Tag: 1964

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Winner of 8 Oscars and unbelievably charming even after 170 minutes (and 50 years). A timeless masterpiece no matter how you cut it. #Audrey

Spoiler-free Movie Review of My Fair Lady:

People love to recount the story of how Julie Andrews wasn’t allowed to reprise her Broadway role of Eliza Doolittle for the film adaptation of My Fair Lady and how she got the last laugh when she won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in Mary Poppins, while Audrey Hepburn wasn’t even nominated. They like to gloat about how Hepburn was dubbed for most of her singing performances when producer Jack Warner, refusing to transpose her songs to a lower register more suited to her voice, decided that Marni Nixon’s looped voice would be better for the part. Everyone wanted Andrews to play the role in the film, including Hepburn. Walt Disney even offered to delay the filming of Mary Poppins to allow Andrews to do both pictures.

Alright, I’ll say it; Audrey Hepburn is better for this picture than Julie Andrews would have been and Warner was right to make the casting decision he did. Would Andrews have been great in the role? Of course she would have. Julie Andrews is a wonderful, world-class actress and the film would have been excellent. But it’s sublime with Hepburn…

The Academy, in sympathy for Andrews and snobbery over the looped singing, left Hepburn out of the running for Best Actress, despite being the lead in a film they would select as the Best Picture of 1964. Ridiculous. Hepburn not only deserved to be nominated, she deserved to win.

(You may be realizing by now that this review is going to be a bit of an Audrey-obsessed affair. I don’t apologize for that at all. I’m in very good company – everyone loves Audrey. But if you like, skim this one – I promise to get around to other aspects of the film at some point…)

One reason that Hepburn is so effective in this role is that she is believable consorting with both flower sellers and the gentry. I never saw Andrews perform the role, but have a hard time accepting that she’d ever seem like anything but a lady, even in the gutter. Both actresses can exude an air of royalty, but Hepburn’s rail-thin physique and experiences of malnourishment in the Second World War help to make the early scenes more plausible and Eliza’s journey more satisfying.

The movie is nearly perfect. It’s a great story – that’s why they’ve told it so many times in so many ways. The Greek myth itself is interesting and led to a host of interpretations on the stage, from operas to dramas. George Bernard Shaw’s original play Pygmalion, upon which the Lerner & Loewe musical is based, is excellent. It was adapted into a film long before this musical was even conceived of. And of course there have been a ton of updates in the years since.

But this may be the most satisfying telling of all. Shaw introducing an element of satire and social commentary about the English class system was an inspired touch and lifts the subject material to a new level, and the addition of music and then filmed spectacle makes the statement stand out most illustratively.

I won’t apologize for enjoying My Fair Lady best. Partly it’s the music, largely it’s the acting, mostly it’s the libretto/book – great dialogue. I found reading Pygmalion a little unsatisfying after seeing My Fair Lady first. That’s not really fair, but it is what it is.

One of the great joys, of course, is the spectacle on display. They quite simply don’t make them like this anymore. In truth, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as the evolution of cinematic storytelling has for the most part been entirely improved with the passage of time, but there is no way to watch a picture of this magnitude without being impressed and a bit sad that you won’t see it’s like again.

Rex Harrison is his splendid peacock self, leading the mostly British cast through the English anachronisms and picking up a Best Actor Oscar for it. Stanley Holloway is delightful as dustman turned moralist Alfred P. Doolittle, stealing the show with two of the best numbers.

The music, for its part is top shelf. Lerner & Loewe would never do anything else quite as inspired as My Fair Lady (Paint Your Wagon somewhat cancels out Camelot and Gigi), but considering the quality of this work, it’s enough…

For all of the great dialogue, music and acting, however, My Fair Lady remains a visual extravaganza. The sets are expansive and ornate, expanding the horizons beyond those possible on stage, without ever really losing that theater ambiance. Gene Allen, Cecil Beaton and George James Hopkins won an Oscar for Art Direction, while Beaton picked up another for Costume Design. Actually, Beaton had nothing to do with the sets at all, doing only costumes, but had a very good agent & contract. (In point of fact, Beaton was such a distraction that he was actually barred from the filming set and the art department.)

The costumes are indeed great; most of them are pretty straightforward period pieces. But Hepburn’s outfits…

Shot in glorious 65mm by Harry Stradling (who also got an Oscar…), the picture is beautifully lit and the colors are warm and inviting, even if there seems to be an intentional softening over the whole thing.

All of this comes together to make a true classic, one of the all-time great film musicals. Loverly…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: C (6 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”https://www.facebook.com/MyFairLadyMovie” name=”My Fair Lady” description=”A misogynistic and snobbish phonetics professor agrees to a wager that he can take a flower girl and make her presentable in high society.” director=”George Cukor” producer=”Jack Warner” actor_1=”Audrey Hepburn” actor_2=”Rex Harrison”]

Main Cast	Audrey Hepburn Eliza Doolittle, Rex Harrison Professor Henry Higgins, Stanley Holloway Alfred P. Doolittle, Wilfrid Hyde-White Colonel Hugh Pickering
Rating	G
Release Date	Fri 25 Dec 1964 UTC
Director	George Cukor
Genres	Drama, Family, Musical, Romance
Plot	A misogynistic and snobbish phonetics professor agrees to a wager that he can take a flower girl and make her presentable in high society.
Poster
Runtime	170
Tagline	The loverliest motion picture of them all!
Writers	Alan Jay Lerner (book), George Bernard Shaw (as Bernard Shaw) (from a play by)
Year	1964

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Probably the best, certainly the most iconic James Bond film. Quintessential: if you only could screen one 007 film, this would be the one.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Goldfinger:

Today is the 50th anniversary of the release of the third James Bond film, Goldfinger. This one kind of snuck up on me; I had this on my editorial calendar for December 22nd. (Yes, I do plan these things.) That date wasn’t wrong exactly – that was the date of the US premiere – but the London premiere was September 17, 1964 (debuted to the UK public the next day – full release in USA January 9, 1965). I need an assistant researcher…

So this is possibly going to be much shorter than I intended. I plan to revisit the entire series eventually – I am a huge Bond fan. For now I’ll keep it pretty simple – Goldfinger is the best James Bond film.

In retrospect, it’s very easy to understand why Goldfinger was a smash hit, critically and commercially.

• After two pictures, producers Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli and star Sean Connery knew exactly what they were doing. Goldfinger is the archetypical well-oiled machine.
• Screenwriter Richard Maibaum was also operating in familiar territory with two Bond films under his belt. He would write or co-write 13 of the first 16 Bond films – most of them adapted from Ian Fleming’s novels.

• Though the third film in the series, it is based on the seventh 007 novel, and Fleming is in good form by that point. (It was the last novel he wrote before the Thunderball debacle and in some ways he never really recovered from that. He passed away a few months before the film release of Goldfinger.)
• It’s a fairly linear story. The bad guy is immediately identified – he even appears in the pre-credits scene. Other than his henchman Oddjob, he doesn’t have a massive organization behind him or secret underground lair. His plan is involved but not overly elaborate.

• Production Designer Ken Adam, who was so important on Dr. No but absent for From Russia With Love, is back to great effect. The same is true of stunt coordinator Bob Simmons, another unsung hero of the series.
• It doesn’t hang around for no reason – it’s only 110 minutes and those are all used efficiently. Only Dr. No & Quantum of Solace are so short.
• The image of the deceased Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton) completely covered in gold paint is one of the most striking images the series has ever produced.

• It has possibly the most famous title song in Bond history, and it’s up there in screen history.
• The car. The Aston Martin DB5. So classic.

• The other car. First film appearance of a Ford Mustang.
• The girl. Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore (really?) was 39 at the time, making her the oldest Bond girl ever. Which is pretty appalling for a lot of reasons, chief among them being that she projects such credibility and capability that you wonder why they never again cast an older (?) woman.

• The villain. Auric Goldfinger is sort of interesting in that he doesn’t really get his hands dirty. Even Dr. No put up a fight in the end, and he was a stick.

• First time putting 007 in the United States, even if Connery never set foot on the continent.
• Q (Desmond Llewelyn) makes his second appearance in this film, but it’s the first time we go to Q Branch’s workshop and see all of the toys.

Of course, it’s not all sunshine and lollipops, but most of the issues with the film are more “what could have been” thoughts:

• Q Branch: while this is fun, knowing that this stuff would soon start being the tail wagging the dog makes it a little less enjoyable. This was pretty much the end of James Bond actually spying; he was strictly an action hero after this film.
• Gert Fröbe has a definite presence on screen, even if all of his dialogue is dubbed, but I’ll never really be comfortable with an admitted former Nazi Party member actually gassing people, even if they are gangsters. At least there’s Harold Sakata’s Oddjob to keep things light. I still think it would have been interesting if they got their first choice, Orson Welles…

• At the end the credits state “James Bond will return in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service“. But he didn’t. They couldn’t get it happening and went with the lawsuit riddled Thunderball. I know it was an even bigger film than Goldfinger and the height of Bond mania, but I have very mixed feelings about the picture, considering it to be a very flawed film despite containing some series highlights. Even after that they still didn’t do OHMSS, but they went with You Only Live Twice, one of the weakest films of the entire series. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is one of the best Bond films and one of my personal favorites, and while I think George Lazenby did a wonderful job, I would have loved to see Connery’s take on it.

• In the book, Pussy Galore is gay – this may have allowed me to give the picture at least one point on the Representation Test had it not been changed for the film…
• Finally, “skin suffocation”? Great plot point, but it’s total nonsense…

Goldfinger is one of those landmark films that you wish you could see with fresh eyes. It’s nearly perfect and there’s a reason it tops most peoples lists. Picking your favorite Bond is like picking your favorite Beatles album – there’s no wrong answer. But picking the best? Got to go with Goldfinger.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: F (0 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.007.com/” name=”Goldfinger” description=”Investigating a gold magnate’s smuggling, James Bond uncovers a plot to contaminate the Fort Knox gold reserve.” director=”Guy Hamilton” actor_1=”Sean Connery” ]

Main Cast	Sean Connery James Bond, Gert Fröbe (as Gert Frobe) Goldfinger/Auric Goldfinger, Honor Blackman Pussy Galore, Shirley Eaton Jill Masterson
Rating	TV-PG
Release Date	Sat 09 Jan 1965 UTC
Director	Guy Hamilton
Genres	Action, Adventure, Thriller
Plot	Investigating a gold magnate’s smuggling, James Bond uncovers a plot to contaminate the Fort Knox gold reserve.
Poster
Runtime	110
Tagline	Miss Honey and Miss Galore Have James Bond Back For More!
Writers	Richard Maibaum (screenplay) &, Paul Dehn (screenplay)
Year	1964

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Blackest of black comedies is 50 years old & still so very good. Brilliant writing, gorgeous photography, good character actor performances.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb:

It can be a challenge to review absolutely masterful films like this one, so I often do a bit of research on the interwebs, looking for some colorful background. I remembered that Dr. Strangelove was sort of loosely based on a novel, so I started there, and its an interesting story.

Red Alert (released in England as Two Minutes to Doom) was written in 1958 by British author Peter George. The novel was optioned by Stanley Kubrick, who worked with George and Terry Southern to turn it into a satirical black comedy. The only hitch was that there was another film scheduled for release in 1964 that was also about an accidental nuclear war; Fail-Safe, based on a bestseller by Eugene Burdick & Harvey Wheeler. In order to make sure that Strangelove was the first to theaters, Kubrick & George accused the writers of Fail-Safe of plagiarism, bringing a lawsuit that tied up production on the rival film. The case was settled out of court, and Fail-Safe would go on to be a great movie – but not as successful.

Of course, while the source material may have invited comparison, the similarities ended there, as Dr. Strangelove is unquestionably played for laughs. Interestingly, although I howl every time I see it, I’ve found upon screening it for newcomers to the film that not everyone appreciates the black comedy, finding it dark and depressing. I guess there is a gallows humor aspect that I am drawn to, but I can understand why some people find the film uncomfortable. The sad truth is that while the film is very funny, the reality of Mutually Assured Destruction and the ease with which we all could go up in smoke is very unsettling. The film works not because it’s so far-fetched, but because it isn’t. At all.

The movie is an absolute masterpiece. Maestro Director of Photography Gilbert Taylor made two pictures in 1964 – the other was A Hard Day’s Night – pretty good year. Production Designer Ken Adam, who created the amazing sets for Bond films like Dr. No & Goldfinger, had one of his finest hours with the War Room design. The pacing of the film and the changes in scene locations really sustain the tension, unusual for a comedy. The actors are given room to breathe and time to establish their characters. I’ve avoided saying much about the acting – it’s very good, with George C. Scott & Sterling Hayden particularly fine. I’m a bit conflicted about Peter Sellers. It’s an amazing performance, certainly, but I reflexively hate actors taking on multiple roles in a film. It’s gimmicky and unnecessary, no matter the actor. And while Captain Mandrake & President Muffley are played very effectively straight, the Strangelove performance is just a bit too over the top for me. The affectations are fun, but the reliance on physical gags is wearisome and threatens to devolve the film into farce, just as the original “pie-fight” ending surely would have.

Probably the greatest black comedy ever made, and one of the funniest films of all time, Dr. Strangelove is still meaningful long after the end of the Cold War, because while the circumstances change, it skewers an organizational way of thinking that sadly may always be with us.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: D (1 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

[schema type=”movie” name=”Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” description=”An insane general triggers a path to nuclear holocaust that a war room full of politicians and generals frantically try to stop.” director=”Stanley Kubrick” actor_1=”Peter Sellers” actor_2=”George C. Scott” actor_3=”Sterling Hayden”]

Main Cast	Peter Sellers Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake/President Merkin Muffley/Dr. Strangelove, George C. Scott Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson, Sterling Hayden Brig. Gen. Jack Ripper, Keenan Wynn Col. ‘Bat’ Guano
Rating	Approved
Release Date	Wed 29 Jan 1964 UTC
Director	Stanley Kubrick
Genres	Comedy, War
Plot	An insane general triggers a path to nuclear holocaust that a war room full of politicians and generals frantically try to stop.
Poster
Runtime	95
Tagline	the hot-line suspense comedy
Writers	Stanley Kubrick (screenplay) &, Terry Southern (screenplay) …
Year	1964

#140RVW

Ever hear Eddie Murphy’s bit on Elvis being allowed to do movies even though he couldn’t act, “We’ll let him sing all his dialogue”? Yep…

What’s more:

Ah, to be a young Elvis Presley; so completely on top of the world that they let you star in movie after movie, no matter how ridiculous. The thing about Elvis movies is that even you know exactly what you’re going to get, they’re still funny.

The story behind this one, if you care, places the King as a race car driver with the completely realistic name of Lucky Jackson who goes to Sin City for their first Grand Prix. He has a friendly rivalry in racing and in love with Count Elmo Mancini (seriously), played by Cesare Danova as they both pursue Ann-Margret’s hot pants. There’s also something about needing to raise money for an engine and, ahh, who cares…

I don’t think there’s 20 minutes of dialogue in the entire movie. And I’m probably over-estimating at that…The film does feature some hysterically fun footage of the stars participating in a number of fun outdoor sports and activities in front of projection screens.

Ann-Margret, 23 at the time was in only her 4th film, right after Bye Bye Birdie, and not only does her character have a name, Rusty Martin, she’s actually a good character for the first 20 minutes of the movie. After that she’s completely de-clawed and stands around waiting for Elvis.

The single most important feature of any Elvis movie, of course, is the music. Despite the world class title track, one of his best ever, the music is merely passable. Interestingly, the song Viva Las Vegas was released as a b-side – the a-side was the Ray Charles cover “What’d I Say”.

There’s an awful lot of dancing, taking advantage of the abilities of Ann-Margret. She’s more than a match for the King, being thought of as the “female Elvis”, and this was the last time that a co-star was allowed to upstage him. Colonel Tom Parker was furious how much time was spent filming her and the dance numbers, driving the costs over budget. Too bad, Colonel; she’s the only interesting thing happening here, even if she has an unfortunate tendency to yell out “ha” an unusual amount of times while dancing. Elvis’ dancing to the title track is downright frightening. Seriously, it’s disturbing to watch.

As far as the “story”, the less said the better. It’s your standard 60’s teeny-bopper fare. It’s distressing how quickly Rusty (remember, she’s the girl – told you she had a name) goes from a semi-strong character to a complete dimbo, being dismissed by her own father as getting in the way of the manly racing work.

Equally unbelievable is how quickly the picture wraps up. The race seems to be over merely minutes after it has started. There is so little racing footage. You look down at your popcorn for a minute, look back up and realize that his rival is out of the picture with a flat tire, Lucky has won the race and is now married to Rusty. It takes seemingly two minutes for all of the above to happen. The tour bus must have been leaving…

Viva Las Vegas is regarded as one of Elvis’ better pictures, which says a lot more about Elvis movies than it does about this film. It’s perfectly fine, I suppose, but reflect for a moment that this film came out the same year as A Hard Day’s Night, which it beat at the box office, and you can understand why I give it less leash.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: F (0 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

Main Cast	Elvis Presley Lucky Jackson, Ann-Margret Rusty Martin, Cesare Danova Count Elmo Mancini, William Demarest Mr. Martin
Rating	Approved
Release Date	Wed 20 May 1964 UTC
Director	George Sidney
Genres	Comedy, Musical
Plot	Race car driver Lucky Jackson goes to Las Vegas to earn money to pay for a new engine for his motor car. Working as a waiter, he still finds the time to court young Rusty Martin.
Poster
Runtime	85
Tagline	Elvis is at the wheel but Ann-Margret drives him wild!
Writers	Sally Benson (written by)
Year	1964