Showing posts with label Edmund Gwenn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edmund Gwenn. Show all posts

Saturday, June 17, 2023

Life With Father

Tomorrow is Father's Day and we'll be doing a yin-yang on the subject this weekend. "Good Dad" today. "Bad Dad" tomorrow.

Although today is traditionally "Take Out the Trash" Day, we'll forgo it for Good ol' Dad.


Life with Father (Michael Curtiz, 1947) "Oh, GAD!" Another one of those movies I've always had the opportunity to see but never did. A perennial for local television stations to have in their "libraries" for weekend programming (this was back in the day when local stations didn't fill their schedules with info-mercials), I had plenty of chances to catch this one on the tube, (and I would for fifteen minutes—tops—then move on) but I never did. My bad. This one needs to be taken in in one sitting, (preferably in a theater because the Technicolor is breath-takingly sharp), telephone off, and at full attention.

"I am the character of my household!" booms Clarence Shephard Day, as he's choosing the latest in a long line of maids, which he has chased out of his employ in the last few months, many of them in tears and some in hysterics. Truer words were never spoken. He is the titular patriarch of Life with Father, from the hit Broadway play,* based on the remembrances of Clarence Day, Jr. of turn-of-the-century living with a father-figure who paces slowly in his own grooved path. William Powell plays the role, one he actively petitioned for.
It's a charming film, full of easy irony about the mores and prejudices of the time, where male pomposity poses as dignity, and more separates people than unites them—easy excuses for keeping things nice and orderly on the surface, while underneath, they are broiling with chaos that is easily ignored and denied.   Clarence Day, Sr. denies at the top of his lungs, and his monologues—against politics, taxes, unnecessary expenses, and organized religion (organized against him, it seems)—built individually in intensity and volume, are performances for an audience of one—himself. His barely suffering wife (played by Irene Dunne as if she were singing the entire role) has more influence over him than he is willing to admit, or recognize...or even remember. And his kid's are "mini-me's" of him, all boys, all carrot-tops, and as they age they morph further into miniature versions of The Old Man, down to his expletives and bluster.

Michael Curtiz directs formally and breezily, with his actors performing at top gear, and the director altering pace in editing and filling the frame with as much set decoration as it can hold.

The material doesn't need much else. It's strongly forced, comically subtle and has an undercurrent of mature content, that you just don't see in movies nowadays. Life with Father is from a far subtler era in which sub-texts flew over kid's heads, while the adults exchanged knowing glances and suppressed chuckles (that way you don't have to explain it to the youngsters with a simple "you'll understand some day").

And the sub-text is sex. Clarence, Jr. is growing up, voice changed (but his violin playing still has noticeable cracks) and he's noticing girls—and when it's Elizabeth Taylor as a visiting friend's daughter, one can't help noticing. At the time of the film, it was still early in Taylor's career and her performance is breathy, needy and comes from the same type of ingenue training that produced Marilyn Monroe's early performances. Clarence wants to impress Taylor's Mary, but he can't do so in Dad's ill-fitting hand-me-down suits. The excuse is they're practical, but, as he says, "I can't do anything in Dad's clothes." But, the truth is he gets...uncomfortable...in Taylor's presence. It's not bluntly said, it's danced around, implied, suggested, but never spelled out (as would be the norm today). It's hilarious, charming, and pays off in some ironically comic laugh-lines throughout the film.

Yeah, they "don't make 'em like this anymore." More's the pity. Life with Father deserves its classic status—for some reason, it's not in the National Film Registry—because it's smart, pointed...and hilarious.  


GAD!

* It still holds the record for the longest run of a non-musical stage-play.

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Sylvia Scarlett

Sylvia Scarlett (George Cukor, 1935) This one can't be considered a movie of the libertine, free-and-wheelin' "Pre-Code" era of movie-making, but it takes mild chances (if only teasingly), but hardly enough to account for its reputation as one of the most financially disastrous movies on the 1930's despite a good script, solid direction by George Cukor and the pairing of Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn (though it being their first—Hepburn had met Grant at Paramount and recommended him to Cukor—no one could anticipate their subsequent chemistry). The film's lack of success labeled Hepburn as "box-office poison" and she didn't become bankable again until she bought herself the rights to "The Philadelphia Story" and revived her career with it...also with Grant in the movie version.

But, it looks tame today, even quaint. And it wouldn't so much as cause a pursed lip among the blue-haired old ladies who went to see Victor, Victoria or Shakespeare in Love. It was just before its time, although Cukor—who was euphemistically esteemed throughout his career as "a woman's director"—enjoyed depicting the sexes in sometimes challenging ways, often as satire, often as comedy. Sylvia Scarlett is a light-hearted drama (until it turns dark) and a comedy of manners (if those manners only tease but don't commit, and Judith Martin would certainly not call that "manners"). It's a little bit of everything, but more soufleé than stew. 
In Marseilles, when the seamstress wife of Henry Scarlett (Edmund Gwenn) dies, he becomes desperate to flee the country from French officials. He's been embezzling funds from the lace factory where he was employed as a bookkeeper, and lost all the funds to gambling. With some lace that he has stolen, he decides to head back to England to start anew, but tells his daughter Sylvia (Hepburn) that he will go alone and send for her later. She will have none of that, and so cuts off her hair and tells him that if she travels with him as a boy, the police will be confounded in their search for a man and his daughter.
While ferrying across the channel, they make the acquaintance of one Jimmy Monkley (Grant), a charming Cockney con artist and grifter, who uses his acquaintance with the Scarlett's to throw suspicion off himself when they go through customs (he rats out Henry's lace so as to distract from the diamonds he's smuggling in his shoe). Despite the seeming betrayal (and the £100 Monkley gives the Scarlett's for their trouble), the three decide to hook up as con artists using Monkley's contacts in London. The living arrangements are a bit problematic, as Monkley can't seem to figure out while "Sylvester"—the name Sylvia goes by in her disguise—is nervous about sharing a room with him, and gets downright agitated about dressing down for the night. What is wrong with the boy?
The first scam attempt involves Maudie Tilt (Dennie Moore), a lady's maid whom Monkley tries to seduce to steal her lady's expensive pearl necklace. The escapade doesn't pan out but it does manage to hook Maudie up with the band, partially because she's attracted to "Sylvester" which worries Sylvia, but not as much as when her father starts to fall for Maudie. Sylvia/Sylvester, having a crisis of conscience, insists they give up the dangerous grifter life, and instead become travelling show-people, "The Pink Pierrots," a cavorting harlequin troupe caravaning from small town to small town entertaining the villagers.
In one town, they meet bohemian artist Michael Fane (Brian Aherne), who is enchanted by the group, but, curiously, most by Sylvester—who, in turn, is attracted to him—prompting Fane to gasp the most famous line to pass the censors: "I say, I know what it is that gives me a queer feeling when I look at you..."
pause for effect
"...There's something in you to be painted!" 

Of course. That must be it. Artistic inspiration. While Sylvia Scarlett (the movie) flirts and teases with the gay mystique, there is nothing beyond girl-on-girl pecking (mistaken or otherwise) that produces something akin to horror in Hepburn's character. Even Aherne's outburst is provincially couched in Sylvia's subterfuge—he's attracted to her because she's a woman, though dressed as a man. Safe enough. And when "Sylvester", smitten with Fane, borrows ladies' gear to appear all flowery and girly, he is charmed but ultimately dismissive once learning the truth of Sylvia, going back to his un-British—in fact, Russian-European—mistress.
The sexual politics is flummery—just a tease—because once things settle—and people settle—things are safely hetero, but, at least, they take one chance: the pairings are not based on Hollywood archetypes of who should be with whom (we've all seen disastrously mis-paired types in many a final fade-out), but rather in personality types; the romantics are together and the churlishly cynical are as well, being matches of the soul, rather than the romantic heart.
At least that is a bit different; the couples deserve each other, for good or ill. It's not much of a revolution, certainly not enough to inspire a reprisal at the box-office. In fact, it's merely common sense, but that's something rarely found in romantic films.

Or in romance, for all that.

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Them!

Them! (Gordon Douglas, 1954) "When Man entered the atomic age, he opened a door into a new world. What we'll eventually find in that new world, nobody can predict." What no one could predict is that giant atomic-mutated ants would spoil The Big Picnic. Somehow, one expected the splitting of the atom to have more profound effects.

But nature abhors a vacuum or tampering with things on the atomic level, and, apparently, so did the world-wide movie industry, because, by 1953, two films that displayed horrific effects from atomic testing exploded on (appropriately, I guess) American and Japanese theater screens: The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (Eugène Lourié) and Gojira (Ishirô Honda). Neither film exactly bombed.

And as The Bomb (and a popular 1952 re-release of King Kong) begat The Beast..., so did that Warners film beget Them! (which became Warner Brothers' box-office champ in 1954)*, inspiring a subsequent fallout of atomic themed films featuring Incredible Shrinking and 50 ft. metamorphoses that have had a half-life of (going on) 60 years. Them! may not be the glowingly cheesiest of them all—some of the writing's not bad, and despite the subject matter, some of the performances are surprisingly good—but, then, what can you expect with such an early entry in the genre, everybody was trying hard, and the writers managed to throw in some scientific fact mixed in with the hokum. But, it does have an exclamation mark in the title, which immediately makes it suspect.
And it has a good intro: a little girl (Sandy Descher) is found by police wandering in the desert, mute, in shock. Tracing her back to the family trailer (!), they find it split open—but from the inside. Hmmm. Mystery abounds, and at one point Sherlock Holmes is invoked (appropriately, as he once had to do battle with The Giant Rat of Sumatra, "a story for which the world is not yet prepared").  
But, you can't hide a gargantuan ant for very long, not even in the desert, and soon the local constabulary and the army (with the help of a couple of myrmecologists (you know, "ant-thropologists") take on the formidable formicidae with all manner of WWII surplusflame-throwers, bazookas (that look really cool!), cyanide gas cannisters, and rocket-propelled grenades—one wishes for the huge Monty Python foot to appear, or a monstrous can of Raid...better yet, turn New Mexico into a giant ant-farm

There is no trying to "negotiate" with the ants (it was the 1950's, after all, at least they weren't hauled up before the House Un-American Activities Committee), and even one of the scientists—the cute female one (Joan Weldon), after making her observations, documenting them, and taking her corroborative pictures,** turns to her companions with the flame-throwers and says, "Burn it. Burn EVERYTHING!" O-kay...
This one was directed by Gordon Douglas,*** who worked his way up from "Our Gang" comedies to Laurel and Hardy and became to go-to director for 20th Century Fox when they needed a fast turn-around on a sequel or a Frank Sinatra movie, and sports all sorts of good actors trying to take it all seriously: Edmund Gwenn, James Whitmore, James Arness, Fess Parker (in an odd role as a man driven lunatic by the sight of giant ants), and look for glimpses of Richard Deacon (reporter), William Schallert (doctor) and Leonard Nimoy**** (fleetingly) as a soldier with some interesting information, and with no less than four employments of the giddily hysterical "Wilhelm" scream (performed by Sheb Wooley) shrieking throughout.  "The Wilhelm" was recorded for the 1952 film Distant Drums and became part of the Warner Brothers stock sound effects library under the title "man being eaten by alligator." 
And giant ants. Lots of giant ants. Zillions of them. Although, for budgetary reasons, we only see three at a time.
"The Wilhelm," however, probably wouldn't be classified as one of those "profound effects" previously mentioned.
"Look...it was a paycheck, okay?"

* Interestingly, though, no Academy Award nominations....

** Dialogue that came to mind: "I need to get one of you officers close to one, so I can get some perspective. Would you...?" "Lady!  You nuts??!!

*** And, you can tell that it was SUPPOSED to be shot in 3-D, with some shots hurtling at you...and evidently in color (only the title is), but someone in Warners accounting wisely decided not to "splurge" on a giant ant movie.

****