.)

SXSW Film 2016 Honors the Past While Facing an Exciting, Gaudy and Uncertain Future

Anne Thompson — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:23:29 GMT

The night before the SXSW Film Festival got under way, Michael Barker, co-president of Sony Pictures Classics, defended his communal love of film in theaters. "In pursuing the new future, we cannot decimate the past," he said in his acceptance speech as one of the honorees at the Texas Film Awards, the annual benefit for Richard Linklater's now 30-year-old Austin Film Society.

Watching the Sony Classics reel, the crucial art films I grew up on over the decades sped past. From Truffaut's "The Last Metro" and Merchant/Ivory's "Howards End" to more recent Oscar-winners "Blue Jasmine," "Alice" and "Son of Saul," I felt a twinge of loss. SXSW is all about change, and forward motion. But in our rush toward digital immediacy, we lose something too.

While Barker and partner Tom Bernard's Sony Classics remains the very model of a theatrically driven and adaptive studio specialty subsidiary, the world is changing around them. 35 mm is no longer a viable exhibition format, directors have to fight to shoot with celluloid, and distributors are increasingly challenged to lure consumers away from mobile and home-viewing options in favor of a theater.

Also fighting the good fight is Linklater. He announced construction on the Austin Film Society's new two-screen theatre, "showing repertory, international and arthouse films every day of the week," which will boast a 35 mm projector. Meanwhile, more local exhibitors are turning to alternative content like TCM Classic Movies to grab their customers—most of whom are well over 30, if not 60.

Linklater has enjoyed an enviably idiosyncratic career since his pre-SXSW 1991 Sundance breakout "Slacker" (picked up by Barker and Bernard). He's moved through a wide range of budgets and subjects, from animated "Waking Life" and the walking and talking "Before Sunrise" series to "Dazed and Confused," which Alphaville's Sean Daniel and Jim Jacks made with Universal chairman Tom Pollock. Universal couldn't figure out how to sell a Texas coming of age film with a young indie filmmaker and no-name cast (including Ben Affleck and Matthew "all right, all right" McConaughey) at the box office; "Dazed and Confused" eventually emerged as a cult homevideo classic.

After Linklater made commercial hit "School of Rock" in 2003 at Paramount, the studio developed the 1980 Austin film that became "Everybody Wants Some!!" And, as he said at his New York pre-SXSW party, it was still tough to get it made. The film took a decade to go into production, just as "Boyhood" hit big and headed for awards contention. However, it may be deja vu all over again: Cast with unknowns, the movie is hugely entertaining, shot with the same "Dazed and Confused" aesthetic (and many of the same crew, including long-time Linklater editor Sandra Adair), and Paramount is hedging its bets: "Everybody Wants Some!!" will go out via platform release April 1.

It's a struggle that speaks to why, these days, emerging film directors tend to find more work in television, from SXSW stars the Duplass brothers, who keep their film budgets low, to director-actress Amy Seimetz ("The Killing," "The Girlfriend Experience") and Lena Dunham, whose HBO series "Girls" launched SXSW Film's move into television premieres. These are now major draws, from "Broad City" panels to the outdoor preview exhibit “Welcome to Annville," which ties to AMC’s supernatural comic-book drama, "Preacher" (November) starring Dominic Cooper (from executive producers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg); that will premiere at SXSW March 14.

As for the movies at SXSW, buzz has started as film buffs spread the word on opening-night titles like Joey Klein's bleak romance "The Other Half," starring real-life couple Tatiana Maslany and Tom Cullen. But it can be tough for the film side of SXSW to grab attention from the rest of the festival — even after President Obama had left town.

At SXSW 2016, everyone hovers on street corners searching for their Uber or Lyft drivers. Downtown Austin resembles San Diego's Comic-Con with its countless showrooms, meet-up tables, and brand marketing opportunities like the "Mr. Robot" ferris wheel, Capital One House, and pedicabs bedecked with HBO's "Game of Thrones.

As at Comic-Con and Sundance, the noise of the corporate world trying to nab a piece of the smart digital-driven demo at SXSW has gotten a lot louder. Interactive was SXSW's growth engine for four years, but attendance stabilized in 2015 and 2016 (2015 attendance included 30,000 music, 33,000 interactive and 20,000 film participants). "'Twas the night before SXSW and all through this hotel lobby bar there are Interactive nerds drinking wine talking about Macs and Minecraft," tweeted The Daily Beast's @jenyamato.

SXSW attendees lined up around the block to get into fashion and lifestyle site Refinery29's opening night high-school-themed "The School of Self Expression" party, serving miniaturized high school snacks on molded cafeteria trays to guests including Kate Bosworth.

"SXSW is about youth and the future," eight-year SXSW veteran and Refinery29 cofounder Philippe von Borries told me. "It's forward looking, but it's a dude-centric world. SXSW events used to attract diehard geeks who love technology. It then became about big marketing events, as brands started coming in. That's blown up in the last few years. Now there’s a much larger female presence, more style, more creativity in the air."

Targeted to millennial women, Refinery29 lures 150 million visitors a month with content ranging from horoscopes to in-depth interviews with Hillary Clinton, pushed out via social platforms like Facebook and Instagram. "It's about self-expression and empowering women, bringing content from incredible female voices from around the world: style, fashion, beauty, global issues, health, wellness," said Von Borries.

And it may be companies like Refinery29 that will shape the future of SXSW. Video is driving Refinery29's next evolution; at Sundance, it announced the "Shatterbox Anthology," a 12-part series of shorts directed by women. Produced by Killer Films' Christine Vachon and Pam Koffler, it will debut this spring with "Kitty," the directing debut of actress Chloe Sevigne. And Von Borries is proud of Jill Soloway's darkly irreverent six-part comedy series "The Skinny," about a young woman with an eating disorder, which "goes to places other media companies are not going."

The King Vidor File - Part One

Peter Bogdanovich — Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:07:37 GMT

If I saw a movie more than once, I would add my reactions to each viewing. Turns out I watched thirty-nine King Vidor pictures in those years, seven of them twice, and of these I saw two of them three times. That means (figuring each film ran a couple of hours), I spent about 96 hours in the presence of King and his work, the most famous of these being such classics as The Big Parade (1925), The Champ (1931), Street Scene (1931), and Duel in the Sun (1946), among several others.

I was also fortunate enough to know King Vidor a little bit. We met and spoke on several occasions, and, in fact, while I was part of a short-lived Paramount entity, The Directors Company (in the 70s), I was going to help produce Vidor’s most cherished unrealized project: The Extra. It was actually the tragic true story of James Murray, an extra whom Vidor picked out to play the lead in King’s brilliantly powerful silent masterpiece, The Crowd (1928), one of the finest films ever made (see below). Murray was superb in the picture, but unfortunately succumbed to alcoholism and died young. King had loved Murray, and always wanted to tell his sad story. Unfortunately, our company fell apart before we could get to King’s movie and, sorry to say, it never got made.

What a lovely guy King Vidor was! Soft-spoken, friendly but reserved, with a kind of slightly dreamy quality, as though he were existing on a number of levels beyond the obvious one at that moment. He was very spiritual, too, I felt, seeing always more than what was on the surface of things. Quiet, gentle but firm, he was a great visual storyteller, and indeed his silent pictures are probably his best. He could do so much with simply his choice of angle and lens; he had started as a cameraman in newsreels, so he knew his craft. He also had a quite sensual streak, as can be seen in The Fountainhead (1949) or Ruby Gentry (1952) or, of course, Duel in the Sun. Jennifer Jones was genuinely very sexy in the last two, and there’s rarely been such heat between actors as there is between Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal in The Fountainhead. (In fact, it was the beginning of a torrid affair that just about destroyed Cooper’s marriage.)

King Vidor was truly a gentleman and a scholar, and they don’t make them like that anymore. And they don’t make pictures like the best of his anymore either.

The films below are listed in the order in which I saw them.

JAPANESE WAR BRIDE (1952; d: King Vidor).

1952: Poor- (What more can I say?)

Added 1965: Good (Vidor tells the story of an American family, whose son brings home a Japanese wife, with his usual eloquent touch, emphasizing especially the beauty of the rural life, the mechanics of farming, and well-capturing some of the reality of American farm life in a family and a small community. The flaws in the picture are an under-developed script, with a lack of dimension or originality, and, mainly, an inadequate cast, in particular Don Taylor as the son; though he looks the role, he is painfully unappealing. Shirley Yamaguchi is quite nice as the girl, and the supporting players are all right.)

DUEL IN THE SUN (1946; d: King Vidor; uncredited: Josef von Sternberg, William Dieterle, William Cameron Menzies, Chester Franklin; second-unit directors: Otto Brower, B. Reaves Eason; narrator: Orson Welles).

1954: (Huge, elaborately produced, greatly overblown melodramatic western saga about a self-destructive love-hate relationship between two passionate people. Overblown, but also rather effective.)

Added 1962: Excellent (A fantastic piece of work: stunningly color-photographed, superbly directed super-western, typically Vidor in its sensual qualities and its sense of the grotesque. Memorable, sometimes outrageous, but beautifully acted; an exciting, fascinating memorable achievement.)

MAN WITHOUT A STAR (1955; d: King Vidor).

1955: (Typical but quite exciting, full-blooded, rip-tooting western—marvelously overplayed by Kirk Douglas.)

Added 1966: Fair* (Minor, if consistently vigorous Vidor, about a gunman with an aversion to barbed wire and the youngster he befriends and educates; conventional plot-turns mar the work, but it has a certain dynamism despite it all.)

LA BOHEME (1926; d-p: King Vidor).

1958: Good* (Completely absorbing, superbly, sensitively acted, well-directed and photographed silent film about the Bohemian artistes of Paris in the early 19^th century, centering on the love between starving, genius-playwright Rodolphe and starving, self-sacrificing Mimi. A real, wringing tear-jerker, the movie has many exquisitely wrought moments, some comic ones, times of tenderness, taste, and talent. And the actors do not talk—their gestures do that, the camera does that—in the real, universal language of the cinema.)

HALLELUJAH! (1929; d: King Vidor).

1958: Excellent* (Vidor’s first sound film, with an all-Negro cast. Though it’s a white-man’s conception of the Negroes, and its story and songs have a Stephen Foster folksiness, the direction and use of sound is exceptional and tremendously inventive. Vidor is a major director and this is one of his major works.)

THE FOUNTAINHEAD (1949; d: King Vidor).

1959: Very good* (A personal, strikingly photographed and directed morality play about an architect who refuses to compromise—a switch really on some of the aspects of Vidor’s “The Citadel.” Effectively acted by Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, Raymond Massey; passionate, vigorous example of style over matter.)

Added 1968: (Often ludicrous material, but done with such strength and conviction that it is never ridiculous; the sexuality that was behind “Duel in the Sun” and “Ruby Gentry” runs through this as well, perhaps not quite as well. A director’s work, flawed by certain aspects of the script, but not in the handling.)

SOLOMON AND SHEBA (1959; d: King Vidor).

1959: (Perverse, violent, sexy and effective Biblical spectacle: typically expert Vidor technique; terribly acted, but superbly color-photographed, edited.)

Added 1964: Fair* (Not one of Vidor’s best nor most personal projects, but better than most spectacles, never as good as DeMille’s; it has several very good sequences, love-making among the reeds, the battle of the reflected sun, and a generally likable quality.)

THE SKY PILOT (1921; d: King Vidor).

1961: (Youthful, rather disjointed, but generally interesting early Vidor western about a priest; excellent photography, good idea, but decidedly dated.)

OUR DAILY BREAD (1934; d-p-w: King Vidor).

1962: (Personal, expertly photographed and edited story of a married city couple who move to the country and start a farm for unemployed workers during the Depression; brilliantly directed, memorable, thoroughly engrossing.)

Added 1968: Very good- (Not among Vidor’s really first-rate work, but damned fine nevertheless; the social-consciousness occasionally gets in the way, and the ideas are often simplistic, but the power of the narrative strength is undeniable, and the final irrigation sequence is magnificent.)

THE CROWD (1928; d-w: King Vidor).

1962: Exceptional (Realistic, but often stylized, modern and powerful silent drama about an average guy, his dreams of glory, his final realization that he is only part of the crowd. Beautifully, simply acted, but brilliantly directed and photographed. A masterpiece of technique, content, and personal cinema; bitter, vital, and as contemporary today as it was in 1928. Perhaps Vidor’s best silent picture, and one that greatly elevates him in my estimation.)

Added 2016: (This gets my highest rating: it is one of the truly great films ever made, and it wasn’t a hit. But it is extremely moving and easily translated into modern terms, which means it isn’t really dated at all. There are memorable shots throughout that tell the story visually, and the performances are simple and superb. They seem captured by accident rather than acted. If you want to convince someone of the glory of the silent era, show them “The Crowd,” made in the final extraordinary year of non-talking pictures. As Chaplin said: “Just when we got it right, it was over.”)

Orson Welles' Last Picture Show: Peter Bogdanovich on 'The Other Side of the Wind'

Peter Bogdanovich — Mon, 11 May 2015 12:38:17 GMT

There isn’t a single public appearance I’ve made over the last thirty years during which I wasn’t asked about Orson Welles’ “The Other Side of the Wind.” Every time, the people wanted to know if or when it would ever be released, and for many years, my answer generally was: "I think in a year or so.” Boy, was I ever wrong.

You see, back in the mid-70s, Welles was shooting what would turn out to be his last film, and during lunch one time, very casually, Orson said to me out of the blue: “Listen… If anything ever happens to me, I want you to promise me you’ll finish the picture.” I was shocked. “Orson, why would you say such a thing? Nothing’s going to happen to you.” He nodded. “I know, but if anything should happen to me, I want you to promise me that you’ll finish the picture.” I said, “Well, of course I would, but—“ He cut me off. “Alright, that’s fine. Now we can change the subject.”

Well, Orson passed away in 1985, and since then I have been trying to edit and finish "The Other Side of the Wind," as I promised him. He had shot everything he needed, but had edited only about 40 minutes, in no particular order. Eventually, after many years, in 1999, I finally got Showtime to agree to do it—over three regimes—yet legal hassles just wouldn’t let it happen.

During that period, I brought my old friend, Frank Marshall, into the story. Frank and I met when he was nineteen, and he worked with me on the first seven pictures I directed. Then, many years later, after he had become one of the top producers in Hollywood, we did two more. Frank had also worked with Orson in the 70s, as a kind of line-producer on “The Other Side of the Wind,” so it was an easy fit for Frank to come in and use his power to get this thing done finally. That was sixteen years ago, and Frank’s been on the case all that time.

Now, at long last, however, it really is happening. Frank, along with producer Filip Jan Rymsza, have secured all the necessary rights (an ordeal on its own) and enough money to get started. This amazing event was dealt with on the front page of The New York Times (just below the fold) at the end of October 2014. And shortly thereafter, Frank and Filip were approached by Indiegogo, “The Largest Global Crowdfunding and Fundraising Site Online,” with the suggestion that the remaining funds necessary to finish “The Other Side of the Wind” be raised through their organization.

All the rights holders agreed that it would be very interesting to finance the completion of the picture through the public. Everyone who knew Orson thought he would’ve loved the idea, and would’ve been amused and delighted by the irony of the whole situation. After years of film industry neglect in his home country, having only been able to make a dozen films over a period of forty-five years—now, thirty years after his death—the people are rallying to support him. And so, in Welles’ centennial year (he turned 100 on May 6^th, 2015), the world audience will make it possible to complete Orson’s last picture.

If you go to to this site , you will find the entire story of the financing of “The Other Side of the Wind,” and where it stands right this minute. There were 40 scheduled days to raise $2,000,000, and the clock is ticking. A good number of filmmakers are coming forward and endorsing this project: everybody from Clint Eastwood to Wes Anderson. Anyone who loves movies wants to see Orson Welles’ final work, and it looks like they soon will. Orson was right again. Not too long before he died, he said to me, “O how they’ll love me when I’m dead.”

READ MORE: Here's How You Can Help Finish Orson Welles' Final Film

The Jean Renoir File - Part 3

Peter Bogdanovich — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:58:21 GMT

And so we come to the end of my cards on the ineffable films of the great Jean Renoir which I saw 1952-1970 and noted in my movie file for those nineteen years. This includes some of my favorites among his work, and some of his finest, like The River, La Bete Humaine, Boudu Saved From Drowning, and La Chienne. But, as I think has been made clear, every Renoir picture is worth seeing. I believe I’m only missing one or two. By the way, on a number of the Criterion editions of Renoir films, there are video introductions by Renoir, or conversations with him, recorded for French TV. They really give you a terrific image of the man: his sense of humor, of irony, his wit and passion and eloquence, not to mention his vast knowledge. This most approachable of men, most encouraging to young artists—he was the patron saint of the French New Wave---was also the kindest human being. You can feel it throughout all of his pictures.

LA MARSEILLAISE (1938; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1969: Excellent- (Brilliantly conceived and executed panorama of the French Revolution, told through a series of not necessarily connected sequences with characters that do not always meet; with the rising popularity of the song, La Marseillaise, as a metaphor for the slow consolidation of the nation and the whole concept therein. Complex, but remarkably simple in essence, certainly the most human historical film ever made, filled with humor and honesty, with a technique able also to cope with the grand sweep of the times.)

Added 2015: I only saw this Renoir once, but its images and impact remain fresh and immediate, like the work itself. It is truly the most human of historical films, and also like a newsreel of the times, exceptionally convincing scenes of crowds or small groups, both naturalistic and slightly stylized. La Marseillaise is rarely listed among the great Renoir masterworks, but that is where it certainly belongs.

LA NUIT DU CARREFOUR (1932: d; Jean Renoir).

1969: Good* (Odd, heavily atmospheric, gloomy and almost abstract movie, based on a [Georges] Simenon novel about Inspector Maigret’s investigation of a murder at a village crossroads; fog-drenched, dark, ominous, with an indecipherable plot, and unlike any of Renoir’s other films; an oddity, but of interest in the development of the director’s career.)

THE RIVER (1951; d: Jean Renoir).

1969: Exceptional (A beautiful and deeply human story of a British family in India, and the growing up of one of its daughters, her love for an American, the death of a little brother — a story about the flow of life, the metaphor for which is the river. Magnificent color, remarkably natural performances that grow on you as real people do —you get to like them as you get to know them. Deeply personal to Renoir, and among his most sublimely lyric and evocative achievements; a film like no other.)

Added 2015: Almost universally acclaimed as one of the great color pictures, this is Renoir at his most sublime. All the (mostly) non-professional cast perform beautifully, combining to make a kind of visual poem of a place and time along the river of life. One of the most essential works in picture history.

LA BETE HUMAINE (THE HUMAN BEAST) (1938; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1969: Excellent- (Superbly directed and acted film of Zola’s novel about jealousy and insanity among railroad workers; remade by [Fritz] Lang as Human Desire, Renoir’s original has a classic quality and flawless performances; different from later, and more personal, Renoir films, in style and quality of photography; nonetheless brilliant, but not as likable really.)

Added 2015: I had occasion to see this a couple of times before doing a video introduction to the picture for Criterion’s terrific edition of this Renoir classic, and I came to rate it ever more highly. It is a masterful and profoundly touching tragedy in the guise of a film noir, a kind of thriller even, suspenseful and gripping, brilliantly acted by Jean Gabin, Simone Simon, et al. This remained the biggest commercial success in Renoir’s career, and you can see why. He plays by the rules of genre, to a point, but repeatedly bends the notes, like a great jazz player.

MADAME BOVARY (1934; d: Jean Renoir).

1969: Good* (Evocative, not entirely successful, but most interesting Renoir version of [Gustav] Flaubert’s novel; well acted, beautifully photographed, somewhat truncated by lack of funds, but a touching achievement nonetheless.)

BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING (BOUDU SAUVE DES EAUX) (1932; d: Jean Renoir).

1969: Exceptional (Michel Simon is magnificent as a bum whom a middle-class family adopts and tries unsuccessfully to tame; an ode to social irresponsibility and free spirits — hilariously funny, brilliantly conceived and executed — completely Renoir view of life and filled with compassion and humanity.)

Added 2015: After seeing this in 1969, I went to visit Renoir in Beverly Hills and asked him what he thought of Boudu; I had loved it. He said that it was early sound, and some of the recording was not very good; they had no money, he went on, so they had to get the film stock as they went along, and some of it didn’t match from scene to scene. The music, he said, was not well recorded either, and the cutting was sometimes too fast and sometimes too slow but, he concluded, “I think maybe it is my best picture!”

THE TESTAMENT OF DR. CORDELIER (LE TESTAMENT DU DOCTEUR CORDELIER) (1959; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1969: Very good- (Jean-Louis Barrault is brilliant in this modern Jekyll-Hyde story, about a famous doctor who is transformed into a monster; many little Renoir touches, and his pervasive personality, but the performance of Barrault as the evil, swinging, demented Hyde carries the movie.)

TIRE AU FLANC (1928; d: Jean Renoir).

1969: Good* (Funny, likable early Renoir comedy, set in a World War I POW camp — especially interesting in the light of such subsequent masterpieces as La Grande Illusion and Le Caporal Epingle. This is a minor work, but charming nonetheless.)

LA CHIENNE (1931; d: Jean Renoir).

1969: Exceptional* (Among Renoir’s greatest works — a light and deeply human comedy-tragedy about a clerk whose hobby is painting, and a streetwalker and her pimp-lover who take advantage of him — until he has the ironic last laugh. Remade as Scarlet Street by Fritz Lang, this has none of the latter’s nightmarish qualities, but is, in fact, a humanist poem —a work of profundity and infinite simplicity. The acting is superb, in particular by Michel Simon, and Renoir’s direction has never had such grace and economy and wit; his handling of the murder is among the great silent sequences in cinema.)

April 2015 Film Preview

Tory Kamen and Becca Rose — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:00:00 GMT

Summer blockbuster season is just around the corner, but there's no need to wait until then to see a great movie. April brings us a wide variety of women-centric projects, as well as quite a few films helmed and/or written by women.

The month starts off with "Woman in Gold," starring Helen Mirren as a Jewish woman on a journey to recover her family's heirlooms, which was stolen by the Nazis. It's based on a true story, and Mirren roots the film with her powerful presence. "Closer to the Moon" is another WWII-era drama set for an April release, this one based on the crime capers of a group of Jewish resistance fighters a few years after the end of the war. "Marie's Story" is another period piece, centering around the efforts of a 19th-century nun to help a girl born blind and deaf.

There are a few more women-focused dramas being released in April, including the much-buzzed "Clouds of Sils Maria," which garnered Kristen Stewart the prestigious Cesar Award for supporting actress. Stewart has made waves for being the first American actress to win the French award, and the film looks to capitalize on that with its American release. “Félix & Meira" is another award-winner coming out this month. The Best Canadian Feature from the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival aims to make its mark with the story of an unconventional and radical love affair, one that reaches across racial and religious lines. "About Elly" also confronts cultural biases with its depiction of Iran's upper middle class.

"Effie Gray" tackles the sexual politics of the Victorian era, and with a screenplay from Emma Thompson, it's sure to be intriguing as well as quick-witted. Speaking of intriguing, "The Age of Adaline" follows a woman who mysteriously stopped aging eight decades ago. Blake Lively centers the film as Adaline, struggling with love and trust and all the other things that might follow when one lives seemingly forever.

Courteney Cox makes her big-screen directorial debut (the actress has previously directed episodes of "Cougar Town," which she stars in) with "Just Before I Go," and screenwiter Gren Wells makes hers as well with "The Road Within." Director Mia Hansen-Løve ("Goodbye First Love") directs Greta Gerwig in "Eden," a look at the rise of French electronic music in the 90s.

The month will also see the release of a few very different documentaries. "The Hand That Feeds" focuses on undocumented immigrants struggling to form an independent union, while "Iris" follows 93-year-old Iris Apfel, a flamboyant New York City fashion icon. "Antarctic Edge: 70° South" is focused on the changing climate of the Antarctic's Peninsula and was made with the collaboration of Rutgers University students and scientists.

We'll also see comedic projects featuring Mary Elizabeth Winstead ("Alex of Venice") and Rose Byrne ("Adult Beginners"). Nia Vardalos returns to the screen with a role in "Helicopter Mom," which promises an outrageous performance from the "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" star. "Sweet Lorraine" and "Farah Goes Bang" round out the women-centric comedy offerings of the month.

Here are all the women-centric films opening in the month of April. All descriptions are from press materials unless otherwise noted.

April 1

Woman in Gold

"Woman in Gold" is the remarkable true story of one woman’s journey to reclaim her heritage and seek justice for what happened to her family. Sixty years after she fled Vienna during World War II, an elderly Jewish woman, Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren), starts her journey to retrieve family possessions seized by the Nazis, among them Klimt’s famous painting "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I." Together with her inexperienced but plucky young lawyer Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds), she embarks upon a major battle, which takes them all the way to the heart of the Austrian establishment and the U.S. Supreme Court, and forces her to confront difficult truths about the past along the way.

April 3

The Hand That Feeds (doc) - Co-Written and Co-Directed by Rachel Lears

At a popular bakery café, residents of New York’s Upper East Side get bagels and coffee served with a smile 24 hours a day. But behind the scenes, undocumented immigrant workers face sub-legal wages, dangerous machinery, and abusive managers who will fire them for calling in sick. Mild-mannered sandwich maker Mahoma López has never been interested in politics, but in January 2012 he convinces a small group of his co-workers to fight back.

Risking deportation and the loss of their livelihood, the workers team up with a diverse crew of innovative young organizers and take the unusual step of forming their own independent union, launching themselves on a journey that will test the limits of their resolve. In one roller-coaster year, they must overcome a shocking betrayal and a two-month lockout. Lawyers will battle in back rooms, Occupy Wall Street protesters will take over the restaurant, and a picket line will divide the neighborhood. If they can win a contract, it will set a historic precedent for low-wage workers across the country. But whatever happens, Mahoma and his coworkers will never be exploited again.

Effie Gray - Written by Emma Thompson

In her original screenplay “Effie Gray,” Emma Thompson takes a bold look at the real-life story of the Effie Gray-John Ruskin marriage, while courageously exposing what was truly hiding behind the veil of their public life. Set in a time when neither divorce nor gay marriage were an option, “Effie Gray” is the story of a young woman (Dakota Fanning) coming of age and finding her own voice in a world where women were expected to be seen but not heard. “Effie Gray” explores the roots of sexual intolerance, which continue to have a stronghold today, while shedding light on the marital politics of the Victorian era.

April 8

About Elly

As with director Asghar Farhadi's better-known films, “About Elly” concerns the affluent, well-educated, cultured, and only marginally religious members of Iran's upper-middle class. Elly (Taraneh Alidoosti), a pretty young woman invited as a possible romantic interest for one of the newly single men among this group, disappears suddenly without a trace. The festive atmosphere quickly turns frantic as friends accuse one another of responsibility. Plot-wise, Farhadi's drama has been compared to “L’Avventura”; but the film is less concerned with Elly's disappearance per se than with exploring the intricate mechanisms of deceit, brutality, and betrayal which come into play when ordinary circumstances take a tragic turn.

April 10

Clouds of Sils Maria

At the peak of her international career, Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche) is asked to perform in a revival of the play that made her famous twenty years ago. But back then, she played the role of Sigrid, an alluring young girl who disarms and eventually drives her boss Helena to suicide. Now she is being asked to step into the other role, that of the older Helena. She departs with her assistant (Kristen Stewart) to rehearse in Sils Maria; a remote region of the Alps. A young Hollywood starlet with a penchant for scandal (Chloë Grace Moretz) is to take on the role of Sigrid, and Maria finds herself on the other side of the mirror, face to face with an ambiguously charming woman who is, in essence, an unsettling reflection of herself.

The Sisterhood of Night - Directed by Caryn Waechter and Written by Marilyn Fu

Based on the short story by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Steven Millhauser, "The Sisterhood of Night" is a story of friendship and loyalty set against the backdrop of a modern-day Salem witch trial. Shot on location in Kingston, NY, the film chronicles a group of girls who have slipped out of the world of social media into a mysterious world deep in the woods. The tale begins when Emily Parris (Kara Hayward) exposes a secret society of teenage girls. Accusing them of committing sexually deviant acts, Emily’s allegations throw their small American town into the national media spotlight. The mystery deepens when each of the accused takes a vow of silence. What follows is a chronicle of three girls’ unique and provocative alternative to the loneliness of adolescence, revealing the tragedy and humor of teenage years changed forever by the Internet age.

Farah Goes Bang - Directed by Meera Menon, Written by Laura Goode and Meera Menon

A road-trip comedy that centers on Farah (Nikohl Boosheri), a twenty-something woman who tries to lose her virginity while campaigning for John Kerry in 2004. Farah and her friends K.J. and Roopa follow the campaign trail to Ohio, seizing this charged moment in their lives and the life of their country.

April 17

Closer to the Moon

Set in 1959 Bucharest, “Closer to the Moon” opens as the crime is hatched and executed by old friends from the WWII Jewish Resistance, who seek to recapture the excitement of their glory days. Led by a chief police inspector (Mark Strong) and a political academic (Vera Farmiga), the quintet also includes a respected history professor (Christian McKay), a hotshot reporter (Joe Armstrong), and a space scientist (Tim Plester). Their postwar influence fading amid an ongoing Stalinist purge of Jews and intellectuals, the disillusioned gang retaliates by hijacking a van delivering cash to the Romanian National Bank, staging the robbery to make it look like a movie shoot. Caught and convicted in a kangaroo court, the culprits, with help from an eyewitness (Harry Lloyd) to the robbery, are forced to reenact their crime in a devious anti-Semitic propaganda film.

Felix & Meira

Winner of Best Canadian Feature at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival, “Félix & Meira” is the story of an unconventional romance between two people living vastly different realities mere blocks away from one another. Each lost in their everyday lives, Meira (Hadas Yaron), a Hasidic Jewish wife and mother, and Félix (Martin Dubreuil), a Secular loner mourning the recent death of his estranged father, unexpectedly meet in a local bakery in Montreal's Mile End district. What starts as an innocent friendship becomes more serious as the two wayward strangers find comfort in one another. As Felix opens Meira's eyes to the world outside of her tight-knit Orthodox community, her desire for change becomes harder for her to ignore, ultimately forcing her to choose: remain in the life that she knows or give it all up to be with Félix.

Alex of Venice - Co-Written by Jessica Goldberg and Katie Nehra

In “Alex of Venice,” workaholic environmental attorney Alex Vedder (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is forced to reinvent herself after her husband (Chris Messina) suddenly leaves the family. Dealing with an aging father (Don Johnson) who still aspires to succeed as an actor, an eccentric sister (Katie Nehra), and an extremely shy son (Skylar Gaertner), Alex is bombarded with everything from the mundane to hilariously catastrophic events without a shoulder to lean on. Realizing she will thrive with or without her husband, Alex discovers her hidden vulnerability as well as her inner strength as she fights to keep her family intact in the midst of the most demanding and important case of her career.

Cas & Dylan - Written by Jessie Gabe

When 61-year-old self-proclaimed loner and terminally ill Dr. Cas Pepper (Richard Dreyfuss) reluctantly agrees to give 22-year-old social misfit Dyland Morgan (Tatiana Maslany) a very short lift home, the last thing he anticipates is that he will strike her angry boyfriend with his car, find himself on the lam, and ultimately drive across the country with an aspiring young writer determined to help him overcome his own bizarre case of suicide-note writer's block. But as fate would have it, that is exactly what happens. Suddenly Cas's solo one-way trip out West isn't so solo. With Dylan at his side, the two take off on an adventure that will open their eyes to some of life's lessons -- both big and small.

Antarctic Edge: 70° South (doc) - Directed by Dena Seidel

Dena Seidel’s documentary not only offers rare, beautifully shot footage of West Antarctic Pennisula's rapidly changing environment, studying the connections that reveal the concrete impact of climate change; it is also a one-of-a-kind collaboration between the Rutgers University Film Bureau and the Rutgers Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences and contains interviews and insights from some of the world’s leading ocean researchers. It is a fascinating look at their life’s work trying to understand how to maintain our planet.

The Road Within - Written and Directed by Gren Wells

Vincent (Robert Sheehan), a young man with Tourette's syndrome, faces drastic changes after his mother dies. Because his politician father is too ashamed of the disorder to have Vincent accompany him on the campaign, Vincent is shuttled off to an unconventional clinic. There he finds unexpected community with an obsessive-compulsive roommate and an anorexic young woman, and romance eventually -- and uneasily -- follows.

One of Variety's "10 Directors to Watch," screenwriter Gren Wells makes her directorial debut with this ambitious yet light-hearted coming-of-age tale about the potent medicine we all carry within ourselves. The film is packed with a talented ensemble, from emerging talents Zoë Kravitz, Dev Patel, and Sheehan to beloved veterans Kyra Sedgwick and Robert Patrick.

April 23

Sweet Lorraine

The double life of a Methodist minister's wife (played by Tatum O'Neal) catches up to her, as her husband campaigns for mayor in a small New Jersey town.

April 24

Just Before I Go - Directed by Courtney Cox

Ted Morgan (Seann William Scott) has been treading water for most of his life. After his wife leaves him, Ted realizes he has nothing left to live for. Summoning the courage for one last act, Ted decides to go home and face the people he feels are responsible for creating the shell of a person he has become. But life is tricky. The more determined Ted is to confront his demons, to get closure, and to withdraw from his family, the more Ted is yanked into the chaos of their lives. So, when Ted Morgan decides to kill himself, he finds a reason to live.

The Age of Adaline

After miraculously remaining 29-years-old for almost eight decades, Adaline Bowman (Blake Lively) has lived a solitary existence, never allowing herself to get close to anyone who might reveal her secret. But a chance encounter with charismatic philanthropist Ellis Jones (Michiel Huisman) reignites her passion for life and romance. When a weekend with his parents (Harrison Ford and Kathy Baker) threatens to uncover the truth, Adaline makes a decision that will change her life forever.

Adult Beginners - Co-Written by Liz Flahive (Simultaneously releasing to VOD)

A young, hipster entrepreneur (Nick Kroll) crashes and burns on the eve of his company’s big launch. With his entire life in disarray, he leaves Manhattan to move in with his estranged pregnant sister (Rose Byrne), brother-in-law (Bobby Cannavale), and three-year-old nephew in the suburbs – only to become their manny. Faced with real responsibility, he may finally have to grow up – but not without some bad behavior first.

Eden - Directed and Co-Written by Mia Hansen-Løve

The film follows the life of a French DJ who's credited with inventing "French house" or the "French touch," a type of French electronic music that became popular in the 1990s. Greta Gerwig costars. (IMDB)

24 Days - Co-Written by Emilie Frèche

January 20, 2006: After dinner with his family, Ilan Halimi (Syrus Shahidi) gets a call from a beautiful girl who had approached him at work and makes plans to meet her for coffee. Ilan didn't suspect a thing. He was 23 and had his whole life ahead of him. The next time Ilan's family heard from him was through a cryptic online message from kidnappers demanding a ransom in exchange for their son's life. (IMDB)

Helicopter Mom - Directed by Salomé Breziner

An overbearing mom (Nia Vardalos) decides that college would be more affordable if her son were to win an LGBT scholarship, so she outs him to his entire high school. However, he might not be gay. (Rotten Tomatoes)

April 29

Iris (doc) (Opening in New York City)

"Iris" pairs legendary 87-year-old documentarian Albert Maysles with Iris Apfel, the quick-witted, flamboyantly dressed 93-year-old style maven who has had an outsized presence on the New York fashion scene for decades. More than a fashion film, the documentary is a story about creativity and how, even in Iris' dotage, a soaring free spirit continues to inspire. "Iris" portrays a singular woman whose enthusiasm for fashion, art, and people are life's sustenance and reminds us that dressing, and indeed life, is nothing but an experiment. Despite the abundance of glamour in her current life, she continues to embrace the values and work ethic established during a middle-class Queens upbringing during the Great Depression.

April 30

Marie’s Story

At the turn of the 19th century, a humble artisan and his wife have a daughter, Marie (Ariana Rivoire), who is born deaf and blind and unable to communicate with the world around her. Desperate to find a connection to their daughter and avoid sending her to an asylum, the Heurtins send fourteen-year-old Marie to the Larnay Institute in central France, where an order of Catholic nuns manage a school for deaf girls. There, the idealistic Sister Marguerite (Isabelle Carré) sees in Marie a unique potential, and despite her Mother Superior's (Brigitte Catillon) skepticism, vows to bring the wild young thing out of the darkness into which she was born. Based on true events, “Marie's Story” recounts the courageous journey of a young nun and the lives she would change forever, confronting failures and discouragement with joyous faith and love. (Film Movement)

The Jean Renoir File - Part 2

Peter Bogdanovich — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:08:04 GMT

We continue with the films of Jean Renoir which I saw 1952-1970 and noted in my movie card-file for those years. You may note that the first four films were all made in America and shot in English, because Renoir lived in Beverly Hills from 1940 until his death, having been extremely hurt by the rude and violently oppressive reaction in his native France to his 1939 masterpiece, The Rules of the Game (see Part 1). This only proves that we in the USA do not have a monopoly on insensitivity to genius. Renoir, the youngest son of the great French Impressionist painter, was a beautiful, saintly man, filled with humor and wisdom. To be in his presence was a privilege. He was Orson Welles’ favorite director, yet Orson was convinced that Renoir didn’t like his work at all, which turned out to be absolutely untrue. Renoir admired Welles’ pictures; critic Todd McCarthy told me of spending several days with Jean watching Orson’s films with tremendous enthusiasm and admiration. And Renoir always spoke fondly of Welles to me. But OW would just shake his head, choosing not to believe any of that. When Renoir died in 1979, Welles wrote a long piece in the Los Angeles Times titled “The Greatest of All Directors”. If you're interested in reading what he wrote, here's the link.

THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1946; d: Jean Renoir).

1961: Excellent* (Brilliantly acted, written and directed tragi-comedy about a chambermaid and a family of French aristocrats who live in the past, refusing to celebrate [the Revolutionary’s] Bastille Day; among Renoir’s most personal, beautifully realized achievements, a masterpiece of mood, period atmosphere; deeply felt and perhaps on a level with Renoir’s best, “The Rules of the Game.”)

Added 1967: (A lovely film, far superior to [Luis] Bunuel’s version, and, if not as great as some of Renoir’s French works, it is still a masterpiece.)

SWAMP WATER (1941; d: Jean Renoir).

1962: Very good* (Walter Brennan, Anne Baxter, Dana Andrews, Walter Huston in a beautiful, affecting, and excellently done drama set in the Florida swamps; superbly photographed, and thoroughly convincing.)

Added 2015: The rating is low, considering how vivid so much of this picture remains. It was Renoir’s first in English, but this doesn’t show for a minute. It is eloquent visually, with very good performances from a top cast. Renoir had wanted to shoot the whole film on location in the Florida swamps but Fox head Darryl Zanuck would have none of that: interiors back in Hollywood. Despite this conceptual drawback, Renoir triumphs with his seeming simplicity.

THE WOMAN ON THE BEACH (1947; d: Jean Renoir).

1962: Excellent- (Fascinating, evocative, strangely lyric Renoir film about a marine (Robert Ryan), his attraction to a married woman (Joan Bennett), his obsession with her blind husband (Charles Bickford) who is not really blind. Nightmarish, expertly directed, acted, provocatively written; a weird and intriguing picture.

THE SOUTHERNER (1945; d: Jean Renoir).

1962: Excellent (Quiet, simple, profoundly human story of a Southern farmer, his wife, his two children, their grandmother, their friends and enemies. Directed and written with grace, understanding, and sympathy: Renoir has a personal style totally his own and it is amazing to see a Frenchman so easily and unpretentiously treat the American “peasant”. His technique in this picture is particularly effective and evocative and his images cling to the imagination. He is a great director.)

LE CAPORAL EPINGLE (THE ELUSIVE CORPORAL) (1961; d: Jean Renoir).

1963: Very good (Touching, also often hilarious tragicomedy about a few French soldiers in a German stalag during World War II, and one corporal’s incorrigible attempts to escape; excellently acted, sometimes elliptically written and directed; but deeply personal, completely and unmistakably Renoir in its gentle compassion, humanistic viewpoint, melancholy attitudes.)

Added 1966: (Perhaps not entirely successful in its achievement, but more interesting in conception and even in its defects, than most films more formally controlled.)

LE CRIME DE MONSIEUR LANGE (THE CRIME OF MR. LANGE)
(1936; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1964: Excellent (Beautifully written and directed, eloquently played tragi-comedy about a publishing firm, its devilish owner, and a young man who has never been to Arizona, but creates a fictional hero, “Arizona Jim”, to great popular appeal. Typically Renoiresque in outlook, deeply human, loving, tender, keenly observed. An early and youthful masterpiece.)

Added 1969: (Marvelously zestful and filled with compassion, love and a deep understanding of people.)

Added 2015: In 1936, with Mussolini and Hitler already in power, Renoir makes a movie that is essentially about an excusable homicide. The owner of the publishing firm is clearly a worthless, obnoxious, fascist pig, and Monsieur Lange (pronounced in France with a soft G, so that the name sounds like “l’ange,” French for “angel.” It’s “The Crime of Mr. Angel,” an important nuance that’s lost in translation, because the man he kills didn’t deserve to live. This particular picture had a big impact on the French New Wave, who always referred to Renoir as their spiritual father.

PARIS DOES STRANGE THINGS (ELENA ET LES HOMMES)
(1956; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1967: (A disturbingly cut Renoir love story — dubbed badly and therefore difficult to evaluate; beautiful costumes and period flavor, some indifferent acting, certainly recognizable Renoir personality, but requiring another viewing.)

Added 1967: Very good (Gentle, witty, often very funny period romance —whose mood and intelligence is sustained by Renoir’s instinctive knowledge of people as well as his love for them; beautiful color, decor, a marvelous style and irreverence. Not among Renoir’s most entirely satisfying works, but a delightful one nonetheless, and certainly entirely personal.)

NANA (1926; d: Jean Renoir).

1968: Good (Renoir’s second or third film, but the first that he considers a Renoir movie: an uneven version of the Zola, with some wonderful period touches and a fine sense of atmosphere; not in any way an accomplished work, but one of talent, imagination and interest. The cancan scenes are the most distinctively his, as well as the sequences in the theatre.)

TONI (1935; d: Jean Renoir).

1969: Very good* (Beautifully directed and conceived Renoir story about an Italian in France and his tragic love for a woman who is not his, and for whom he gives his life at the end. Simple, magnificently acted and photographed; perhaps not as personal as the more recent Renoir films, but unquestionably a lovely and moving work.)

The Jean Renoir File - Part 1

Peter Bogdanovich — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:28:51 GMT

Jean Renoir is not only my favorite picturemaker, I fervently believe he is the greatest director the West has produced. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If I want to reassure myself that the movies have the power to produce a work of art on the level of a symphony by Mozart, or a painting by Turner or Rembrandt, or a novel by Dostoevsky or Dickens, I run a Renoir film, and breathe a sign of relief: yes, it can happen. You never catch him “directing,” he is never obvious, yet the style is so simple and sophisticated both at once that it’s difficult to describe. His pictures just seem to happen, like life. He never made a bad one, either: some are better than others, but each of them is a unique treasure to be savored like fine wine, and returned to frequently, because they just seem to keep getting better. I was fortunate enough to know Renoir over the last fourteen years of his life, and there was something saintly about him, and extraordinarily sensitive and wise. And he could be funny too, filled with irony and warmth. It was impossible not to love him, and to know that when you were in his company you were at the best place in the world.

In 2008, The New York Observer ran a long article I did about Renoir, called “The Best Director, Ever.” If you are interested in reading this, click here.

The following are the Renoir pictures I saw between 1952 and 1970, during which time I kept a card-file of all the movies I saw, rating them and writing a brief comment.

THE GOLDEN COACH (LE CARROSSE D’OR) (1953; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1958: (Except for the wonderful Anna Magnani and the exquisite settings, costumes and color photography, there is not really much to speak about in this rather tedious tale of an 18th century Italian acting troupe in Latin America.)

Added 2015: François Truffaut loved this film so much that he named his production company after it: “Les Films du Carrosse.” And I have tried to like it more, at least twice since the 1958 comment, and I do, actually. Nevertheless, it is a Renoir film that I do not return to often. I think the problem is mainly to do with the fact that it was shot in English and that neither Magnani nor Renoir were as conversant with the language as they were with, say, French or Italian. So there’s a stilted quality to the playing which bothers me. It is beautifully directed, however, and costumed and set, and the pace and story are good. I should probably try to see the Italian-language version.

FRENCH CANCAN (ONLY THE FRENCH CAN) (1954; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1958: Excellent* (Jean Renoir has exquisitely recreated the leg-swinging, lilting, flamboyant showmanship of the Moulin Rouge era, and his picture has all the dash, color, sadness, gaiety and romance of a painting by his father; a true delight and a masterpiece.)

Added 2015: The rating now would be: Exceptional* and this has become one of my ten favorite films of all time. It is the most brilliant evocation of the difference between show business people and the rest of the world, the civilians, as we call them. It is a bedroom comedy, a piece of history, a love story, and most particularly, a kind of Renoir love letter to the art of entertainment. Jean Gabin and Francoise Arnoul are brilliant in the leads, and the whole thing looks like a Renoir painting come to life. As a portrait of the Belle Époque, it is unsurpassed. As a realistic look at show business mores and manners, it is very knowing, clothed in the guise of a musical comedy. The picture’s overriding message is that “there’s a reason animals in the jungle stick to their own, lambs do not lie down with lions, on pain of death.” It’s the same way between show business people and the rest of the world. Also, just for the record, the final lengthy cancan sequence is possibly the most moving and exuberantly beautiful dance number in the history of movies.

THE LOWER DEPTHS (LES BAS-FONDS) (1936; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1959: Good* (Interesting version of Gorki’s drama; static, but very well acted and certainly personal in direction. Requires further viewings for better evaluation.)

Added 2015: The rating today, after seeing this film again early in the 21st century would be: Exceptional*. It is an absolutely brilliantly acted drama—at least two extraordinary performances from Jean Gabin and Louis Jouvet. Since its basis is Maxim Gorki’s play, the picture has been criticized as not being Russian enough. On the contrary, Renoir has only illuminated the play’s universality by making it not only comfortable in French, but deeply moving. Actually, it’s a great film.

LA GRANDE ILLUSION (GRAND ILLUSION) (1937; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1959: (Classic Renoir film — a deeply humanist statement set during World War I — brilliantly played by Erich von Stroheim, Pierre Fresnay, Jean Gabin, Marcel Dalio; beautifully written, directed, photographed.)

Added 1969: Exceptional* (The above is lip-service, but this time around I realized the greatness of this genuine masterpiece — definitely among Renoir’s greatest movies — a profound and moving affirmation of life amidst death and chaos. Magnificent performances and a directorial touch that borders on spirituality.)

Added 2015: Orson Welles used to say that if he could only take one film to a desert island, it would be Grand Illusion. And Renoir was Welles’ favorite director. This one picture would be enough to place its director on the highest level of achievement in the medium. It is not just a film about a group of French POWs in a German Camp during World War I, it is an evocation of the end of an era, the end of the European aristocracy. There is so much that is magical about this movie that it is hard to be succinct, but suffice to say that if you haven’t seen it, you haven’t seen one of the great works of art of the 20th century.

THE LITTLE MATCH GIRL (LA PETITE MARCHANDE D’ALLUMETTES) (1928; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1960: (Quaint, stylish, but dated silent film version of the well-known Andersen fairy tale of the sad plight of a little match girl.)

Added 2015: I haven’t seen this film again, but I remember images from it, so it’s probably better than I said it was. It’s an early Renoir experiment in combining realism with fantasy.

PICNIC ON THE GRASS (LE DEJEUNER SUR L’HERBE)
(1959; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1960: Very good* (Exhilarating, delightful, beautifully color photographed, directed, written and played comedy-fantasy about an affair between a famous biologist who, on a platform of artificial insemination, is to be elected President of Europe, and a lovely farm girl who symbolizes the freedom of nature. Filled with Renoir’s inspiring sense of humanity and depth of life.)

Added 1966: (A truly delightful work, completely personal, timeless and universal in its meaning; among Renoir’s most abandoned works.)

Added 2015: I’d definitely change the rating to Excellent* today. A really charming picture.

THE RULES OF THE GAME (LA REGLE DU JEU) (1939; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1960: Exceptional* (One of the great films: a superbly acted, brilliantly directed and written tragi-comic allegory of the fall of the French upper-middle class before World War II. About the farcical, then tragic, goings-on among a group of people in a chateau for a fortnight of hunting and revelry. Among Renoir’s most perfect achievements — in which he also plays very personable a leading role — moving, often deeply melancholy, as often richly satiric and devastatingly pungent.)

Added 1966: (A masterpiece, beautifully photographed, filled with an overwhelming compassion for the human comedy.)

Added 2015: This is also one of my ten most favorite films. An extraordinary combination of comedy and tragedy that was so despised in its native land on its original release, that Renoir left France and never lived there again. I met him in Beverly Hills in the 60s. And he would return to France for a visit or to shoot a picture, but he would always come back to LA. The picture is now considered a great French classic, after the New Wave revived the work at the end of the 50s. It’s just the most.

A DAY IN THE COUNTRY (UNE PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE)
(1936; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1961: Exceptional (Tender, sad, melancholy, deeply moving vignette — actually an unfinished film — based on a Maupassant story about an idyllic love that dies as quickly as it begins one summer afternoon in the country. Superbly photographed, directed, played: a small masterpiece of mood and feeling, filled with humor and humanity, depth of character and a personal and beautifully evoked atmosphere of loss.)

Added 1966: (As good as anything Renoir has ever made; honest, lyric and achingly true; a lovely film.)

Added 2015: This is the greatest short film ever made. It was supposed to be a half hour longer, but they ran out of money and then eventually Renoir decided he had enough to make a short film out of it, and it was released in the 50s. The picture is the most touching illustration of the loss of innocence in movie history. It’s like a beautiful poem. Renoir has a small part and he’s delightful as ever.

THIS LAND IS MINE (1943; d-s: Jean Renoir).

1961: Very good* (Charles Laughton is superb in this fine Renoir film about a cowardly schoolteacher in a French town occupied by the Nazis, and his final act of heroism. Done with style, wit, and depth; a touching, beautiful piece of work.)

Added 2015: Its rating should probably be Excellent*. One of Renoir’s handful of Hollywood films, with Laughton at his best, and with lovely Maureen O’Hara as well. Since Renoir made only a few pictures in America, each one is all the more precious.

The Vincente Minnelli File - Part 3

Peter Bogdanovich — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:02:58 GMT

And so we come to the end of the Minnelli File, all the pictures of his that I saw 1952-1970, and made comments on for my movie card-file of every film I saw in that formative 19-year period. One of my favorites is here: The Clock with Judy Garland and Robert Walker, both at their most innocent and charming, a fragile love story handled with great sensitivity by Minnelli at his best. Vincente’s most memorable work was made in the 40s & 50s; some of the 60s projects were ill-advised though almost always at least interesting. But a career that embraces Meet Me in St. Louis, The Bad and the Beautiful, Father of the Bride, The Band Wagon, An American in Paris, Some Came Running, The Clock, and others, can most assuredly be called both extremely versatile and extremely valuable.

YOLANDA AND THE THIEF (1945; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1964: Fair* (An overly whimsical plot about a pretty heiress in a mythical Bemelmans’ country and the American crook, who convinces her he is her guardian angel in order to fleece her, is enlivened by Minnelli’s superb styling and sense of grace and color. Fred Astaire is all right in a part much more suited to Gene Kelly, and Lucille Bremmer is totally wrong in a Judy Garland part if there ever was one. The picture has its moments and Frank Morgan and Mildred Natwick are delightful; one of Minnelli’s silliest assignments, it nevertheless bears his urbane point of view and striking use of the camera.)

THE CLOCK (1945; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1964: Excellent (Robert Walker and Judy Garland are both simply magnificent in this beautifully directed and written story about a soldier’s 48-hour leave in New York, the girl he meets by accident, falls in love with, loses in a crowd, and then marries. Done with exquisite taste and extreme sensitivity, never maudlin and always honest and believable, this is among Minnelli’s finest pictures: a stylistic masterpiece of mood, feelings, atmosphere, subtlety. Altogether a touching and deeply moving, hilarious and lovely experience.)

CABIN IN THE SKY (1943; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1964: Very good (Minnelli’s first film, and immediately recognizable of his personality and style: a charming musical fantasy with an all-Negro cast, about the struggle between Heaven and Hell for the soul of a gambling no-account who has the love of a good woman. Beautifully acted and sung by Ethel Waters, with fine support from Eddie Anderson, John Bubbles, Rex Ingram, Lena Horne; strikingly photographed, set and costumes — filled with evocative Minnelli touches.)

GOODBYE CHARLIE (1964; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1964: Excellent- (Thoroughly delightful, strikingly directed, very will played comedy-fantasy about a Don Juan who is murdered by the husband of one of his conquests, only to return as a woman. Debbie Reynolds, Tony Curtis, Pat Boone and Walter Matthau are all particularly good, and Minnelli’s interior and exterior decoration, his camera movement, pacing and sense of the absurd seems to get sharper with every film. This is one of his funniest and most sophisticated, a musical without music.)

Added 1966: (Disappointing this time: the material pretty thin, and Reynolds inadequate. But it’s still beautiful to look at, and Matthau is magnificent.)

FATHER’S LITTLE DIVIDEND (1951; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1965: Very good (Entertaining, delightful and excellently directed, written and played sequel to Minnelli’s Father of the Bride — the same characters, only this time the daughter is having a baby. Spencer Tracy is superb again, and Minnelli’s amused, tasteful handling keeps the material from becoming maudlin or mawkish or sickeningly wholesome — like Rodgers and Hammerstein. On the contrary, it has an urbane, witty viewpoint, and a particularly keen observation of Americana, its sound and qualities. A truly charming movie.)

THE SANDPIPER (1965; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1965: Fair- (A ludicrous script, ineptly, uninterestingly acted by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and only infrequently redeemed by the stylish color and decor of Minnelli’s touch. One or two scenes are effectively done, especially a fight in a car between Burton and wife Eva Marie Saint, but for the most part Minnelli’s attempts fail because of the hopelessness of this producer-inspired vehicle, obviously doomed from its inception. The story is simply a cleaned-up, up-dated version of Rain, and all the characters are patently uninteresting or unsympathetic; altogether a dismal and disappointing failure.)

THE LONG, LONG TRAILER (1954; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1965: Very good (Uproariously funny situation comedy about a couple’s disastrous honeymoon in a king-size trailer: delightfully played by Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez, cleverly written, and honestly, inventively directed. Minnelli’s pacing is bright and fast, but he never sacrifices his characters for the sake of a gag — everything is painfully real and therefore painfully funny — though some scenes are so close to the truth that they are only devastating. A thoroughly enjoyable movie, perhaps not as personal as some others, but among Minnelli’s most accurate and amusing looks at the American scene.)

MADAME BOVARY (1949; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1965: Fair* (Flaubert’s novel is better: the plot has been softened and so have the characters, and there is an annoying trace of condescension in the script. But Minnelli’s atmosphere, decor, sense of style saves the film in many ways, and the actors are generally quite good. Not one of Minnelli’s best projects, far better suited really to Cukor, but respectably done, and compelling for the most part.)

THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE (1962; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1966: Very good (Staggeringly designed, truly magnificent in its visual conception and execution, this Minnelli is all in how it looks rather than in its speeches or its players, almost all of whom leave quite a bit to be desired — and Glenn Ford leaves everything. But the tale of a man who tries to be neutral in a world that is breaking into pieces for the Second World War is quite eloquently told in Minnelli’s decor, his colors and costumes, in all its externals, that it little matters the weakness of the internal qualities; it remains a fascinating achievement.)

KISMET (1955; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1967: Fair- (Not one of Minnelli’s best projects, with an especially poor cast, but his decoration does not falter despite the script and the actors; still diverting, though it is among the weakest of musicals.)

The Vincent Minnelli File - Part 2

Peter Bogdanovich — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 02:39:31 GMT

Onward we go through the films Vincente Minnelli directed that are rated and commented on in my 1952-1970 card file of movies I saw in that period. As I indicated in Part 1, Minnelli’s good pictures seem to get better as the years pass. Look at the first and third entries below as examples.

BELLS ARE RINGING (1960; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1960: (Some nice slick direction and a brilliant performance by Judy Holliday is about all there is to commend in this elaborate, pleasant musical comedy about a girl who works for an answering service, and the lives of the people she affects; Dean Martin, miscast, is still personable. Minnelli’s work is always recognizable, but the question persists: who wants to recognize him?)

Added 1965: Good (I want to recognize him. Though not one of his best projects, he brings his usual style and charm to work and, with Miss Holliday’s indispensable help, manages to create an altogether likable picture —in spite of the script’s thinness and the score’s basic vapidity.)

Added 2014: This is a lot better than either of the preceding comments would indicate. Judy Holliday was a treasure, and the musical was first produced on Broadway as a vehicle for her; I was lucky enough to see her in that show, and she was electrifying, absolutely delightful, a joy. The movie blunts some of her personal magnetism, but that’s true of any film of a stage performance, especially in a musical. There’s no way to beat seeing the star right in front of you, dancing and singing, without one cut. Charlie Chaplin’s son, Sydney, was really terrific on stage, to such a degree that Judy fell hard for him, and was devastated by his ultimate rejection. She was diagnosed with breast cancer not long after, and this movie was her swan’s song. Making it all the more precious. Dean Martin is actually very good casting, and he’s excellent in it, but I’m a big Dean Martin fan. All in all, I like this picture, and Minnelli did a good job.

I DOOD IT (1943; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1961: Poor* (Silly little Red Skelton vehicle about a clothes presser who gets involved in show business machinations —competently directed, but nothing to scream about.)

MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS (1944; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1961: Fair* (Colorful, elaborately produced period musical; done with a certain amount of flair, nicely performed by Judy Garland, others, but somewhat dated, tiresome, only occasionally entertaining.)

Added 2014: How could I have been so wrong?! This is a classic musical, an utter delight. Just Judy Garland and a very young Margaret O’Brian doing a song-and-dance number together is worth the price of admission. But there’s also Judy singing “The Boy Next Door” and “The Trolley Song,” and everybody doing “Meet Me in St. Louis”. All the period flavor is wonderfully rendered, and all the performances are charming, especially Mary Astor as the Mother. This is the movie on which Garland and Minnelli fell in love and got married, and it is the director’s first masterpiece. One summer many moons ago, my then ten-year-old daughter watched this lovely film a total of eleven times. I can see why.

ZIEGFELD FOLLIES (1946; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1962: Fair- (Colorful, but tedious, syrupy, uninspired series of vignettes and song-numbers based on productions as Florenz Ziegfeld might have mounted them on the stage. The best thing in the picture, and really worth sticking around for, is the Gene Kelly-Fred Astaire “Babbitt & Bromide” routine: sprightly, fast, delightful. For the rest, it’s not my kind of picture.)

TWO WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN (1962; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1962: Excellent* (Among Minnelli’s best pictures — an expertly written, brilliantly photographed, well acted story of Hollywood people making a movie in Rome — filled with authentic detail, atmosphere, inside references, and fascinating, sophisticated relationships. Minnelli’s sense of color and decor is exacting, and his flair for melodrama has never been more superbly apparent. This personal, outstanding work makes a perfect companion-piece to the director’s “The Bad and the Beautiful”, made ten years ago.)

Added 2014: Minnelli wasn’t happy with the studio re-cutting of this picture, and looked surprised when I told him I really liked the movie. All the relationships ring true, and Edward G. Robinson and Claire Trevor reprise a version of their horrible interplay from “Key Largo,” but with a heartbreaking twist to their hateful exchanges. The Americans making a film in Italy is very well portrayed and stands as a brilliant view of that faltering period in picture history. Kirk Douglas is especially good as an insecure and struggling former star, and George Hamilton is the epitome of an arrogant and self-destructive young star. Good stuff.

THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE’S FATHER (1963; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1963: Very good (Extremely well made, unpretentious, and most touching comedy-drama about the life of a man and his young son after the death of their wife-mother. Glenn Ford is commendably restrained and sensitive, Ronny Howard is simple and believable as the boy, and the women play their types with dash: Shirley Jones as girl-next-door, Stella Stevens as sexy-not-so-dumb-redhead-from-Montana, Dina Merrill as cold-high-fashion-fish. An entertaining and affecting story made considerably superior through Minnelli’s handling.)

Added 1966: (Really a very good movie, in Minnelli’s most American vein, extremely honest and true.)

BRIGADOON (1954; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1963: Good (Less typical of Minnelli’s light, colorful touch with musicals, but a nonetheless effective and often delightful excursion into fantasy — carefully, thoughtfully filmed — distinguished by several exquisite sequences and one striking scene in a New York bar at the end: a scene more typical of his fifties work. Well played, excellent use of CinemaScope -- Minnelli’s first in the medium -- fine choreography, charming songs — a good, if often less than inspired, work.)

Added 2014: This is a terrific stage musical, but for some reason it doesn’t really play very well on the screen. Gene Kelly is always good, but Van Johnson is a weak partner. The magic just isn’t there.

THE PIRATE (1948; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1963: Very good* (Judy Garland and Gene Kelly are both terrific in this delightfully flamboyant, bravura Minnelli film about a young girl who falls in love with a traveling entertainer who poses as a famous pirate; enchanting Cole Porter score, dazzling color, exciting choreography, beautiful performances, restless, inventive direction. A swashbuckling tale handled with Minnelli’s most swashbuckling technique.)

Added 2014: There are great set-pieces in this movie, like Gene Kelly singing and dancing to “Be A Clown”, and a number of good sequences, but overall it seems more pretentious than his other musicals – one that looks better on paper than it does on screen.

FATHER OF THE BRIDE (1950; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1963: Very good* (Beautifully acted by Spencer Tracy, Joan Bennett, Elizabeth Taylor, Don Taylor, skillfully and delightfully directed, charmingly written story about a father whose daughter is getting married: soft, often hilarious, sometimes touching. If taken on its own terms, this is a keenly observed and occasionally strikingly done domestic comedy, true and unmawkish.)

Added 1970: (It probably never happened this way, but it remains a delightful domestic fantasy, with good performances and its share of moving scenes.)

Added 2014: This is much better than either of those entries indicates. There are numerous superbly staged sequences – like the chaotic wedding rehearsal and the engagement party –- and Tracy has never been better, telling the story to the camera with great intimacy and charm. Really a memorable family comedy.

THE STORY OF THREE LOVES (1953; d: Vincente Minnelli (Mademoiselle), Gottfried Reinhardt (The Jealous Lover, Equilibrium).

1964: Fair- (The Minnelli episode is far and away the most original, but is not among the director’s most successful achievements. However, it has a fragile beauty and charm. The Reinhardt episodes are obvious, though competent.)

UNDERCURRENT (1946; d: Vincente Minelli).

1964: Good* (Katharine Hepburn, Robert Mitchum, Robert Taylor in a fascinating melodrama, smoothly, silkily directed by Minnelli; story of a girl who falls in love with a manufacturing tycoon and then begins to find out about the skeletons — some of them living — in his closet. The script is a trifle too pat in its exposition, but because of the fine acting and expert direction, it always seems better than it might have been under other circumstances.)

The Vincente Minnelli File - Part 1

Peter Bogdanovich — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 16:02:42 GMT

We’re now going to go through all the pictures directed by Vincente Minnelli (Liza’s Dad), which I saw and commented upon in my 1952-1970 movie card-file. I came to appreciate this director’s style and strength more as I got older, though some of my most youthful reactions still have validity; but there are certainly differences of opinion between my older and younger selves. Minnelli had range as a director, from musicals to family dramas to family comedies, he handled all sorts of stories with sensitivity and scope, making quite an impressive number of classic Hollywood films, from An American in Paris to Some Came Running, from The Band Wagon to The Bad and the Beautiful, from Meet Me in St. Louis to Father of the Bride. He was an ideal director for the old Studio System, equally at home with all kinds of tales and genres, and each done with dependable expertise and lack of pretension. Indeed, he made some of the most purely entertaining and memorable pictures in that Golden Age.

AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1952: (Artistic, clever, tastefully made, sprightly and colorfully gay musical done completely in film terms; the concluding full-length ballet is beautifully danced and photographed.)

Added 1961: Very good- (The book is extremely weak, and there are not enough musical numbers; the film also has a veiled pretentiousness not found in the Donen-Kelly pictures like “Singin’ in the Rain” and “On the Town”, which are fresh while this is somehow overly conceived. It is likeable, however, pleasant and thoroughly diverting.) Added 2014: I tend to agree more with my 12-year-old self, because this has become a movie I really like a lot. The book is not weak at all, but rather daring in dealing with the sexual relationships in quite a frank way. Gene Kelly has never been more charming and likeable, and his choreography is simply extraordinary, not to mention his superb dancing throughout. Oscar Levant is no great actor, but he’s OK, though the number where he plays everyone in the orchestra and audience—an idea stolen from a Buster Keaton short---goes on too long. The ballet is still breathtaking, as are several other numbers, in particular “By Strauss” and “I Got Rhythm”. Let’s face it: this is a terrific picture—with wonderful music by George Gershwin, super lyrics by his brother Ira---and in which Leslie Caron makes a spectacular screen debut.

THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL (1952; d: Vincente Minnelli)

1953: Excellent* (Superbly directed, acted and written Hollywood drama about an egomaniacal, ruthless and brilliant producer, and the people -- a director, an actress, a writer -- he uses on his rise to the top. Authentic atmosphere, fascinating detail, thoroughly engrossing.) Added 1963: (Personal and marvelously effective, brilliantly and firmly constructed; a remarkably fluid work, intense and shiningly well done.)

Added 2014: Some of this is pretty melodramatic, but what do you want? It’s about Hollywood! All the characters and incidents have a basis in real life, and it’s fun to see how they’re used to excellent advantage in this story, from Val Lewton to John Barrymore. The construction is similar to that of “Citizen Kane,” on which producer John Houseman worked, but not as daring or dynamic: a more conventional, though effective, flashback structure. All the performances work, and there’s a subtle “inside” feeling that’s palpable. Not a great film, but if you’re in the movies or in love with them, the picture is endlessly entertaining. In other words, it’s kind of a guilty pleasure.

THE BAND WAGON (1953; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1953: Excellent (Elaborate, handsome, stylish musical with a show business background: sprightly dances, rousing tunes, fast, slick direction, charming performances make this an extremely entertaining, amusing, and very pleasant affair.)

Added 1964: (Among Minnelli’s most effective achievements: every department is lushly, brightly, colorfully perfect).

Added 1965: (Not a great film, but a delightful one, with fine numbers and a good cast headed by [Fred] Astaire at his most inimitable.)

Added 1968: (A bright, overlong, but still damn likable work; the script has its derivative moments, and there are one or two unlikeable numbers; but the highlights still are high.)

Added 2014: The truth is: I love this movie! It feels like Astaire’s best, and number after number really soar: “Shine on My Shoes,” “Guess I’ll Have to Change My Plan,” “Dancing in the Dark” in Central Park, the Mickey Spillane parody ballet, “By Myself”, and one terrific performance by Jack Buchanan as a kind of Orson Welles figure. Comden & Green script is top-notch and they are splendidly portrayed by Oscar Levant & Nanette Fabray. Features song, “That’s Entertainment!” and it certainly is.

THE COBWEB (1955; d: Vincente Minnelli).
1955: Very good* (Elaborate, sometimes pretentious, but for the most part convincing, absorbing multi-drama about the lives of patients and doctors in a mental sanitarium, well directed, competently acted and written.)

Added 1964: (Serious and very well done by Minnelli, an extremely talented man; among the most impressive things in the film is his superb use of CinemaScope and his handling of what is basically an overwrought script.)

Added 2014: This is the picture about the curtains. I’m not kidding. The main plot, the MacGuffin, is about the goddamn curtains in the main living room of this asylum. But the actors are so good, and Minnelli’s direction is so lucid, that the whole thing sort of works.

LUST FOR LIFE (1956; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1956: Very good* (Although the acting is fine and the writing good, it is the accurateness of the locations, the beauty of Van Gogh’s actual paintings, and the brilliance with which they are photographed, that makes this the best film-biography of a painter ever made. Kirk Douglas does a creditable job as the master, but the paintings reveal far more of the man and the artist: Van Gogh, strikingly photographed, steals the picture.)

TEA AND SYMPATHY (1956; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1956: Excellent* (Except for Mr. [John] Kerr, who is competent but dull, this is a brilliantly acted and directed version of [Robert] Anderson’s moving, compassionate play. However, the annoying epilogue, which has been added for the benefit of the Code and other such institutions, is a rather jarring and completely unnecessary note; still it does not mar the otherwise deeply true and tender beauty of the film.)

Added 2014: I was lucky enough to see Deborah Kerr on stage in the original Elia Kazan-directed Broadway production, and at the show I saw, John Kerr, who had originated the part and played it in the movie, was out, and his understudy had taken over. His understudy was Anthony Perkins! He was brilliant, absolutely terrific. So far superior to the John Kerr performance in the picture, but then Tony Perkins became a star and John Kerr went into business. So the film will never, to me, be as good as what I saw on the stage. Deborah Kerr was equally good on both stage and screen, she makes whatever works in the picture work; she and Minnelli’s taste. The epilogue is more than annoying, it’s horrible, and goes totally against the whole spirit of the play. In it, Kerr’s character had to be punished and diminished because she slept with one of the students, even though that act saved the student’s life. This is where the Code of old was at its worst.

DESIGNING WOMAN (1957; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1958: (A very entertaining, briskly directed and acted Hollywood comedy about a fashion designer and a sports writer who meet and marry: big-slick-unpretentious and quite a bit of fun. Even Gregory Peck does a few nice things.)

Added 1964: Good* (Truly a very delightful sophisticated comedy, done with Minnelli’s usual high spirits and taste; the script is light and silly, but it is performed and directed to perfection.)

GIGI (1958; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1958: Fair (Pretty but hollow version of the Colette story, with uninspired Lerner-Loewe songs, and not particularly likable actors; nice to look at, occasionally diverting and more often tedious.)

Added 1966: (Among Minnelli’s least effective works - a not very interesting project done without his usual sparkle or flair; on the contrary, an almost graceless, strangely wooden work, overwhelmed with mediocre Beaton sets and costumes, and uncomfortable actors. A couple of the numbers make nice, if unremarkable, use of the Paris exteriors, but the whole seems to exist in a vacuum, with no one communicating; perhaps Minnelli’s least inspired work.)

Added 2014: I’m very ambivalent about this movie: I like it sometimes more than other times. Sometimes I agree with my earlier comments, and other times I like seeing Maurice Chevalier doing a musical for the first time since Lubitsch’s glorious The Merry Widow (1934). And he talks to the audience as he did in those other divine Lubitsch musicals: The Love Parade (1929), The Smiling Lieutenant (1931), and One Hour With You (1932). I’m sure Minnelli was aware of that as well, and that personalizes the picture in an interesting way. And much as I hate to admit it, Louis Jourdan singing “Gigi” all over Paris pretty much works, and it’s a terrific melody anyway. The fact that they don’t make movies like this anymore adds to its appeal, so that in the long run, you’re glad they made it, even though it irritates you at times.

THE RELUCTANT DEBUTANTE (1958; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1958: (Paper-thin entertainment about the fashionable London “Season”, during which parents present their daughters to society, enlivened by delightful performances from Rex Harrison, Kay Kendall, an elaborate, colorful production, and slick, speedy work by Minnelli.)

Added 1963: Very good (More than just a slick bit of fluff, it gains in distinction through Minnelli’s satirical and stylish direction and through the brilliantly farcical playing of Harrison and Kendall; Angela Lansbury and Peter Myers give hilarious support, but the contributions of Sandra Dee and John Saxon are negligible.)

SOME CAME RUNNING (1958; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1958: (Uneven, unconvincing, confused story of an unsuccessful writer’s return to his home town and the factions of, and relationships he develops with, its inhabitants. Except for an overly flamboyant but well done final sequence at a carnival, Minnelli’s direction is only competent and never inventive, and the acting is very uneven.)

Added 1964: Excellent* (It is difficult to understand how one could be so wrong: this is, quite to the contrary, one of Minnelli’s most complex, brilliantly observed and superbly directed and acted works, as well as an excellent distillation of [James] Jones’ long novel. Shirley MacLaine’s performance of a pathetic young tart is heartbreakingly real and deeply moving, probably the finest thing she has ever done; Sinatra has rarely been as unmannered and convincing; and Dean Martin brings exactly the right note of charm and boorishness to the role of a wandering gambler. The relationships Sinatra has with a writing teacher who separates the man and his work, and the ignorant but human floozy who does not understand either him or his work yet loves him anyway, these are certainly among the most complex and maturely handled things of that kind seen on the screen. Minnelli brings his sensitivity and talent to this work and has created one of the finest dramas of the fifties, a picture that gains in depth and intricacy with every viewing.)

Added 2014: I agree with my 1964 self. I like this movie a lot. The three stars are very magnetic and engaged. They play wonderfully together: the long take of Sinatra and MacLaine in front of the bus at the beginning, and the long take of Martin and Sinatra the first time they meet at a bar are scenes that are filled with life, real and fictional. The picture has many very powerful scenes—all shot on real locations in an Indiana town—and the score by Elmer Bernstein is exceptionally good. Minnelli’s work all the way through is exemplary, and the final carnival sequence is brilliantly stylized and succeeds on a suspense level as well. This is one of the last Hollywood star vehicles that really plays.

HOME FROM THE HILL (1960; d: Vincente Minnelli).

1960: (Stylish, effectively color-photographed drama about family tensions and intrigues in modern-day Texas: well acted by George Peppard, Robert Mitchum, George Hamilton. Elaborate production, livened by Minnelli’s brisk, flashy handling.)

Added 1963: Excellent (Far better than one originally thought: a brilliantly conveyed atmosphere, truly splendid mise-en-scène, often deeply moving script and acting: a mature, serious and always provocative work, a fine example of Minnelli’s sensitivity and adaptability. On the whole, a rather beautiful movie.)

Venice 2014

Peter Bogdanovich — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:06:40 GMT

The first film festival in the world was held in the most unique city in the world: this year was Venice’s 71st Festival, though that’s deceptive because the event was suspended during World War II. Venice is like some kind of dreamscape: it was my dear Mother’s favorite place on earth because, she said, the whole idea of founding a city on water was the perfect example of mankind’s gloriously wild imagination. How appropriate to the new, wildly imaginative art of the 20th century: moving pictures! Venice and the movies, let’s face it, were meant for each other.

And, happily, I’ve been very lucky there. This year was my third participation as a director in the Venice Film Festival, and a great deal of fun. Out of competition, we showed “She’s Funny That Way” (shot under the title “Squirrels to the Nuts”). Three of the wonderful stars in the picture were there: Owen Wilson, Kathryn Hahn, and Ahna O’Reilly; and three of the noble producers: Holly Wiersma, Logan Levy, and Louise Stratten, who also co-wrote the script with me.

My first Venice Festival was the 1979 edition, a year in which they had decided not to give out any awards. They showed “Saint Jack”, starring Ben Gazzara and Denholm Elliott, which we had shot the year before entirely on location in Singapore. After the screening, which was well received, I left for London, and a telegram followed me saying they had decided after all to give out one award and it had gone to us: The Critics’ Prize, which had not been given to any picture for seven years, not since Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange.”

Three years later, out of competition, the personal favorite of my own pictures, “They All Laughed,” starring Audrey Hepburn, Gazzara again, John Ritter, and Dorothy Stratten, was the opening night attraction at the Venice Festival, 1982 edition, during which I had agreed to be one of the jurors. This was the first time and also the last time I would be on a film jury: it is grueling work to sit through 25 or more films in about ten days, most of them generally depressing.

Perhaps that’s why we had such a good reception this year: ours is a kind of screwball comedy and certainly meant to be fun, not realistic, and as usual, comedy is not common at film festivals. And with the world in general being in such bad shape at this time, laughter is more welcome than ever. Sitting with the thousand people watching our movie at the end of August, I felt that everyone really wanted to laugh, even needed to laugh. Which reminded me of that great line at the end of Preston Sturges’s testament picture, “Sullivan’s Travels,” when filmmaker Joel McCrea says: “A good laugh may not be much, but it’s all some people have in this cock-eyed caravan. Boy!”

Well, the audience that night certainly was grateful. They laughed loudly all the way through. At the end, they gave the actors and producers and me a more than five-minute standing ovation. We didn’t quite know what to do. Owen said maybe I should go down and say a few words. I didn’t think that was such a good idea. Then Owen said maybe it was like they used to applaud for Stalin: everybody was afraid to be the first one to stop. In fact, the reaction was dizzying and quite wonderful. Everyone was elated.

The next day, standing in the lobby of the lovely Hotel Danieli, I was telling Simona Caparrini, an Italian-actress friend of mine, what Jean Renoir had said on the subject of dubbing voices for films: all foreign movies are dubbed in Italy. Including some Italian actors who don’t have the proper accepted Italian accent. As I was in the midst of quoting Renoir’s comment, a graying gentleman interrupted to confirm that I was who I was. He then introduced himself as Michel Ciment, editor of the popular, often radical, French film magazine, Positif. He wanted to tell me how much he had enjoyed my new picture; he went on to say he didn’t like all my pictures, but that he really liked this one. “Congratulations!” Then he told me his magazine had recently stolen a piece I did on Stella Adler for The New York Times Book Review; he said he’d send me a copy. It felt strange that I had been talking about the greatest French filmmaker when a passionate French supporter of Renoir had stopped to compliment me. The ironic quote, by the way, which I now said in its entirety, went like this (with necessary French accent): “In a really civilized time, like the 12th century, a person who dubbed movies would be burned at the stake as a heretic, for presuming that two souls can exist in one body.”

On our last night in Venice, Louise and I went for a walk down to St. Marcos’ Square, where three different quintets were playing music, all separate from each other, with the sound never bleeding from one into another. The group we liked best had women, both blondes, on the violin and the piano; and three men for the clarinet, bass and accordion. The clarinet player was very emotional and romantic, moving his head expressively with the notes. At midnight, the chimes at the nearby church starting ringing, and our favorite combo was playing that devastating Charles Aznavour ballad, “How Sad Venice Can Be;” it was all quite overpowering and memorable, strangely touching, and magical.

As was our entire trip. The Venice Festival people, and the workers at the majestic Hotel Danieli, where we stayed, were all delightful, helpful and considerate. The food was terrific, the weather balmy, the place very busy with scores of tourists who came to enjoy the sights and sounds and picture shows. I couldn’t recommend it more highly if you’re considering the idea of going to the 72nd Festival next year. It’s a real treat! As are the indescribably delicious many, many flavors of gelato, which only in Italy is worth indulging in and popping a button or two.

The Orson Welles File - Part 5

Peter Bogdanovich — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:30:06 GMT

And so we come to the end of our Welles File, comprised of all films Welles had some kind of hand in---director, writer, actor, producer, narrator---which I saw 1952-1970 and noted with comments in my movie card-file. I didn’t actually meet Orson until late in 1968, and then had a complicated relationship with him until his death in 1985 at the age of 70. A book of interviews we did, This is Orson Welles, was published in 1992, and revised and enlarged in 1998 (the Da Capo edition, still in print). He was perhaps the most many-colored personality I ever met, and among the most influential in my life. It was not always an easy relationship, but even at its most difficult, there was much to be learned. I’m sure it also wasn’t easy being Orson Welles: his genius caused him a great deal of difficulty, and a complex set of reactions from all who came to know him. Bottom line: I did love him, and miss him still.

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966; d: Fred Zinnemann).

1966: Fair- (A sad movie: the acting and the screenplay are both excellent and the story of Thomas More’s struggle against Henry VIII is most compelling; the sets and costumes are fine and the color is quite good; all that’s wrong is that Zinnemann, in almost every scene, puts his camera in such a way as to frustrate the viewer’s interests and emotions. He cuts away from a face we want to see just when we want to see it, or stays away when we want most to be close; he has not substituted, however, with any visual artistry; in this respect, he remains as pedestrian as always. That the actors and the script command as much attention as they still manage to is the greatest proof of their excellence.)

Added 2014: I remember once asking Welles about this film, in which he had a small but memorable role, and he told me with some sardonic amusement, that Mr. Zinnemann had said to him in a very sober tone what a “great honor” it was for Orson to be in the cast of this motion picture. Then OW laughed his earth-shaking laugh.

CASINO ROYALE (1967; d: Robert Parrish, Joseph McGrath, John Huston, Ken Hughes, Val Guest).

1967: Poor- (A producer’s picture---whenever there is more than one director, it is a producer’s film---and this is one of the worst ever made---a tedious and unfunny spoof of James Bond; the best work is Parrish’s and it’s probably his worst.)

THE TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD (1967; d: Gregori Alexandrov, Norman Swallow; narrator: Orson Welles).

1967: Fair- (Interesting Russian-British documentary about the Russian Revolution, its seeds and growth through the October, 1917 revolt; a lot of footage from [Sergei] Eisenstein, some fascinating newsreel stuff, clear narration. The emphasis is on Lenin, but it does its job as a television documentary---it explains something of the history.)

I’LL NEVER FORGET WHAT’S ‘IS NAME (1968; d: Michael Winner).

1968: Poor (Orson Welles, as the heavy, is more likable and more admirable really than anyone else in this highly pretentious, generally repulsive British comedy-drama about a young man who quits his job -- in advertising, of course -- in order to find a job with “integrity” again; when the film isn’t boring it is annoying, and there is far too little of Welles and much too much of Oliver Reed and Michael Winner.)

FALSTAFF (CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT) (1966; d-s: Orson Welles).
1969: Exceptional (A bittersweet, melancholy tragedy of friendship and betrayal, adapted brilliantly by Welles from five Shakespeare plays, chronicling the relationship between Falstaff and Prince Hal, who becomes Henry V. Great performances, especially by Welles, breathtaking photography, and a movie imagination that is unique and beautiful; the famous battle scene is a tour-de-force, but no more so than many of the subtler sequences.)

Added 1969: (Thematically consistent with all of Welles’ investigations into the corruptibility of power and the death of a better time.)

Added 1969: (A really beautiful movie, though the sound track is decidedly flawed by poor lip-sync and muddled dubbing; but it’s visually enchanting and all the performances are superb. There are not enough great speeches -- Shakespeare after all didn’t write a play about this character -- but it is nonetheless a commanding achievement, one of Welles’ most personal and touching.)

Added 2014: This was Orson’s favorite among his own films, a project he had started way back in the 1930s when he adapted a number of Shakespeare plays into a composite drama called Five Kings, which closed out of town. He did a stage production of Chimes at Midnight (his preferred title) in Dublin before starting to shoot the picture. Besides Welles’ magnificent portrayal of Jack Falstaff---a role he was obviously born to play---the greatest performance is John Gielgud’s as King Henry IV; his soliloquy about not being able to sleep is one of the great highlights in this amazing and memorably elegiac masterpiece. At the time of its limited and rather poor release in America, The New Yorker critic said we owed Welles a considerable debt of gratitude for giving us basically a new play by William Shakespeare. Right on the money.

HOUSE OF CARDS (1969; d: John Guillermin).

1969: Poor (Orson Welles’ presence is the only inducement to see this miserable, confusing and creakingly dull “thriller”, but he barely has four scenes -- all of them terribly short; which must have been nice for him, but makes the picture pretty unbearable for us. When he is on -- as the heavy –- the film comes briefly, flickeringly to life; the rest of the time, one can happily nap through George Peppard, Inger Stevens and Guillermin’s aggressive incompetence.)

IT'S ALL TRUE (1941-43; unfinished; d: Orson Welles, Norman Foster).

1969: Difficult to tell from this uncut, raw footage what the final film would have looked like; but there are so many beautiful things and so many intriguing ones that it’s terribly sad the project was aborted. Clearly, it would have been an original and very unusual documentary. Foster’s footage is more conventional, but evocative nevertheless and everything is beautifully photographed.)

THE IMMORTAL STORY (1968; d: Orson Welles).

1969: Excellent * (Haunting, mournful story of old age and futility told very simply and evocatively color-photographed. Brilliant performances and a pervasive mood of melancholy. As personal as any of Welles’ films and as darkly poetic.)

Added 1969: (More powerful and affecting than ever before - an eloquent tragic work.)

Added 2014: Based on an Isak Dinesen short story---she and Robert Graves were Welles’ favorite writers---this was Orson’s first picture in color. Originally made for French TV, it is limited in size, but has enormous reverberations in the subject of illusion vs. reality. Short but profoundly affecting, it is beautifully played by Jeanne Moreau. It is a modest work, somewhat like chamber music, yet as memorable as any of Welles’ more ambitious projects.

THE SOUTHERN STAR (1969: d: Sidney Hayers).

1969: Fair (An improbable comedy-adventure-romance about assorted characters lusting after a huge white diamond in turn-of-the-century Africa. George Segal and Ursula Andress are the stars, but Orson Welles steals the picture with several delightful scenes as a gay Aussie diamond hunter.)

THE HEARTS OF AGE (1934: d-s: Orson Welles).

1970: (Fascinating discovery - Welles’ first film work: a five-minute abstract film about old age and death with Welles at 19 as a kind of jovial Satan. Weird, surreal, done with considerable flair and audacity, it shows already a marked and daring talent for the medium.)

CATCH-22 (1970; d: Mike Nichols).

1970: Good- (A surrealistic comedy-drama that begins as a kind of intellectual Sergeant Bilko and degenerates into comic strip Kafka. Excellent performances by Orson Welles, Marcel Dalio, Alan Arkin, Anthony Perkins and all the rest but by no means the great film that Nichols intended it to be.)

The Orson Welles File - Part 4

Peter Bogdanovich — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:30:06 GMT

Back to all the Orson Welles movies I saw between 1952 and 1970, and the comments on them which I kept in

my movie card-file. Unfortunately, very few of the pictures left were directed by Welles. Mostly acting or narration credits. Even one classic “Based on an idea by Orson Welles” in the credits of Charlie Chaplin’s Monsieur Verdoux. Orson used to kid around, saying that Chaplin didn’t give him that credit until after all the bad reviews came out! Reading over how I felt about that very picture, I was surprised by my utter superlatives. I didn’t remember liking it that much. I haven’t seen it since. Must check it out sometime. But I do remember being very impressed with the ending as Charlie played it.

MONSIEUR VERDOUX (1947; d: Charles Chaplin; story idea: Orson Welles).

1963: Exceptional* (One of the most complex and philosophically fascinating movies ever made, and certainly Chaplin’s most incisive statement about the present human condition, in which murder is the logical extension of business. Unsurpassable performance by Chaplin, strikingly, wisely written, magnificently directed, this story of a bluebeard ranks among the finest films in cinema, and certainly among the most personal.)

THE V.I.P.S (1963; d: Anthony Asquith)

1963: Fair (This isn’t so much a movie as it is a series of arias, some good, some not so good; it might also be called star-gazing. A bunch of prominent people are fog-bound at a London airport, their lives intermingle, etc. Liz Taylor looks awful but acts a bit better than as Cleopatra, Burton is excellent, Margaret Rutherford is classic, Elsa Martinelli is almost embarrassing, Louis Jourdan is surprisingly good, Rod Taylor and Maggie Smith are fine, and Orson Welles does a splendid imitation of Akim Tamiroff. Mr. Asquith has mixed them all together and made a slick, silly, entertaining movie.)

THE BLACK ROSE (1950; d: Henry Hathaway).

1964: Poor* (Trite, predictable period piece, set in the 13th century, about a Saxon who leaves the Norman England, and joins a Mongol chief in his war against the Chinese. Only Orson Welles as the Bayan general brings life and excitement to an otherwise listless, if not offensive, yarn.)

THE FINEST HOURS (1964; d: Peter Baylis; narrator: Orson Welles).

1964: Fair- (Generally interesting, never particularly memorable, documentary on the life of Winston Churchill, author-statesman-politician-painter-maker of history: done through the use of newsreel footage and recently filmed color sequences, told through Churchill’s own words and a narration, eloquently spoken by the voice of the century, Orson Welles.)

THREE CASES OF MURDER (1954; d: Wendy Toye; David Eady; George More O’Ferrall).

1965: Fair- (A pretty undistinguished British omnibus film, the first two stories of which are indifferently acted and directed, though the first has a faint bit of imagination, while the second is totally worthless. In the third, however, Orson Welles plays the title role of [Somerset] Maugham’s haunted, guilt-ridden British peer [Lord Mountdrago], and suddenly things come alive; he is amusing and outrageous and spellbinding; the direction is at least brisk and shows that in spots he much have interfered, certainly in the pacing of the scenes if nothing else. What a delightful performer he is, wasteful though it is for him, considering his genius.)

TROUBLE IN THE GLEN (1954; d: Herbert Wilcox).

1965: Poor (Shameless and incompetent imitation of Ford’s The Quiet Man set in Scotland instead of Ireland, without charm or interest, except for the presence and performance of Orson Welles as a wealthy, stubborn Laird returned to his native land after years in South America. He tells the story and has a few brisk, fast-paced scenes full of over-lapping dialogue and interruptions, especially one with Margaret Lockwood as his daughter, and provides the film’s sole diversions, and they are too brief to make any lasting impression or to affect the picture’s overall ineffectualness.)

THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH (1956; d: Orson Welles).

1965: Very good (Winner of the 1958 Peabody Award, this 27-minute film was a pilot for a proposed series which Welles would host and supervise; it was not bought, nor shown for two years. It is really a splendid work for television, imaginatively utilizing stills, stylized for simple sets, music and on-screen narration, as well as acted vignettes to tell a light but compelling little story about a man who uses a bogus youth-potion to win back a girl who has married another. Delightful period flavor, a fine example of what can be done with scant means and great talent.)

Added 1969: (Really a charming work, the first film ever made especially for television as opposed to just a TV movie; beautiful performances - just the right amount of stylization - totally directed. A marvelous piece, completely unorthodox but never for it’s own sake.)

Added 2014: My rating now would be Excellent* because its preciousness is more apparent: what a glorious series it could have been! Orson on camera and voiceover telling the story with stills, style, magic. If you see it now, it still seems revolutionary, a path that TV never really took. Maybe no one but Orson Welles could have pulled it off. But they had Orson Welles.

LUCY MEETS ORSON WELLES (1956; d: James V. Kern).

1965: Fair (Pleasant little 27-minute segment of the filmed television series, I Love Lucy, in which Lucy tries to get Orson Welles to play Shakespeare with her at a benefit; some amusing moments, especially due to Orson’s light touch in the farcical style; Lucille Ball, as usual, is excellent.)

Added 2014: This is actually more fun than I’ve indicated. Welles was terrific playing a version of himself, kidding himself, as he did as far back as 1940 on radio’s The Jack Benny Program. At the time, however, it was not considered chic, and didn’t help Welles’ reputation among the intellectual Establishment. Ironically, Orson was among the first to champion Lucille Ball, trying in the late ‘30s to cast her in the lead of a film he never got to do, a light thriller, The Smiler with A Knife. And now he was playing opposite her in the most iconic of TV comedies, shot in the same studio as Citizen Kane, but now owned by Lucille Ball. Her company had also financed the pilot for Welles’ proposed series (see above, The Fountain of Youth).

MISS GOODALL AND THE WILD CHIMPANZEES (1965; d: Marshall Flaum; narrator: Orson Welles).

1965: Poor* (Uninspired and rather academic, stagey documentary made by the National Geographic Society and shown on television, about Jane Goodall’s zoological research among the wild Chimpanzees of Africa, and her findings which proved that they are “the most nearly human of all animals on earth” because of unusual method of making tools, one of the first signs of man. Distinguished by Welles’ persuasive voice, but by little else.)

IS PARIS BURNING? (PARIS BRULE-T-IL?) (1966; d: Rene Clement).

1966: Good- (In many ways, a most effective picture of Paris in the last days of the Nazi occupation, graphically directed, made with considerable feeling and a great deal of authenticity; the script, however, is very confusing in its political machinations, and the poor dubbing of the foreign players does not help; nor does the excessive size of the projection, out of all proportion to the screen-size for which Clement obviously made it. No one really stands out in the cast, though Orson Welles makes a likable appearance, as does Tony Perkins. What is best is Clement’s documentary, harshly lit quality in that the action sequences carry particular conviction and impact; interesting throughout, and often more than that, though by no means exceptional.)

The Orson Welles File - Part 3

Peter Bogdanovich — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:11:47 GMT

Onward through all the Orson Welles pictures I saw and kept cards on for my 1952-1970 movie file, films OW either directed, produced, wrote, or acted in; the latter category, unfortunately, dominates, since he directed so few movies of his own. Parts 1 and 2 already carry most of them, though here we have The Trial, my least favorite of Welles' major works.

Orson was such a disarming person that in our first meeting, late in 1968, I actually had the nerve to tell him that the only picture of his I didn't really like was The Trial, and he said, with gusto, "I don't either!" Wow, I thought I had scored. Three months later, when I once said something derogatory about The Trial, Welles said, "I wish you'd stop saying that!" I protested:

"But you told me it wasn't a film you liked." Orson shook his head, "I just said that to please you. Actually it's one of my favorites, and since I have great respect for your opinions, whenever you denigrate it, you diminish my small treasure..." I said, "Oh, Jesus, Orson, I'm sorry! It certainly is a fascinating work, it's just... "Welles jumped in: "That's all right, we can change the subject." From then on, he always referred to The Trial as "That picture you hate." As is clear below, that wasn't really true at all.

On a different occasion, Orson told me that perhaps I didn't see all the humor in the picture: "Tony Perkins and I were laughing uproariously throughout," he said, as is proven by the photo above.

JOURNEY INTO FEAR (1942; d: Norman Foster, uncredited: Orson Welles).

1961: Fair (This often amusing foreign intrigue melodrama has some striking Wellesian ideas and images, but not nearly enough; clearly he did not direct most of it, or cut any of it. Whenever he is on, as a legendary Turkish police chief, the camera takes an excitingly unexpected turn, but the rest of the time, there is only the hint of his presence lurking behind the camera, never really asserting itself in a personal way. The Mercury Players are quite good without their leader, but certainly in no way inspired; nor is any of the movie.)

DAVID AND GOLIATH (1961; d: Richard Pottier, Ferdinando Baldi).

1961: Poor (Only people who could possibly sit through this incredibly bad picture are Orson Welles fanatics: he plays King Saul - badly, self-indulgently, disinterestedly and fascinatingly. His presence alone, not his acting, make the film at all tolerable. But, even despite that, it is pretty much of a struggle to sit through.)

KING OF KINGS (1961; d: Nicholas Ray; narrator: Orson Welles).

1961: Good* (Terribly acted, but strikingly photographed and extremely well directed and written political drama set in Biblical times: about the conflicting influences of Jesus, who was for victory through peace and martyrdom, and Barabbas, who was for victory through war and strife. Remarkably conceived, often perverse, powerful anti-religious work, marred by over-reverent, sappy musical scoring imposed by Metro, over-shadowed, mercifully, by a movingly read narration done by Orson Welles. A truly fascinating piece of filmmaking.)

PRINCE OF FOXES (1949; d: Henry King).

1961: Poor (I only watched this costume melodrama because of the presence of Orson Welles who is, as always, worth watching. Unfortunately, Tyrone Power and Wanda Hendrix aren't, and they have far more screen-time.)

TOMORROW IS FOREVER (1946; d: Irving Pichel).

1962: Fair (Likeable tearjerker about a man thought dead in the war who returns after his wife has remarried, distinguished mainly by the brilliance of Orson Welles' performance. But he gets nice support from Claudette Colbert, George Brent, Natalie Wood; a pleasantly sad little movie.)

BLACK MAGIC (1949; d: Gregory Ratoff).

1962: Poor* (Orson Welles' presence and performance as the evil hypnotist-charlatan Cagliostro enlivened this otherwise deadeningly done 18th century period piece, badly written, badly directed.)

Added 1969: (Welles' influence is apparent in some of the scenes, but it was clearly deleted as much as possible; it is a depressing use of him and a tedious movie, but it helped to make his Othello possible.)

THE TRIAL (1962; d-s: Orson Welles).

1963: Excellent* (Stunning, frightening and strikingly Wellesian version of [Franz] Kafka's nightmarish novel about a young man accused, convicted and executed for a never-specified crime. Well played, brilliantly photographed, written, edited, scored. A difficult film to really like, but a strangely haunting one.)

Added 1963: (An elusive movie that looked better this time, but it is basically a dead end: Welles has attempted the impossible and succeeded better than anyone else could. It remains Welles' most unlikeable work but a still fascinating one.)

Added 1969: (Welles has magnificently captured the feeling of a nightmare and the last three reels are as powerful as any of his work. The picture succeeds in everything it attempts to do, but it is in no way an enjoyable experience. Nightmares seldom are.)

Added 1969: (I still can't like this movie and find it Welles' least memorable work).

Added 1970: (I'm liking it a littler better.)

LAFAYETTE (1961: d: Jean Dreville).

1963: Poor- (An hour and fifteen minutes was all I could take of this two-hour epic; abysmally boring, totally incompetent, except for some nice color-photography by Claude Renoir. Orson Welles makes a brief appearance as Ben Franklin, which is why I even went to see this junk, and he's pretty good too, making sure there is always light on his face and no shadows.)

ROGOPAG (1962; d: Roberto Rossellini, Jean-Luc Godard, Ugo Gregoretti, Pier Paolo Pasolini).

1963: Fair- (That is an overall rating, actually the episodes break down this way: Rossellini's is far and away the best, brief, to the point, witty, and thoroughly expert; Godard's is next, though it is decidedly unpleasant and completely perverse, it retains his personality and has an edge, minor as it is; Gregoretti's is undistinguished but pleasant and excellently acted; Pasolini's is pretty awful, to the extent that Orson Welles' voice has been dubbed by some prissy Italian, something close to a cardinal sin.)

MAN IN THE SHADOW (1957; d: Jack Arnold).

1963: Poor (Generally worthless, awkward melodrama set in the South: ranch baron terrorizes small community until fearless sheriff incites the town to revolt. Orson Welles plays the villain, but without any of his usual bravura, and thus the film loses whatever small interest it might have held.)

The Orson Welles File - Part 2

Peter Bogdanovich — Thu, 15 May 2014 15:08:30 GMT

And so we continue with the Orson Welles pictures---as director, producer, writer, actor, narrator---that I saw 1952-1970, and on which I wrote comments and ratings for my movie card-file. I first wrote about Welles for the public in program notes for the now legendary Manhattan revival house, The New Yorker Theatre, when it had brought back Orson's Othello (see below) in 1960, for the first N.Y. showing in nearly a decade. I said it was the best Shakespeare film ever made. This was certainly not a majority opinion at that moment in time. Although the picture had won the Grand Prize at Cannes in 1952 (more of a big deal here now than it was then), it was generally either dismissed in America or compared very unfavorably to the highly regarded Laurence Olivier Shakespeare pictures, Hamlet and Henry V. I took the unorthodox (except in France) position that only Welles had made a real film of Shakespeare's work.

A few weeks later, the curator of New York's Museum of Modern Art Film Library, Richard Griffith, called me and, because of that one program note, asked if I would curate the first Orson Welles Retrospective in the U.S.A., and write the accompanying monograph, which I did, and that was my first publication, The Cinema of Orson Welles (1961). We sent copies of it to Welles somewhere in Europe, where he was shooting The Trial. Seven years later, he called me. And soon after we met. It was toward the end of 1968. We became friends. A large interview book was one of the many results of these events, This is Orson Welles (1992), but the 1998 Da Capo edition is much better, and considerably longer, and here's a link to it.

COMPULSION (1959; d: Richard Fleischer).

1959: Good* (A very tasteful movie about the Loeb-Leopold scandal, which has a few Wellesian touches I like and a beautiful, understated performance by Welles (as Darrow) that is moving and eloquent. [Bradford] Dillman has seen too many Chuck Heston movies, and Stockwell, who's been around a long while acts as though the camera were his brother -- by that I mean, well.)

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942; d-s: Orson Welles).
1959: Exceptional* (One of the great pictures of all time: Welles' striking, deeply moving, beautifully made adaptation of the [Booth] Tarkington novel about the slow fall of a wealthy American family around the turn of the century. Truly magnificent in every detail.)

Added 1960: (There is so much eloquence and compassion and sheer directional genius in this film that it is often difficult to realize one man was responsible for it. It doesn't have the striking novelty of Citizen Kane, but its excellence is of a more subtle, simple nature, and perhaps all the more stunning because of it.)

Added 1962: (One could see this picture three times a year for twenty years and still find it an unending source of surprise and delight.)

Added 1969: (As moving and exciting as it was the first time I saw it; one of the most profoundly beautiful and tragic films of the past - still original in conception and still ahead of its time; the narration is extremely evocative, and even the credits make me cry! A great Welles achievement, marred by the truncated last act, and the two scenes shot by someone else, but still an enduring masterpiece.)

Added 1969: (Among the great films of all time.)

Added 1969: (What a tragedy that it was mutilated! A great tragedy.)

Added 2014: In my aforementioned interview book with O.W. there is an added value to the 1998 edition of an appendix that details the exact original cutting continuity of this picture's deleted or edited scenes and sequences. What Welles called the third act was essentially destroyed by the studio cutting. There are also a few stills from the movie's final scene, which is decidedly dark. I think the loss of The Magnificent Ambersons is probably the movies' most tragic of all the many losses, even more than Von Stroheim's complete Greed, though such comparisons are odious.

RETURN TO GLENNASCAUL (1951; d: Hilton Edwards; narration: Orson Welles).

1960: (Short, 26 minutes, little featurette about a man who comes to a house, finds a mother and daughter living there, falls in love, leaves and when he returns, finds the house abandoned and dilapidated wreck, nobody having lived there for years. Not very good at all, but distinguished by the presence of Welles, who plays himself, introduces the story and narrated it as "your obedient servant" [O.W.'s famous radio sign-off]. One classic moment: passing a man stalled in his car, Welles asks what the matter is, to which the man replies he is having trouble with his distributor. "So am I," says Orson.)

MASTERS OF THE CONGO JUNGLE (1959; d: Heinz Sielmann).

1960: Poor* (Beautiful color-photography and Orson Welles' eloquent narration make for occasional interest in this French documentary of natives in Africa.)

CRACK IN THE MIRROR (1960; d: Richard Fleisher).

1960: Poor* (Orson Welles' performance, or better, simply his appearance, in this muddled, silly triangle-thriller is all that distinguishes it from the thousand crappy and bloated items that issue yearly from Fox. He is not very good in it himself, but who can blame him -- he read the script. He knows it's hopeless.)

MACBETH (1948; d-s: Orson Welles).
1960: Very good* (One of Welles' weaker films, still a great deal better than most people's best work - a fascinating, steamy, dark, and violent version of Shakespeare's tragedy - shot in twenty-three days an old Gene Autry - Roy Rogers sets; always exciting to watch, fast, powerful, sketchy, a remarkable experiment that works more often than not.)

Added 1969: (An absorbing movie but certainly the least satisfying of Welles' Shakespearean films; still it has a remarkable intensity and a rough power that remains impressive.)

Added 1969: (The visual conception of this has never seemed better; in fact, given its few flawed scenes, it is a powerful and brilliant achievement.)

Added 2014: All those viewings were of the truncated, re-dubbed version of this picture, the original cut of which wasn't available until long after my card-file stopped. I saw it, and it is a great deal better than the other one, but it is still not quite on the same level with Othello or Chimes at Midnight. Nevertheless, it is essential to see.

OTHELLO (1952; d-s: Orson Welles).

1960: Exceptional* (Without doubt the best Shakespeare film ever made: in completely cinematic terms, Welles has created a personal, magnificent variation on the playwright's theme. Stunningly photographed, designed and edited, eloquently acted and evocatively scored; a daring, striking, imaginative masterpiece.

Added 1961: A great visual symphony, high, intellectual and superb art, uniquely filmic, conceived and executed in entirely cinematic ways - a stylistic wonder, exciting and dynamic.

Added 1962: (One of the many amazing things about this beautiful film is its brilliant narrative power: it tells the story with force and superb economy.)

Added 1969: (One of Welles' greatest works, without question; a masterpiece on any level; breathtakingly brilliant.)

THE STRANGER (1946; d: Orson Welles).

1960: Excellent- (Outstanding direction and a superb performance by Welles distinguish this otherwise typical thriller about a former Nazi loose in a small New England town; tight, tense, beautifully photographed, well acted.

Added 1961: (Certainly not one of Welles' really personal works, but also far from average on any level.)

Added 1963: (It looked better this time than ever before - but then Welles is a never-ending source of surprise.)

Added 1969: (The script and Edward G. Robinson are weak, but Welles' direction is quite remarkable - fluid and inventive and fascinating; this movie looks better after each long absence - it does not date further than the expository scenes would in any case.)

FOLLOW THE BOYS (1944; d: Edward Sutherland).

1960: Poor (Silly, uninspired, listless war-effort revue, with a bunch of stars playing themselves and making asses of the characterizations. Orson Welles saws Marlene Dietrich in half, which is amusing and is done in his most likable flamboyant fashion; W.C. Fields makes a token appearance and that's about it on this thing.)

MR. ARKADIN (CONFIDENTIAL REPORT) (1955; d-w: Orson Welles).
1961: Exceptional (Fantastic, fascinating, brilliant and staggeringly imaginative Wellesian tour-de-force about a powerful, corrupt billionaire who hires an American adventurer to search out the sordid facts of his shadowy past so that he can destroy it. Superb, complex construction, striking cameo performances by Michael Redgrave, Katina Paxinou, others, evocative and stunning photography and editing. A stylistic and personal masterpiece, tragically re-edited and cut by moronic producers and distributors.)

Added 1962: (A better, more complete version, and thus the film is even more impressive: truly a dazzling Welles achievement, restless, perverse, ambiguous, totally personal, magically conceived and executed, vital and vivid.)

Added 1965: (When seen in close to its original form as here, this really is excellent Welles - with a frightening vision of the world and its decadence; he is a consummate stylist and a master of the cinema.)

Added 1969: (As impressive as any of his films, and though the cutting has no doubt hurt this work, it remains one of his most dazzling and exciting; and the humor and wit of its outlook has never been more appealing.)

Added 1970: (Told in its proper flashback construction, it is a remarkable work -- among his best.)

The Orson Welles File - Part 1

Peter Bogdanovich — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:42:00 GMT

Orson Welles. How much he has meant in my life. For good, mainly. Certainly he was the first film director to inspire me to direct pictures, as he did for so many others down the years. No matter how much he aged, Orson retained an aura of youth and of promise. I was 16 when I first saw Citizen Kane, and as you'll see below it had an inordinate effect on me. Again, as it has for many would-be directors.

From then on, I was an abject fan, saw anything he had anything to do with, which was a lot more than directing, unfortunately (as will be evidenced by this file). He did quite a few jobs purely for the money he could get as an actor, and couldn't get as a director. One of the supreme ironies of American film: Orson Welles couldn't get financed. So he used his acting (and commercials) money to finance his directing.

This file covers the Welles movies I saw 1952-1970, in the order they were seen, with ratings and comments from the movie card-file I kept during those nineteen years. My first professional association with Orson was through curating the first U.S. retrospective of his work at the Museum of Modern Art in 1961, and writing the accompanying monograph. I didn't actually meet the great man until 1968, after I had published several other books and directed my first feature. He asked me to do an interview book with him at our initial meeting, and that took about five years but wasn't published until seven years after his death in 1985 at age 70.

To put it mildly, Orson was a complicated cat. The book we did together in the '70s is still in print by Da Capo Press, titled This is Orson Welles, and intended by Welles “to set the record straight.” Because his life and career had numerous notorious aspects and controversies, far too numerous to deal with right now. (If you are interested in the book, click here). So, here's the first ten films I saw with which Orson Welles had something to do, in front of or behind the camera.

TRENT'S LAST CASE (1953; d: Herbert Wilcox).

1954: Poor* (Undistinguished, rather dull detective-type mystery melodrama; Orson Welles is just one of the many people wasted in this trite little nothing. Thank heaven it is Trent's last case, one couldn't bear any posthumous sequels.)

DUEL IN THE SUN (1946; d: King Vidor; narrator: Orson Welles).

1954: (Huge, elaborately produced, greatly overblown melodramatic western saga about a self-destructive love-hate relationship between two passionate people. Overblown, but also rather effective.)

Added 1962: Excellent (A fantastic piece of work: stunningly color-photographed, superbly directed super-western, typically Vidor in its sensual qualities and its sense of the grotesque. A memorable, sometimes outrageous, but beautifully acted; an exciting, fascinating and memorable achievement.)

CITIZEN KANE (1941; d-p-w: Orson Welles).
1956: Exceptional* (Among the greatest movies ever made, and certainly the most important, influential American film since The Birth of A Nation. If that picture is, so to speak, the climax of the silent cinema, Citizen Kane is the climax of the sound film. It is so breathtakingly inventive, so magnificently realized in every detail, so crisply, wittily written, so strikingly photographed and acted, and so brilliantly directed that to see it once is only to see a fraction of its glories.)

Added 1959: (Several tomes couldn't exhaust the endless beauties and delights of this tour-de-force, unequalled in films.)

Added 1960: (How many films that you've seen three times can you see three more times in two days? Only one perhaps: Citizen Kane. There seems to always be something new to look at, some heretofore undiscovered magic, poetry, artistry, humor. It is the most continually intriguing movie I have ever seen, and one of the most vividly eloquent, deeply tragic.)

Added 1961: (Just take the newsreel sequence at the beginning: it is quite incredible. Apart from being the best newsreel anyone has ever made, it is a hilarious and at the same time quite thrilling parody of The March of Time. It is fascinating, as a matter of fact, how much humor there is in this picture, something one tends to overlook the first six times.)

Added 1962: (On ninth viewing, this great picture remains as fresh and actually startling as on first sight. In fact it gets better each time, like a splendid symphony. I noticed this time again how subtle and moving are the film's emotional moments: the scene with [Agnes] Morehead, the meeting of Welles and [Dorothy] Comingore, [Joseph] Cotton's drunk scene, and, of course, the stunning final shot of the sled. A heart-breaking work.)

Added 1965: (I was struck again by the absolute perfection of the performances by an all-new-to-films cast, something entirely due to Welles' daring and imagination and talent as a director of actors; that and perhaps the finest musical score [by Bernard Herrmann] on any picture ever made.)

Added 1969: (Daring as it was - and is - Welles became much freer and more of a virtuoso in his later pictures; this one even has a certain restraint and austerity compared to what he was to achieve. However, though it is a young man's work - even an old young man's - it is a work that never pales and that remains as enjoyable every time it's looked at.)

THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1948; d-p-w: Orson Welles).

1956: (Thrillingly cinematic, macabre, often confusing Wellesian tour-de-force: theatrical, tricky, frequently confusing in motivation, but exciting and fascinating nonetheless - filled with sequences of pure genius.)

Added 1961: Exceptional (Welles' most daringly brilliant, extravagant picture - a personal, stunning masterpiece by a director who is like none other alive or dead.)

Added 1969: (This is an uneven film, but it is filled with so much poetry and magic, so much terrible beauty, and such striking imagery and imagination that it surpasses most other movies that have more cohesion; it remains a remarkable, outrageous and fascinating masterpiece by a great American artist.)

Added 1969: (And it is endlessly fascinating to watch, always unpredictable.)

MOBY DICK (1956; d: John Huston).

1956: Fair- (Extremely disappointing, but beautifully color-photographed version of the Melville epic; badly, ineptly acted, weak in exposition, clumsily directed, good special effects, but basically a failure in most respects.)

Added 1964: (An intolerably bad movie in almost every department except photography and the casting of Orson Welles as Father Mapple, except that this is bad too since he should have played Ahab.)

THE THIRD MAN (1949; d: Carol Reed).

1957: Very good* (Melodramatic, but extremely effective thriller set in post-war Vienna; suspenseful, full of atmosphere, shadowy location photography. Reed has been clearly influenced by Orson Welles in the overall conception, and Welles, with only ten minutes of screen-time, manages to steal the picture away from everyone in it. But the film remains an exciting, entertaining tour-de-force; the zither music is a brilliant touch; and the Ferris wheel scene with Welles and Cotten is well worth seeing over and over.)

Added 1969: (Really a provocative movie and an entertaining one, sort of intriguing blend of English Hitchcock and Welles, more than completely mixed by Carol Reed. Welles' personality, however, dominates.)

Added 2014: Exceptional would be a more accurate rating for me today. I've seen this picture a number of times in recent years, and it never lets me down: superb performances from everyone - Welles, Cotten, Valli, Trevor Howard, etc. - and inspired direction and photography. Totally fresh and not dated in the least. It is definitely Reed's best picture, and well worth repeated viewings. The zither was a stroke of genius.

TOUCH OF EVIL (1958; d-w: Orson Welles).

1958: Exceptional* (Mr. Welles has made something thrilling and fantastically brilliant out of a basically rather melodramatic story about a ruthless police chief in a decaying and corrupt border town. In his own striking and ingenious, imaginative conception, the picture achieves an epic level. Welles' performance and the ones he gets from the cast are second only to his stunning and overwhelming use of camera, lighting, music, editing. He has created an intensity of mood, an originality of atmosphere and a tension and depth of character-conflict which once again proves him an incredible virtuoso, a moviemaking genius of the highest order.)

Added 1961: (A never-ending source of surprise, delight and inspiration: Welles is unsurpassed in his ability to stylize dialog and still make it sound natural and true. Even on a fifth viewing, one is constantly amazed at the many nuances and subtleties missed the first four times. More and more, this looks like Welles' freest, most imaginative work, surpassing Citizen Kane in its dazzling use of the camera.)

Added 1966: (A beautiful film - beautiful in its style and conception and execution: Dietrich has never been more touchingly used, and Welles own performance is a masterpiece; unreservedly, a great movie.)

Added 1967: (Maybe it is his best film.)

Added 1969: (Mesmerizing, continually fascinating, no matter how many times it is looked at. Dietrich has never been so profoundly used, and Welles has never been more expressive.)

Added 1969: (This time through, I am convinced that it is his best movie - the most profound, simply brilliant on every level - and it is Welles' best performance too; the moving last speech of Dietrich's has never before had such an impact on me.)

THE LONG HOT SUMMER (1958; d: Martin Ritt).

1958: Fair (Absorbing but overly slick production of William Faulkner's novel, generally well done except for a hokey and unbelievable happy-ending. But excellently acted by Paul Newman, Orson Welles, others, in parts not as Faulkner saw them, but still entertaining as Hollywood tinsel.)

THE ROOTS OF HEAVEN (1958; d: John Huston).

1958: Poor* (Occasionally picturesque plea for pacifism, its theme being that an end to killing must begin with an end to the murder of elephants. The ideas, taken from Romain Gary's novel, are commendable and even provocative but their presentation is disjointed, talky, rarely exciting, strangely unpersuasive, inconclusive and, finally, just feeble. The script is verbal and rarely visual, the photography of Africa looks like stock-footage, and the actors, though inoffensive, seem to be removed from the issues at hand. Orson Welles is hilarious, however, in a small role as a radio and TV commentator.)

JANE EYRE (1944; d: Robert Stevenson; p: Orson Welles).

1958: Fair* (Not a great adaptation of the murky, memorable Bronte novel, but the haunted atmosphere of old rooms, voices, shadows is often captured, fine performances are given by Joan Fontaine and Peggy Ann Garner as the mature and young Jane, as well as by Welles, who is the image of the flamboyant, moody, theatrical Mr. Rochester. However, the final effect of the movie is hollow.)

'They Rode with the Duke'

Peter Bogdanovich — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:59:01 GMT

My Dear Blogdanovich Readers,

I'm really sorry to have disappeared the last few months but I've been making a new picture. It's called Squirrels to the Nuts. It's a comedy (with that title, it better be). We shot it in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Astoria last summer. It was a lot of fun. We had a terrific cast led by Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston. We're now in the process of finishing the picture and I believe it will be out sometime before the end of the year, or early next.
In the meantime, obviously, I haven't had much time to write. However, The New York Times gave me a very long deadline for a book review so I had a couple of months to write, and did, between shots, so to speak. Last week it appeared in The New York Times Sunday Book Review.

The piece was about an enthralling new biography of John Wayne by Scott Eyman titled John Wayne: The Life and Legend. Having known for some time three of the principal characters in Wayne's story, the book had a peculiar effect on me; because I knew Wayne for 15 years, and John Ford and Howard Hawks, his two great directors, for 10 and 15 years respectively. Therefore it was like reading about friends, mentors, and heroes of mine; but most of all, living and breathing human beings with whom I had the privilege to spend some time. So there was a kind of melancholy as well as an excitement reading about their lives. And the work was very sensitively written by Mr. Eyman.

If you're interested in reading what I wrote about the Duke, Ford and Hawks in the Times, we have supplied the link below.

In another month or two I expect to be back on track with more regular blogs. Thanks for your patience.

Playing John Wayne - New York Times Sunday Book Review.

The George Cukor File - Part 5

Peter Bogdanovich — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:57:11 GMT

And so we bring to a close our look at the pictures George Cukor had a hand in, which I saw 1952-1970, and on which I kept comments and ratings in my film card-file for those nineteen years. George was a master at sophisticated comedies and dramas, a positive genius with actors and actresses, his camera always in the right spot for the performances. He was also a delightful person, with an infectious laugh, and a charming host, with a waspish tongue, very candid, and swore like a sailor. He directed a great number of classic entertainments, including such particular favorites of mine as Holiday, Adam's Rib, Pat and Mike, Gaslight, It Should Happen to You, The Actress, and The Marrying Kind.

GRUMPY (1930; d: George Cukor, Cyril Gardner).

1965: Fair- (Cukor's first film, a likeable antique vehicle for stage actor Cyril Maude, whose tour-de-force this remains: as a grouchy, always-complaining old man who solves a crime and brings together two youngsters, he does a hundred bits perfected over a few hundred times on stage. Cukor's contribution is the basic ease of the dialogue scenes, without the declamatory quality of most films in the first two years of sound. Gardner handled the camera, which is undistinguished.)
THE ROYAL FAMILY OF BROADWAY (1931; d: George Cukor, Cyril Gardner).

1965: Very good- (Dated by the years, but still excellently acted and directed, very well written comedy about a famous family of Broadway actors, obviously patterned after the Barrymores. Cukor's third film, but his first really personal project, centering on the problems of actresses who want to lead a normal life and yet thrive on the theatre. Ina Claire is especially fine, and Fredric March gives an amusing bravura impersonation of John Barrymore.)
ZAZA (1939; d: George Cukor).

1965: Good- (In certain ways a failure, especially in the casting of Claudette Colbert and in elements of Zoe Akins' script about a traveling singer and her affair with a swell gentleman from Paris, who turns out to be married and have a young daughter. Claudette gives Herbert Marshall up, of course, and bravely goes on to become a great star. But Cukor's handling of the backstage life of the theatre is adroit and as personal as it is in A Double Life, Les Girls or in The Royal Family of Broadway; and there are many little touches and pieces of business that betray the hand of a master.)

LET'S MAKE LOVE (1960; d: George Cukor).

1965: Fair* (Stylish, nicely directed and acted, rather vapidly written comedy about a French billionaire who joins the cast of an off-Broadway revue company in order to win the affection of one of its girls; some amusing scenes, a generally engrossing quality, but certainly one of Cukor's lesser projects. Marilyn Monroe, Yves Montand, Tony Randall, Wilfred Hyde-White all do their best, and it is almost, but not quite, enough.)

ADAM'S RIB (1949; d: George Cukor).

1965: Excellent* (Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Judy Holliday, Tom Ewell are incomparably brilliant in this excellently written, superbly directed comedy about two lawyers, who are married, on opposite sides in an emotional trial involving a wronged woman who took a couple of wild shots at her unfaithful husband and his lady friend; hilarious, subtle, witty and sometimes strangely touching. One of Cukor's finest projects, done with splendid technique, taste, and an infallible sense of style and a delightful urban personality.)

Added 1968: (An absolute delight from beginning to end.)

Added 2014: This is one of Cukor's masterworks, and my rating today would be Exceptional. The writing---by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin---is of the highest quality, and the picture makes a wonderful case for the equality of the sexes, without ever being preachy or didactic. The real New York locations are beautifully used, and all of the performances are of the highest quality, but Hepburn and Judy Holliday stand out memorably. A personal favorite of mine, it really should be required viewing for anyone concerned with the battle of the sexes, and we all should be, since it remains the most wide-spread and dangerous war being fought daily across the globe.

WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? (1932; d: George Cukor).

1967: Very good* (Among the best inside-Hollywood stories, and the first --- and perhaps most honest --- of the "Star is Born" pictures, about a director on his way down and an actress on the way up: beautifully directed and acted, with a clever and witty script. Not in the least dated, and very typical of Cukor's effortless and easy style; one of his most likeable early films.

Added 1969: (Probably Cukor's first really completely effective work, with some evocative montage sequences by Slavko Vorkapich; uneven, not completely focused script, it has often brilliant dialog and fine performances from Constance Bennett, Lowell Sherman, Gregory Ratoff.)

OUR BETTERS (1933; d: George Cukor).

1969: Good (Beautifully acted, impeccably mounted film of [W. Somerset] Maugham's comedy of manners --- terribly clever and witty, with delightful performances from Anita Louise, Gilbert Roland, Constance Bennett, and, in fact, the whole cast; it is really a stage play lovingly recorded, and with some considerable visual grace, but it is not among Cukor's greatest movies.)

JUSTINE (1969; d: George Cukor, Joseph Strick).

1969: Good (Too much poor Strick footage remains to permit this to be an integrated and personal Cukor work --- the cast and script not being his to begin with; but he has done a quite reasonable job of rescuing a project and making a more than acceptable work of it. Anna Karina and Dirk Bogarde are fine and the decor and movement is good, though the editing is rushed and choppy. Like the work as a whole, it has a patchy feeling.)

TWO-FACED WOMAN (1941: d: George Cukor).

1969: Fair* (Garbo and Melvyn Douglas are unbelievably miscast in roles that required Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, but Cukor unflinchingly keeps things boiling against all odds and comes up with a mildly diverting comedy about the incompatibility of a worldly magazine editor and a recluse lady ski instructor. Probably Cukor's weakest big picture.)

Added 2014: And it ended Greta Garbo's transcendent career; as Cukor directed her in one of her greatest triumphs in Camille, so he also was the unlucky director of her final film. Nobody suspected it at the time, and she almost came back a few times---Lubitsch and Hitchcock both wanted her during the '40s, but things never worked out, so this unfortunate unfunny comedy became her swan's song. At age 35, her extraordinary career was over. Orson Welles was a passionate fan of hers, and was raving about her to me once and, being still a bit pedantic, I agreed but said wasn't it a pity she had only made two really great films---I was thinking of Camille and Lubitsch's Ninotchka---and after a few moments, Welles said quietly, "Well, you only need one..."

The George Cukor File - Part 4

Peter Bogdanovich — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:38:27 GMT

And so we continue our look at the George Cukor movies that I saw 1952-1970 and kept a record of in my card-file for those years. For more from me on Cukor, please see the relevant chapter in my 1997 collection of interviews, Who the Devil Made It, also now available as an e-book.

SUSAN AND GOD (1940; d: George Cukor).

1963: Excellent- (Vivid and brilliantly directed and acted high comedy-drama about a society lady who becomes devoted to religion and almost destroys the last remaining shreds of her marriage; beautiful work by Cukor, as always smooth and stunningly achieved; exquisite acting from Fredric March, Joan Crawford and, as always with Cukor, everyone in the cast.)

THE ACTRESS (1953; d: George Cukor).1964: Excellent (Spencer Tracy, Jean Simmons, Teresa Wright are superb in this charming, beautifully directed and written piece about a young girl who yearns to be an actress in the early 1900's; done with a flawless sense of period and timing, evocative photography and subtle, graceful camerawork. Truly a poignant and lovely little masterpiece of character and mood.)

Added 1966: (Virtually a perfect movie, and a most affecting one; with a magnificently simple performance by Tracy -- and Cukor's impeccable taste.)

Added 2014: This is based on the brilliant Ruth Gordon's autobiographical stage play, Years Ago, and features a very young and charming Anthony Perkins in his first screen role. Though it is a virtually unknown movie, it’s also definitely one of Cukor's most representative works.

PAT AND MIKE (1952; d: George Cukor).

1964: Very good* (Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Aldo Ray are hilarious and brilliant in this sharp, witty comedy about a tough Irish sports promoter and a lady athlete -- excelling in tennis, golf, what-have-you -- a delightful, sophisticated, excellently written, beautifully directed Cukor film.)

Added 1965: (Not as fine as the Cukor-[Ruth Gordon-Garson]Kanins' The Marrying Kind or Adam's Rib, but nonetheless superior comedy, lovingly conceived and executed.)

Added 2014: The rating should be Excellent* because this is one of my favorite Cukor pictures, with a brilliant script by the authors of Adam's Rib and other Cukor classics. And Tracy and Hepburn are absolutely terrific---among their very best together.

A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT (1932; d: George Cukor).

1964: Good (An early Cukor, smooth but somewhat less than personal, with Katharine Hepburn in her first film performance, still a little stagey but unmistakably a star. John Barrymore gives a beautiful, pitiable, minor-key portrayal of a shell-shock victim returning home after fifteen years in an asylum.)

Added 1969: (Typically impressive invisible Cukor direction, and a memorable performance by Barrymore, together with Hepburn's eccentric presence distinguish the work; Billie Burke is weak and the play is dated, but it has a definite archaic charm.)

THE MODEL AND THE MARRIAGE BROKER (1952; d: George Cukor).

1964: Excellent- (Thelma Ritter is superb as the marriage broker in this splendid, human Cukor comedy about a woman whose husband left her years ago and who has spent the rest of her life making matches for money and, sometimes, for nothing. Scott Brady and Jeanne Crain are likeable and Michael O'Shea is excellent, the script is honest and just a shade less effective than [Ruth Gordon and Garson] Kanin's scripts for Cukor's other rather serious comedies, in particular The Marrying Kind. This is a lovely film that shows again how well Cukor understands people.)

SYLVIA SCARLETT (1935; d: George Cukor).

1964: Very good (Delightful little Cukor comedy about a trio of rascally crooks and what happens when they all fall in love with honest folk. Charming performances by Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, Edmund Gwenn, Brian Aherne.)

MY FAIR LADY (1964; d: George Cukor).

1964: Excellent- (Except for the fact that Bigness interferes in any project, no matter how fine, this is very good Cukor, if not Cukor at his best. It is superbly filmed and nicely played by [Audrey] Hepburn, [Stanley] Holloway, [Wilfred] Hyde-White, though a bit too stridently done by [Rex] Harrison. [Cecil] Beaton's sets and costumes tend to overawe the piece and often get in the way of things, but they are generally splendid nonetheless. I prefer the intimate Cukor of Holiday, Les Girls or The Marrying Kind, but as Events go, he has fashioned a tasteful, colorful and entertaining one.)

A LIFE OF HER OWN (1965; d: George Cukor).

1965: Fair (Elegantly made soap opera, story of a Kansas girl from the wrong side of the tracks who comes to New York to win fame and fortune as a glamorous model, does, and then falls madly in love with a handsome millionaire who is married, she discovers, to a crippled wife. All rather sappy, but done with taste and grace, and rather nicely played by Lana Turner, Ray Milland, Tom Ewell, Louis Calhern; Cukor's best contribution is the false quality and the superficial chic of the New York sophisticates.)

TARNISHED LADY (1931; d: George Cukor).

1965: Good- (Tallulah Bankhead is superb in this well directed, sometimes dated melodrama about a New York lady who marries for money and falls in love with her husband, too late. Clive Brook is the man and he takes her back at the end. Cukor handles the story with his usual exquisite taste and subtlety; the writing has its shortcomings, but the director and his star remain untarnished.)

Added 1966: (It is a dated piece, without doubt, but it has its charms, and a certain sensitivity that is Cukor's, a certain brittle humor and urbanity that is typically his.)

GIRLS ABOUT TOWN (1931; d: George Cukor).

1965: Good- (Well directed and tastefully done story of two high-priced New York call-girls and one's discovery of true love. Particularly well acted by Kay Francis, Joel McCrea, Lilyan Tashman, Eugene Pallette, the script may be a bit dated and is decidedly not a true picture of this girl's kind of life, but Cukor has done it with conviction and a light touch, and it is an exceedingly likeable work.)

The George Cukor File - Part 3

Peter Bogdanovich — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:00:36 GMT

Ever onward we go through the 49 films George Cukor had a hand in that I saw 1952-1970, and kept cards on, in my file of comments and ratings during those nineteen complicated and important years.

Coincidentally, Manhattan's Film Society Lincoln Center has just started a comprehensive, 50-film retrospective of Cukor's work, which runs through January 7, 2014. Titled, very appropriately, "The Discreet Charm of George Cukor", most of the prints are 35mm., so it's a great way to see virtually every picture George directed, and they are all worth the time and effort.

DINNER AT EIGHT (1933; d: George Cukor).

1962: Very good (Elegantly, smoothly directed multi-comedy drama about a group of people invited to a dinner and what happens to each of them during the week they anticipate the evening. Superb performances by John Barrymore, Jean Harlow, Marie Dressler, Wallace Beery, and fine support from the others, in particular Billie Burke, Lee Tracy, Lionel Barrymore. One of the best pictures of its year, and still a considerable piece of work by today's standards.)

Added 1966: (Cukor's subtle camera and brilliant talent for business, pacing, timing --- together with his exceptional cast --- keep this from being in any way dated and stiff.)

Added 2013: In trying to compile a list of the best American talkies year by year, I found that Dinner at Eight ends up either in first position for 1933, or second at least. So the rating should more correctly be Excellent. Beery & Harlow are particularly funny in their constant-argument scenes, and John Barrymore is simply superb as a fading matinee idol. Overall, this is a very memorable picture, and probably Cukor's first masterwork.

EDWARD, MY SON (1949; d: George Cukor).

1962: Good* (Theatrical, but nonetheless very well acted and directed drama about a tough self-made man, his rise and fall and the ruination of his son through his indulgence and lack of discipline; written by Robert Morley as a vehicle for himself, it suffers somewhat from the non-British casting of Spencer Tracy; but Cukor's direction is as smooth and fluid as ever, so that the basic staginess of the story is lost under his subtle, tasteful guidance. This is perhaps not among his best projects, but it is effectively done, very well photographed, modulated.)

HER CARDBOARD LOVER (1942; d: George Cukor).

1962: Good* (This is a very funny little comedy of manners, done in Cukor's smooth, graceful style; everything is fine except Norma Shearer (whose last movie this was) in a part that would have been ideal for someone like Carole Lombard or Katharine Hepburn. And Cary Grant or James Stewart would have been better than Robert Taylor for the title role. George Sanders is perfect, however, and Cukor's sharp sense of business and keen technique makes up for the inadequacies of the acting.)

THE CHAPMAN REPORT (1962; d: George Cukor).

1962: Good (The script --- about a sex-mores survey and how it affects the lives of four women in an upper middle-class community --- is not always satisfactory, and the cast, especially the male players, is uneven; but Cukor has managed to get such fine work out of Claire Bloom, Shelley Winters, Glynis Johns, Jane Fonda --- in brown, black, tan and white --- that the film has a certain command. By no means one of his best, it is still a fine example of what a good director can do with pretty shoddy material.)

THE VIRTUOUS SIN (1930; d: George Cukor and Louis Gasnier).

1962: Fair* (Walter Huston and Kay Francis in a dated, but surprisingly interesting romantic drama about a wife who goes to her husband's general to plead for his life after a court-martial and ends up in love with the officer. Set in 1914 Russia, it is Cukor's second film and already shows the taste, sense of timing, and subtle technique that was to make him one of the finest of American directors; this minor work shows great promise, and remains provocative in its own right.)

DAVID COPPERFIELD (THE PERSONAL HISTORY, ADVENTURES, EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS OF DAVID COPPERFIELD THE YOUNGER)
(1935; d: George Cukor).

1962: Very good- (W.C. Fields, Edna May Oliver, Freddie Bartholomew, Roland Young and everyone else in the cast is splendid in this exquisite and tasteful version of Dickens' novel. Typically immaculate, graceful direction, artless and easy, full of humor and understanding of the period --- typically Cukor in fact.)

Added 1968: (Not as good as Little Women --- also in the classic vein --- but still a damn good adaptation, very enjoyable and thoroughly engrossing; it has intelligence.)

THE WOMEN (1939; d: George Cukor).

1962: Excellent* (Sharply observed, sophisticated, brilliantly acted and directed, cleverly written satiric comedy-drama about a bunch of giddy, gossipy, miserable women: all-girl cast, not a man in sight. Cukor's technique has never been more effective, more subtle, or more witty; he is the master of this sort of adult, urbane humor and he does this one with great flair and invention.)

A WOMAN'S FACE (1941; d: George Cukor).

1963: Good (Joan Crawford, Conrad Veidt, Melvyn Douglas in one of Cukor's lesser pictures, but a nonetheless effective melodrama set in Sweden, about a disfigured woman and what happens when plastic surgery makes her beautiful. Smooth, fascinating, well acted, superbly directed and photographed.)

ONE HOUR WITH YOU (1932; d: Ernst Lubitsch; "assisted by" George Cukor).

1963: Very good* (Maurice Chevalier and Jeanette MacDonald in Lubitsch's thoroughly delightful, fresh and charming musical version of his 1924 social comedy, The Marriage Circle, about some frivolous infidelity among two couples. Gay, risque, irreverent, it is not one of Lubitsch's masterpieces --- The Love Parade is superior in the genre --- but a captivating, melodious, completely personal, stylish work nonetheless.)

Added 1966: (The film lies somewhere between the gaiety of Monte Carlo and the wisdom of Angel --- a kind of transition piece in itself, wonderfully played, slight in appearance, but with considerable depth beneath the light touch. A special and completely Lubitschian piece.)

Added 2013: No, this is terrific Lubitsch, but I've become more of a fan every year since then, so that now virtually any Lubitsch is good enough for me. Cukor began as the director, but Lubitsch wasn't satisfied with the dailies, so he took over. George was very distressed and insisted on getting some credit for his work, so on most prints Lubitsch's director credit has an additional "assisted by" mention, though what sort of assistance Lubitsch would have needed is dubious at best. Nevertheless, Cukor got his name on a Lubitsch film in his third year in pictures, which would have meant quite a bit in those days. Still does.

MARILYN (1963; d: Richard Sale, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Joseph Newman, Edmund Goulding, Roy Baker, Henry Koster, Howard Hawks, Henry Hathaway, Jean Negulesco, Otto Preminger, Walter Lang, Billy Wilder, Joshua Logan, George Cukor.)

1963: Poor* (A generally weak compilation of sequences from various Marilyn Monroe films, from 1950 to 1962, distinguished by the Hawks clips [from Monkey Business & Gentlemen Prefer Blondes] and, for a moment, transfixing, in the scenes made for Cukor's film [Something's Got to Give], never finished because of her more than untimely death.)

The George Cukor File - Part 2

Peter Bogdanovich — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:40:58 GMT

And we continue going through the George Cukor-directed pictures in my 1952-1970 card-file of ratings and comments on the movies I saw during that very formative 19-year period.

LES GIRLS (1957; d: George Cukor).

1957: Good* (Overly slick, but pleasantly elaborate musical comedy about three different versions of the same story: a song-and-dance act (three girls and a guy). Tongue-in-cheek, and generally very enjoyable.)

Added 1962: (Very good* would be more accurate: Cukor's use of color and CinemaScope is more dazzling than I've seen him do since A Star is Born [see Cukor File-Part 1]. This is a complete delight: [Gene] Kelly and Kay Kendall are particularly charming and funny.)

WILD IS THE WIND (1957; d: George Cukor).

1958: (Although [Anthony] Quinn and [Tony] Franciosa and especially [Anna] Magnani act with skill and conviction, the movie remains rather shallow, even a bit pretentious, which is mainly the script's fault: it is slick, typical and has a decidedly Hollywood gloss.)

Added 1965: Very good* (This is a fine Cukor film; exquisitely, tastefully handled triangle, sensitively done, with a great feeling for the kind of peasant folk that it's about. It is exceptionally well acted, and the script is not slick, but quite honest and full of insight; it is the direction that is slick, but in the best sense of the word.)

ROMEO AND JULIET (1936; d: George Cukor).

1959: (Dated, stagey Shakespeare adaptation, with a delightful bravura performance by John Barrymore as Mercutio. Elaborate [Irving G.] Thalberg production, with [Norma] Shearer and [Leslie] Howard both too old for the young lovers; not at all a good example of Cukor's talent and skill.)

HELLER IN PINK TIGHTS (1960; d: George Cukor).

1960: (An off-beat western about a traveling group of actors and their adventures in Cheyenne and Bonanza: strange, sometimes awkward, but beautifully color-photographed, designed, well acted, filled with period atmosphere. Cukor's sophisticated personality is everywhere in evidence.)

Added 1967: Excellent (An absolute tour-de-force of style, decor, mood and period flavor --- filled with a deep and delightful sense of theatre people, their glories and their folly. [Sophia] Loren, [Anthony] Quinn and the entire cast give flawless performances, and Cukor brings it all off with sometimes thrilling dispatch; memorable.)

SONG WITHOUT END (1960; d: George Cukor, Charles Vidor).

1960: Fair (Tasteful, superbly color-photographed, and for the most part interesting bio-pic of Franz Liszt; some nice acting, good music, and typically smooth Cukor technique --- he took over when [Charles] Vidor died while the picture was in production.)

THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940; d: George Cukor).

1961: Excellent (Sharp, sophisticated, brilliantly acted and smoothly directed high comedy based on the play about a spoiled society girl who can't decide whether to remarry or marry her former husband, and the reporter who helps her make up her mind. Superb performances by Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart, and typically exquisite, subtle Cukor direction.)

Added 1963: (Not so much a comedy as an often serious look at high society and its people; truly brilliant in every way, though I prefer Cukor's Holiday).

Added 2013: While I still enjoy all the performances in this picture, I don't really like the intentions of the script, which were to dethrone and demystify the goddess Hepburn had become in the 30s. She is blamed for her own divorce, even though her husband was an alcoholic, as well as blamed for her father's philandering! Holiday, with the same two leads, the same writer and the same director, is an infinitely better movie. But this one is much more famous, unfortunately.

LITTLE WOMEN (1933; d: George Cukor).

1961: Excellent (Impeccably directed, written and played adaptation of [Louisa May] Alcott's novel about a family of daughters in New England, during and after the Civil War; moving, often touching, amusing, deeply human.)

Added 1968: (A lovely and beautifully directed movie; the first half is flawless, and the last quarter is fine, but the middle part, with [Katharine] Hepburn and [Paul] Lukas in the city, is not as successful; nevertheless, it is a remarkable, terribly poignant and enduring achievement.)

WINGED VICTORY (1944; d: George Cukor).

1961: Excellent (An outstanding propaganda picture, superbly directed by Cukor, showing his amazing versatility of style in this almost documentary-type war film about the training of pilots, flight engineers, navigators, during the Second World War. Expertly acted by a then-unknown (now all-star) cast, brilliantly edited --- sound track as well --- a memorable, often moving, thoroughly exciting piece of work.)

GASLIGHT (1944; d: George Cukor).

1961: Excellent (Somber, subtle, brilliantly acted by Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, beautifully directed and written period thriller about a mysterious marriage and an evil man who attempts to drive his wife insane. Cukor's smooth, exquisite style, his superb sense of atmosphere and period, deceptively simple camerawork, and intelligent, tasteful personality is particularly well suited to this fascinating, vintage melodrama.)

Added 2013: The rating should probably be Exceptional, as this is one of Cukor's masterworks: a merciless, painfully intense story of mental abuse, giving rise to the common usage of "to gaslight someone" meaning to drive them crazy with falsehoods and selfish manipulation. Boyer and Bergman are absolutely superb: movie acting at its best, almost a commonplace with Cukor.

KEEPER OF THE FLAME (1942; d: George Cukor).

1961: Very good- (Obviously and clearly influenced by [Orson] Welles' Citizen Kane, this picture is effective and expertly done in its own right --- about a reporter who uncovers the fascist truth about a great American patriot after the man's death. Excellently acted by Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, somewhat contrived in the writing, but very well photographed and directed by Cukor. A powerful piece of work, handled with the director's usual simplicity and graceful competence.)

The George Cukor File - Part 1

Peter Bogdanovich — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:55:09 GMT

For the next few blogs, we are going through all the George Cukor-directed pictures in my 1952-1970 card-file of comments on movies I saw during that period, as I went from age 12 1/2 to 30 1/2. Cukor's name is attached to some of the best acted pictures ever made during Hollywood's Golden Age. He began as a Broadway stage director and was lured West as sound took over and the studios began looking for directors who had experience with dialog. Of all those who made that journey, George was by far the most talented and had the longest, most productive career. He was equally adept at doing comedy or drama, thriller or musical, though he tended more toward sophisticated comedy.

Cukor was not an especially visual director, in that his camera was there mainly to service the actors, and yet his work in widescreen was quite striking, and he certainly was dead-on in camera placement. In person, he was charming, witty, gracious and candid; he swore like a sailor, but it always sounded chic coming from him. (You can read my published interview with Cukor in my 1997 directors book, Who the Devil Made It, available through Amazon, Bookfinder, or as an e-book.) The modulation of performances, the interplay among actors, the rhythm of a scene---these were his greatest strengths---and contributed to some of the most purely entertaining pictures made in America, and a number of my personal favorites, such as Holiday, Adam's Rib, Pat and Mike, or on a darker level, Gaslight.

If the date after the title is the same as the date on the picture's first comment, it means that I saw the movie during its first run. Running through the titles, then, you can see how many older Cukor films I saw between the new ones he was making.

THE MARRYING KING (1952; d: George Cukor).1952: (If this was meant as a sequel to Born Yesterday, it's an utter failure; but, taken as just another movie, it has its comic moments and tender ones too, mostly thanks to Judy Holliday.)

Added 1962: Excellent* (This is a serious and bitter comedy of marriage, sharply and incisively written, beautifully played by both Judy Holliday and Aldo Ray, and directed with rare insight and honest sensitivity and skill. Actually far superior in every way to Born Yesterday [see below], a funny, sad, hard and deeply touching work, one of the finest and most unusual bittersweet comedies ever made.)

A DOUBLE LIFE (1947; d: George Cukor).

1952: Excellent* (Superbly acted, directed, and written split-personality psychological thriller; taut, suspenseful, and dramatically sound; a truly fine piece of work.)

Added 1962: (Ten years --- I wouldn't have thought it --- I remember this superb film so well. Cukor's handling of what could have been a pretentious, clumsy, and stagey work is stunning, smooth, and articulate. The script, acting and camera are expert and deceptively simple. Also: I have never seen such beautiful backstage atmosphere. Cukor, undoubtedly, is a master.)

IT SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU (1954; d: George Cukor).

1954: (Funny, delightful little comedy-satire: the script is intelligent, the acting is excellent, particularly Judy Holliday. It is not as good, however, as the Cukor-[Garson] Kanin-Holliday picture, Born Yesterday.)

Added 1961: Excellent- (Cukor's graceful, expert handling of this sophisticated comedy about a girl who rents a number of huge billboards and has her name, Gladys Glover, painted on them in an attempt to "make a name" for herself, is surer and more cinematic than Born Yesterday. Not as flashy a script, but in a sense, more personal to Cukor, and therefore perhaps a great deal better. Jack Lemmon is particularly good in his first screen role.)

Added 1964: (Judy Holliday's performance is a shimmering delight, filled with subtleties and exquisite moments; Lemmon has never been more convincing, and Cukor's handling is sure and precise and sensitive; an altogether charming movie.)

Added 2013: This delightful comedy, originally titled with the much better "A Name For Herself", has some of the best ever New York City shots, as do all Cukor's N.Y. pictures. And the interplay between Holliday and Lemmon is absolutely perfect. Now that Warhol's prediction about everyone having 15 minutes of fame has come true, this movie seems ever more prescient and insightful.

GONE WITH THE WIND (1939; d: Victor Fleming; & uncredited: George Cukor, Sam Wood).

1954: Good* (Gigantic, overwhelmingly produced, and excellently acted epic saga of the Civil War and its effect on the South. Huge in concept, intricate in plot, the picture is by now a revered classic, yet it is almost anything but a great film. As a spectacle, it is exciting, and as magazine fiction, it is more than effective. It also manages to hold one's attention steadily for almost four hours, no mean achievement. As an example of [producer David O.] Selznick's perseverance, the picture is monumental; it is also a perfect example of Hollywood in its hey-day.)

Added 1962: (Really it is Vivien Leigh's consummate performance and breathtaking beauty as Scarlett O'Hara that holds this incredibly long picture together. And since Cukor is reputed to have worked with her extensively, it is not surprising. Too bad he wasn't allowed to direct the entire film. As it is, Gone With the Wind is fun in its way, but could not even be called a poor man's The Birth of a Nation.)

Added 2013: This picture seems to be beyond criticism by now, but Vivien Leigh certainly is the reason it still works despite everything else that may be corny; and Clark Gable is perfect in the role that fans insisted had to be played by him.

A STAR IS BORN (1954; d: George Cukor).

1954: Exceptional (Elaborately produced, moving, excellently acted, strongly written (by Moss Hart) and directed version of the old [Janet] Gaynor-[Fredric] March vehicle about the decline of a movie star and the rise of another; songs added for Miss [Judy] Garland. Completely absorbing, all three hours, and quite memorable.)

Added 1960: (Particularly impressive is Cukor's brilliant use of color and CinemaScope as well as Garland's extraordinary performance. Although the 28 minutes that have been cut hurt Cukor's overall conception, it still comes off as this director's major work, a masterpiece.)

Added 2013: Actually, the 28 minutes that were cut from the version I was lucky enough to see when it first opened in 1954 did quite a bit of damage to the picture, and every version since (with some footage restored) remains crippled. Cukor was heartbroken about the cuts, as was Judy, with just cause; it was a crime to chop into such a brilliant, majestic piece of work.

CAMILLE (1937; d: George Cukor).

1955: (Dated, often stilted romantic drama: teary, rather dull, but well directed, convincingly acted by [Greta] Garbo.)

Added 1962: (This is not among Cukor's best, but it's a good deal better than I thought eight years ago. Next to Ninotchka, this is Garbo's best performance, Cukor's impeccable guidance keeping her subdued, eloquent. He also handles the story of Marguerite Gautier with grace and an exquisite knowledge of style and atmosphere; the tale is just a bit too old.)

Added 1966: Good* (Garbo is excellent, but [Robert] Taylor is a real drawback, and some other scenes are overdone; it's really a story for [director Frank] Borzage, but Cukor brings it off well.)

Added 2013: I don't agree with my younger self at all. I've seen this more recently, and Garbo is transcendently sublime; her final scene is breathtaking and so touching that a stone would cry. Also Robert Taylor is properly callow and very young, but he plays it just as it should be played. It is a triumph for Cukor, no way around it.

BORN YESTERDAY (1950; d: George Cukor).

1955: (Garson Kanin's hilarious play has been superbly transferred to the screen; the performances --- especially Judy Holliday's brilliant Billie Dawn --- are all expert; and Cukor's work is smooth, convincing and tasteful.)

Added 1963: Very good- (Remains an affecting and very funny movie: not among Cukor's best, as is, for instance, The Marrying Kind, another Cukor-Holliday-Kanin combination.)

Added 1966: (The play has dated a bit, and [William] Holden hasn't quite the charm to pull it off, but Judy is still magnificent.)

Added 2013: I have a sentimental attachment to this picture, I suppose because my parents loved it, and I saw it first with them when it came out in 1950. Judy's classic original stage performance is somewhat over the top for movies, yet you can't help but love her anyway. And I now pretty much like William Holden in just about everything.

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930; d: Lewis Milestone; dialogue director-associate producer: George Cukor).

1955: Good* (The famous pacifist novel by [Erich Maria] Remarque, filmed with honesty and truth: a moving, compassionate outcry for an end to war. Rather dated in technique, but generally well photographed, acted, written.)

HOLIDAY (1938; d: George Cukor).

1955: Exceptional (Wonderfully funny, entertaining, witty and delightful high comedy: about the black sheep of a millionaire's family and the "radical" young man who wants to take a holiday and find out why he's working. Brilliantly acted, expertly written and directed --- a thoroughgoing pleasure.)

Added 1961: (Cukor is a positive master at this sort of thing, and Holiday is one of his finest, most representative works.)

Added 1964: (The acting of Grant, Hepburn, [Edward Everett] Horton, [Jean] Dixon and [Lew] Ayres, the scintillating script, the subtle and perfect direction combine to make this one of the most genuinely thrilling comedies ever made; no doubt also because the script is such a marvelous wish-fulfillment in its denouement.)

Added 1966: (Hepburn has the slightest tinge of over-playing in her final scene, but it certainly doesn't spoil the general perfection of the execution; and Grant is magnificent.)

Added 2013: No, Kate doesn't overact at all---I was wrong in 1966---and, in fact, this is among my most favorite films, one I come to love even more every time I see it, until now I won't stand for any negative comment about it at all: to me, it's just perfect. So there.

BHOWANI JUNCTION (1956; d: George Cukor).

1956: (Absorbing, but laughably melodramatic romantic adventure saga centering on India-British conflicts after World War II; well directed and filmed, acted with chin-up seriousness.)

Added 1964: Good (The story of a half-caste girl caught in the midst of racial conflict is something less than profound, but Cukor's handling of the color and CinemaScope is exciting and talented, making up considerably for the script's deficiencies; also Ava Gardner is beautiful and quite good.)

Eileen Brennan (1932-2013)

Peter Bogdanovich — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 20:30:32 GMT

The following was written for the Eileen Brennan Memorial, which was held in Los Angeles last week; I was unable to be there, but the piece was read at the event.

I first saw Eileen Brennan in the off-Broadway musical hit, Little Mary Sunshine, a satiric delight in which she was brilliantly funny, sang with grace and gusto, and generally established herself as a major talent. This was around 1960.

Ten years later, I still remembered that performance when we had her come in and read for a role in The Last Picture Show. She was perfect for Genevieve, the long-suffering yet feisty waitress at the only diner in the little Texas town; and almost twenty years later, she played the role beautifully again when we shot a sequel, Texasville. In between, we did two other pictures together, and she was superb in both Daisy Miller---as a snobbish American ex-patriot socialite in Rome---and in the Cole Porter musical, At Long Last Love, in which her marvelous singing and dancing abilities were finally displayed on screen; she nearly stole that picture playing Cybill Shepherd's jack-of-all-trades amanuensis.

All through those good times, she was the consummate professional, always well prepared, ready to try anything, vividly able to sustain an especially long take, such as doing fourteen pages without a cut in Daisy Miller, or in At Long Last Love playing an entire intricate song-and-dance number in one shot. Eileen had a great sense of humor and of the absurd: she was very funny, never at others' expense, quick with sympathy, and as dear as a true friend can be.

The nature of show business life is not unlike a gypsy's: here today, somewhere else tomorrow. So I didn't see Eileen for a number of years, though we stayed loosely in touch. The last time was at a Special Academy Screening of The Last Picture Show a couple of years ago in L.A. on the occasion of the picture's 40th Anniversary. Forty years! It didn't seem possible---for any of us there that night. We all remembered the experience so keenly.

Eileen was not in good shape. She had trouble walking and it took two of us to help her up onto the stage. But she was still as quick as ever with a funny crack and a fast startling insight. She made a point of mentioning to me how much she loved the wristwatch I had given her over thirty-five years ago! She was not one to take anything for granted, grateful for everything, and ever loving. She was one of the really special talents I've been fortunate enough to work with and to know as a friend. I will always miss her.

Luciano Vincenzoni (1926-2013)

Peter Bogdanovich — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:46:52 GMT

What's the big difference between Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars and the sequel, For A Few Dollars More? The sequel is infinitely better because it has a lot of humor, missing in the first film, which was a flat-out rip-off of Akira Kurosawa's Eastern western, Jojimbo. And what makes Leone's The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly the best of the three? It's even funnier, wittier. Now who was responsible for this much-needed comic vision? A brilliant Italian screenwriter named Luciano Vincenzoni, who also contributed to a number of Italian classics (like Seduced and Abandoned and The Birds, The Bees, and the Italians) directed by the great director-actor Pietro Germi.

As a person, Luciano was an absolute delight. I had the good fortune to work with him first back in 1969 when I was asked to direct the Leone-produced Duck, You Sucker (which eventually became A Fistful of Dynamite, and directed by Leone). Luciano and I had a great time together in Rome, trying to please Sergio, and laughing a lot. He was a true original, with an incredibly fertile imagination, and plot-twists poured out of him like water from a deep well. He had a superb sense of humor, of course, and a rollicking grasp of the absurd.

It's this trait that made it easier for him to work with Sergio, who was most like a flamboyant ten-year-old playing at cowboys and Indians, endlessly acting out a showdown, for example, between one outlaw and another: "Clink, clink," indicating spurs, then his hand spins out an imaginary six-gun, and, "Bang, bang!" Following this, he might say that the character is, naturally, we should understand, none other than Jesus Christ.

To function with Sergio, as Luciano did for a while (until they finally had a violent split), the writer had to have patience and a privately held attitude of splendid derision. He and I used to roar with laughter after a typical session with Leone, which was nothing if not surreal. This humor of Luciano's is what makes Leone's best films so entertaining: the writer didn't take it all seriously, and that made for a lack of pretense and a free-wheeling sardonic attitude to the material he was turning out.

Luciano was like the perfect Italian: charming, humorous, amorous, self-deprecating, handsome, and worldly. Sad to say, Luciano passed away last month at the age of 87, and I will always miss him. He was one of a kind.