The Night Before Christmas (1941)

Oct 091941
 
two reels

On Christmas eve, Jerry the mouse begins playing with the Christmas presents and goads Tom the cat into chasing him. 9 min.

The third Tom and Jerry cartoon produced, The Night Before Christmas looks like all the other early Tom and Jerry shorts, and has pretty much the same structure as all of the later ones. The two animals run around, occasionally getting in some licks on each other.  Jerry tends to do better in the fights (but if he didn’t, he’d get eaten, so it’s a given he’ll do OK in direct confrontation), but this time around, Tom looks like the eventual winner. However, it’s Christmas, so everything is going to come out well. It is a bit sweeter than the average for the always fighting twosome, but that isn’t a detriment as the best gags aren’t slapstick.

This is viewable as background while wrapping presents, but won’t hold the attention of anyone with two digits in their age.

 Christmas Shorts, Christmas Shorts, Reviews Tagged with:

Rage in Heaven (1941)

Sep 221941
 
three reels

Philip Monrell (Robert Montgomery) is the charming son of a wealthy steel family and good friends with the good natured playboy Ward Andrews (George Sanders). Well, that’s how it appears. Actually Philip is a paranoid psychopath who is jealous of Ward and recently escaped from an insane asylum. The pair visits Philip’s sickly mother who has taken on a beautiful young companion, Stella Bergen (Ingrid Bergman). Ward and Stella have an immediate attraction, but after he leaves, Philip and Stella get-together and marry. Philip’s paranoia appears in his mistreatment of Stella and his cruel and stupid handling of his company.

I wouldn’t call this Film Noir, but simply a thriller, but enough people label as Noir that I figure I can review it. It has beautiful, high contrast cinematography, though I’d call it classic Hollywood instead of Noir.

The acting is the strongest factor. Bergman is in fine form, glowing as she often did in the ‘40s, and Sanders is believable playing against type. They both are sympathetic and engaging. The surprise is Montgomery, who I generally dislike. Montgomery didn’t want to be in the film and wanted out of his contract, so gave what he considered to be an odd stilted performance, which was exactly what the part needed. I doubt Montgomery could have pulled it off if he’d tried; he didn’t have the talent. But purposefully acting peculiar makes Philip ooze insanity.

This is a tense, sometimes unpleasant film. Philip is so petty and cruel, and as Ward and Stella act more like real people than action heroes, they do little about it and just take the abuse. It’s rough as films have trained me to want one of them to just shoot him by the end of the first act, but they suffer through.

The script is midlevel. The dialog is good but there’s a few coincidences that are hard to accept, which ends up making this a good, midlevel kind of film.

 Film Noir, Reviews Tagged with:

Man Made Monster (1941)

Jun 171941
 
three reels

Dan the Electrical Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) is the sole survivor of an electrical accident. He is taken in for study by Dr John Lawrence (Samuel S. Hinds), who has some pretty odd views on electricity. His partner, Dr Paul Rigas (Lionel Atwill), has even stranger views, thinking he can turn people into zombies with shock powers. He experiments on Dan, and succeeds. Dr. Lawrence’s daughter, June (Anne Nagel) sympathizes with Dan and is the only one who believes that Rigas is involved with something sinister.

A Universal horror B-movie—and apparently the cheapest film they financed that year—Man Made Monster is a fairly typical mad doctor movie, though better made then most that don’t include the name “Frankenstein” in the title. It is probably best remembered for bringing Lon Chaney Jr. into the Universal monster troop. He’d soon make The Wolf Man with the same director. But Man Made Monster is worth remembering on its own.

Chaney plays a friendly dimwit, and is charismatic in the part. Atwill does the mustache-twirling villain he’d done many times before, but there’s a reason why he’d done it so often: he’s very good at it. Things drag down with a court case, but the beginning is fast moving and the movie has a proper horror climax. At 59 minutes, it doesn’t overstay its slight plot.

The flaw with the picture is that it doesn’t know where to focus. Dan or Dr. Rigas should have been the lead, but June, who has no direct part in the proceedings, becomes the main character. It isn’t a fatal flaw, but I’d have liked to have more time with Dan. Electricity in the film can be seen as a metaphor for drug addiction, and Rigas is a sinister dealer who hooks Dan on the blue demon. His viewpoint is the interesting one. But what’s here is good enough.

Lionel Atwill other horror films are Doctor X (1932), The Vampire Bat (1933), Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), Murders in the Zoo (1933), Mark of the Vampire (1935), Son of Frankenstein (1939), The Mad Doctor of Market Street (1942), The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), The Strange Case of Doctor Rx (1942), Night Monster (1942), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), and House of Frankenstein (1944).

Lon Chaney’s other Universal monster movies are The Wolf Man (1941), The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), The Mummy’s Tomb (1942), Son of Dracula (1943), Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943), and House of Frankenstein (1944), The Mummy’s Curse (1944), The Mummy’s Ghost (1944), House of Dracula (1945), and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948).

 Classic Horror, Horror, Mad Scientists, Reviews Tagged with:

King of the Zombies (1941)

Jun 141941
 
one reel

Two upright and exceptionally boring white guys (Dick Purcell, John Archer) and their cowardly black servant (Mantan Moreland), searching for a missing admiral, crash on a Caribbean island and become guests of a spooky doctor (Henry Victor) with a German accent. He offers them his hospitality while they wait the two weeks until the next boat arrives, hospitality in his weird house. It is filled with strange goings on: The doctor’s wife is in a trance, Voodoo zombies wander the grounds, a witch woman makes potions in the kitchen, and evil spirits come out at night. Naturally the boring white guys don’t notice any of it, but the black servant does, so he can do his “funny” scared black servant routine.

It was the 1940s, so I can’t blame Hollywood for messing up their films for propaganda purposes. That doesn’t make the film better, just understandable. With the war going full tilt in Europe, it’s clear from the beginning that this horror comedy isn’t going to have any true supernatural elements. It’s going to be Nazis.

I’m less sympathetic to the racism, visible in far too many of the period’s comedies but more egregious here than normal as it is front and center. Generally the racism inherent in the subservient and cowardly black man at least takes a few minutes off for the plot to progress, but this time it’s non-stop. As far the story goes, one of the boring white guys is the main character, but in terms of lines and screen time, the lead is Jeff, the servant. That means a lot of time with his “Oh golly, that there is a z-z-zombie” bit that is uncomfortable at best and certainly not funny. I suppose one can take consolation in the fact that every character is some kind of stereotype, be it the mysterious Nazi that was obviously supposed to be played by Bela Lugosi, the damsel in distress, or the generic white he-man.

Since it’s clear from the beginning what’s going on, there’s no mystery to figure out and nothing for our heroes and coward to do but not notice things and talk about how scary it all is. It doesn’t make much sense either. Why are the black island natives working for the Nazi? Why don’t bullets kill you when you are hypnotized? Why doesn’t the Nazi just shoot the Americans? Why is everyone so clueless?

Some reviewers have tried to retcon this into some kind of anti-racist, black movie. Don’t buy it. Giving the black character more lines does not make it OK that all the lines given to him are embarrassing. That outlook might work if Jeff solved any problems or achieved anything. But he doesn’t. He just does the scared routine and it gets old fast.

 Horror, Poverty Row, Reviews, Zombies Tagged with:

The Ghost Train (1941)

Mar 111941
 
one reel

A Joker pulls the emergency cord to stop the train in order to retrieve his hat that had flown out a window. This causes the train to arrive at the station late, and with no other trains coming until morning, stranding a group of passengers. Besides the Joker, the group include a newly Married Couple, a Cute Girl traveling with an Earnest Man, a teetotaling, Prissy Lady with a parrot, and a Doctor. They are warned by the Station Master that the station is haunted and that a ghost train comes by at night, and if they want to survive, they need to leave. They refuse, and the Station Master abandons them in fear of the ghosts. What follows is a string of spooky events, including a death and then the disappearance of the corpse, strange sounds and lights, the arrival of a crazed woman, and the passage of the ghost train itself.

ghosttrainplay

The Ghost Train was a very popular British play. Written by Arnold Ridley in 1923, it had a successful run and has seen numerous revivals. It was adapted for the screen in 1927 in a British-German coproduction, and like so many other Dark House movies, it was remade once sound was in place just a few years later, in 1931, this time just by the British. Next, in 1933, came two from the European continent, the Romanian Trenul fantomă and Hungarian Kisértetek Vonata. The French Un Train Dans La Nuit was released in 1934, but that one will get no more discussion here as no prints are known to survive. In 1939 the Dutch joined in with De Spooktrein. And finally the Brits took it back in 1941. There have been four more official versions since then, and a number more that “borrowed” from it, but I’ll stick with the years from ’31 to ‘41.

It’s surprising how much alike the five surviving films are. The basic plot is exactly the same, with all the same major events occurring in the same order, and with few changes to even the minor ones. While the character names change (I’ll use descriptive names for each), their personalities shift only a bit. Footage is even shared between three of them, and the 1941 version had the same director as the 1931, so perhaps it isn’t that surprising.

The Ghost Train is an Old Dark House story transplanted to a railway station. The characters are properly quirky, there’s a dead body and strange lights and talk of ghosts, plenty of comic relief, and an eerie atmosphere. The story line is entertaining enough, and certainly has been popular. The characters are not complex or deeply developed, but rather were intended to represent a cross section of British society in the 1920s, thus supplying a bit of commentary while also being easy to identify. Everything is here for a thoroughly entertaining film. However, a few flaws are inherent to the structure that have been magnified in different productions. The story is good, but it’s brief, at least as executed in all five films (I’ve never seen the play and am curious how it fills nearly two hours). There’s approximately an hour’s worth of material. When an adaptation gets much over that, it drags. As the story was written for the stage, there’s a tendency to replicate that a bit too closely. I’m not a fan of opening up a film for no purpose when made into a movie, but most of these renditions could be converted back into a stage play without making any changes. A few more locations or some clever manipulation of the camera to better tell the tale would be nice. But inventive cinematography is not in abundance. Also, the Joker is supposed to be annoying to the other passengers, but he can easily become annoying to the audience. And if the film features him as the lead instead of part of the ensemble, as several do, he can become downright unpleasant.

How do the individual adaptations fare?

1941’s The Ghost Train is the technically most sophisticated. It has some beautiful shots, with a lovely use of shadows. The camera work sells the tone. It’s also back in England with a director familiar with the property. Everything is set for this to be the best version. And wow, does it not deliver. The old problems persist, with it being too long at an hour and a half, but the failure is from a new source: radio comedy. In 1941, for reasons that elude me, Richard “Stinker” Murdoch and Arthur Askey were successful comedians. Both used a fast talking and obnoxious style, but Askey took it to another level, or I should say, took it too an older level. He’d been a music hall comedian, and he stuck with his old act. He always played the same character, with the same kind of jokes. There’s a lot of pratfalls, a lot of strange walks, and a lot of insults. He’s always very loud, always interrupting, and always talking. His routine wasn’t based on what he said, but on him always saying something. I suspect most people who would find is gags humorous have been dead for seventy years.

But it was 1941 and the studio thought there was money to be made on Askey and “Stinker” so The Ghost Train was made into a vehicle for them, though mostly Askey. The Joker role was greatly enlarged, taking over the film, and then split between the two, though Askey got the lion’s share. When the Joker was trying to hit on the Cute Girl, we now get both “Stinker” and Askey hitting on her, followed by Askey making several faces and then falling down. It’s nonstop and I don’t find a single thing Askey does amusing. I hate his character, which means now I hate the Cute Girl for being amused by him, and sympathize with the Earnest Man. Even if you like Askey (which I find inconceivable), he throws off the entire story. Nothing is frightening with him around. Nothing matters. And the other characters, including the Cute Girl, hardly exist. The Couple have been changed into a droopy pair so that they can be noticed at all. Plus, there’s a plot reason for why the Joker is acting as he does. This sticks around for “Stinker” but there’s no explanation for why Askey’s character is the way he is. He’s just an ass. And as he is more extreme, it make’s “Stinker”’s part make less sense.

This ceases to be The Ghost Train. How much you like it will have nothing to do with the story. It all depends on how much tolerance you have to Askey.

 Classic Horror, Dark House, Horror, Reviews Tagged with:

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Mar 061941
 
one reel

Another telling of Robert Louis Stevenson’s tale of a scientist (Spencer Tracy) who makes a potion to split apart the good and evil sides of man, and ends up with the murderous Mr. Hyde.

What is more fun than hearing, over and over, debates between a googly-eyed doctor who claims that we are all made up of good and evil, and stuffy elitists who say that nice folks don’t talk about that sort of thing?  You better enjoy that, because that’s the first 30 minutes of the 1941 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

After that, we get Mr. Hyde, who looks like Spenser Tracy with a smirk (got it, good=googly eyes, evil=smirk) sans any of the sexual implications from the 1931 film.  This is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde-lite: no monster, no brutality, no sex.

We do get a well shot film with some mixed acting.  Lana Turner is uninspired in a generic, good-girl role.  Tracy puts in one of his worst performances, shooting his eyeballs around like pinballs.  Ingrid Bergman is lovely, although her character has been changed from a prostitute to a near-virginal barmaid, with her blouse buttoned to her neck.  I’d like to have seen what she could have done if the production code hadn’t been in effect.  It might have compensated for her wandering accent and made the film worth my time.

Back to Mad ScientistsBack to Classic Horror

 Classic Horror, Mad Scientists, Mad Scientists, Reviews Tagged with:

The Corsican Brothers (1941)

Feb 211941
 
three reels

A feud between two powerful families results in the Franchi’s being wiped out except for the just-born Siamese twin sons of the Franchi patriarch. The twins are separated, and to keep them safe one is raised in the woods as a bandit while the other is raised in Paris. Twenty years later Lucien and Mario (both Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), along with the Franchi servant (J. Carrol Naish) are brought together to plot vengeance on the man who killed their parents, Baron Colonna (Akim Tamiroff). The twins are both aided and thwarted by Lucien’s ability to feel what happens to Mario, and by their duel attraction to Countess Isabelle (Ruth Warrick).

The fourth in a series of Alexandre Dumas-based, independently produced Swashbucklers, following The Count of Monte Cristo (1934), The Man in the Iron Mask (1939), and The Son of Monte Cristo (1940), The Corsican Brothers, like those others, is nicely filmed on a small budget. That works well for conversations and slow moments, but this is a Swashbuckler. Action scenes cost money as do special effects for rear projection and split screens. That money is missing, making the fights a bit silly.

The film’s advantage is Fairbanks. He was one of the more charismatic actors of the time and could have been one of the great Swashbuckling leads. He looks natural with a sword in his hand and can handle the patter effortlessly. Unfortunately WWII took him away from acting in his prime. This was his last film for six years. I wish it could have been a film to elevate him (as his one great Swashbuckler, The Prisoner of Zenda, did), instead of one that required him to elevate it. The passable direction, classic story, and amiable cast give enough support to Fairbanks to create an enjoyable afternoon romp.

I’d forgotten that The Princess Bride borrows from this film, both in the general torture subplot, and in the specific framing and blocking of the swordsman’s return from death.

 Reviews, Swashbucklers Tagged with:

The Black Cat (1941)

Jan 191941
 
one reel

Rich, eccentric Hanrietta Winslow (Cecilia Loftus) lives on her estate with her house keeper Abigail (Gale Sondergaard), groundskeeper Eduardo (Bela Lugosi), and an excessive number of cats. Her greedy relatives (Basil Rathbone, Anne Gwynne, Gladys Cooper , Claire Dodd, John Eldredge, Alan Ladd) have infested the place, waiting for her to die. They are joined by old acquaintance Hubert Smith (Broderick Crawford) and comic relief Mr. Penny (Hugh Herbert) who hope to make some money off of the estate. Hanrietta is murdered, but only Hurbert believes that, so it is up to him find the killer.

With fabulous cinematography by Stanley Cortez, a chilling and exciting score by Hans J. Salter and Frank Skinner, and a cast including Lugosi, Sondergaard, and Rathbone, how could things go so wrong?

Well, under-using those three is a start. Lugosi’s few moments should be considered a cameo. Making Broderick Crawford—a limited actor whose strength lay in cruel thug roles—the romantic lead was the next step. Far worse is never-funny Hugh Herbert. Really, not a single gag of his lands, and that’s all he does is these goofy gags where he makes whistling sounds and stumbles about; it made me side with the nasty family as we were both joined in our loathing for him.

But it all comes down to the script, the horrible, horrible script. Eric Taylor and Robert Neville had written a standard mystery, but with the success of recent horror-comedies, Universal tossed it to Robert Lees and Frederic Rinaldo—who’d previously done some horror-to-comedy script conversions—to work their crude “magic” on The Black Cat. It’s not a shock the result is a mess. The mystery doesn’t work. We’re way past loopholes. What’s suggested as an answer is impossible, with the killer apparently chosen at random, the actions of the titular cat are not explained, and multiple things happen for no reason. But that could be overlooked if the characters were worth a second of time, or if the dialog was witty, or if it was ever funny. And the last point is the killer. No part of this horror comedy is humorous. With some major comic talent in the lead role (the sort that knows how to tell a joke and when to adlib a better one), this might have worked. But Crawford couldn’t fix this, and no one else had a chance.

 Classic Horror, Dark House, Horror, Reviews Tagged with:

The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

Nov 011940
 
three reels

Prince Ahmad (John Justin) is betrayed by his vizier, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt), and imprisoned. He escapes with the help of Abu (Sabu), a young thief, and together they see a princess (June Duprez) that Ahmad falls in love with. She is the daughter of the Sultan (Miles Malleson), and Jaffar wants her, so he magically blinds Ahmad and turns Abu into a dog. Ahmad and Abu must counter the spell, save the princess, and defeat Jaffar, and to do so, they will meet a Genie (Rex Ingram), fly a carpet, and battle monsters.

Alexander Korda set out to make a lush, visually stunning homage to the silent film of the same name, dumping most of the story, but keeping the feel of adventure. In that, he succeeded, but with his attention focused on epic wonder, he fumbled the characters.  Films of the ‘90s and later are often accused of forgetting old silver screen values and putting special effects, costumes, and sets above story, theme, and characters. Well, it’s hardly a new phenomenon, and The Thief of Bagdad is the poster child for spectacle first. It is a beautiful film, with remarkable map paintings creating mountains around a well stuffed Bagdad (generally spelled Baghdad now, but one should never contradict movie spellings). Every frame is jammed with the sights of a fantasy Arabia. With a film this gorgeous, a few flaws can be forgiven. The dramatic and lilting score by Miklós Rózsa supports the incredible Technicolor images such that you can enjoy the picture without ever thinking about those characters.

What holds The Thief of Bagdad back from greatness was Korda’s desire to use Sabu as the thief. That meant taking the original part and splitting it. Ahmad, now a prince, has had his roguish side removed, making him bland, and strangely bratty. Sabu takes on the scoundrel side of the title character, but as he is (supposed to be) a child, its sanitized. And Sabu was no child. He grew over the long production (so much so that early scenes had to be reshot), but Korda wanted him the way he’d been in Elephant Boy, three years earlier, so Abu is written as if he is a pre-teen. Thus instead of a rollicking adventure film for all ages, we have a kids movie, where everyone is too simple and too one-note.

It doesn’t help that the romantic leads are not the protagonists. Things happen to them; they do not act. But then their entire romance is hard to take, even in a fantasy. They both fall in love at first sight.  Ahmad is captured, rescued, struck blind, brought to the palace, tossed up on a faraway shore, found, and tossed back to Bagdad and never once does anything. The princess just stands around (when she’s not in a coma) and looks sad and pretty. I started to think Jaffar ought to win as at least he’s trying. Abu is pretty active, but it’s hard to figure out why. He wants to go off with Sinbad early on, and I can’t come up with a reason why he doesn’t. Justin, Duprez, and Sabu have nothing to work with a weren’t skilled enough to find something between the lines.

Veidt, Malleson, and Ingram do better, both because they were better actors and because their parts had something to dig into.

The feature’s production problems are famous. Filming was moved from Britain to the U.S. due to the war, and six different directors had their hands in, including Michael Powell (the lush color and exquisite look of the film has Powell’s fingerprints).  But a lack of a coherent vision is not the film’s problem. Producer Korda held fast to the reins. Rather everyone, or I should say Korda, often had the wrong vision.  The camera dwells on the lavishness of the sets, leaving the characters as nothing more than another piece of the background.  In one case, the princess rides from the palace in frantic haste, frightened. But we don’t see her emotional state, or even her face. Instead we are given a long shot of what could be any girl on a horse, allowing us to view the street and buildings.

I may sound harsh about what is a good film, but it should have been better. When so much goes so right, I want a masterpiece. This is lovely to look at, but disappointing.

Modern audiences should note how much Disney swiped from The Thief of Bagdad for the animated Aladdin. There’s the evil Jaffar who runs the kingdom (Disney’s version even looks like Conrad Veidt), a beautiful princes with an infantile Sultan-father who loves toys, a sidekick named Abu who steals and is non-human (well, he’s only a dog for part of The Thief of Bagdad, while he’s a monkey or elephant for all of Aladdin), a powerful Genie, a flying carpet, and an item to be taken from a trapped temple.

Back to Fantasy

 Fantasy, Giant Monsters, Reviews Tagged with:

One Million BC (1940)

Oct 081940
 
two reels

Tumak (a chest-shaven Victor Mature) gets kicked out of the perpetually grumpy Rock tribe by its perpetually grumpy leader (Lon Chaney Jr.) and floats down the river to be found by the ubbermen (and women) of the shell tribe.  Loana (Carole Landis), the local hotty who has invented hair care, takes a liking to this svelte hunk of man meat, but his inability to understand sharing (see, kindergarten is important) sends them both into the wilderness alone, to battle giant iguanas, oversized armadillos (really, armadillos), and the Rock tribe, that’s still grumpy.  I’m sure that volcano in the background won’t cause any problems…

Hal Roach, Hal Roach Jr., and D.W. Griffith combine their talents to create the definitive caveman movie.  “Definitive” does not mean good, simply defining.  Yup, every troglodyte film cliché is here:  the evil hairy cavemen, the good Aryans, the elaborate hairdo and miniskirt on the lead female, the grunting, the mixing of dinosaurs and prehistoric mammals, the monster trapping the weak humans in a cave, and of course, the volcano.  They were all repeated in movie after movie, and were often done better, but they were done here first.

I can’t say watching One Million BC isn’t fun.  It’s hard to stop laughing, which is what one should expect from one of  Hal “The Little Rascals” Roach’s pictures, except this isn’t a comedy.  Well, not intentionally.  I have this sad feeling that everyone involved thought they were making an epic.  Or maybe it was just a cash grab.  Either way, it’s a pretty sorry piece of filmmaking filled with plenty to laugh at.  See the amazing two dimensional jungle.  Marvel at the non-stop grunting and incessant chest pounding (yes, yes, “You Tarzan.” I get it).  Be astounded as mankind invents good table manners.  And quiver at the acting.  Yes, I said “quiver.”  Victor Mature, later known as “The Hunk,” started his less than illustrious career here, not that his grunting is any worse than anyone elses.  Carole Landis is cute in her nice, neat, cave-girl outfit, but is harder to take seriously than Mature.  She proves that prostitution was not the world’s oldest profession.  Hair styling beats it by centuries.

Since this is a caveman vs. dinosaur story (don’t dwell on historical or scientific accuracy; you’ll just hurt yourself), there needs to be some dinos, and there are…kinda.  Enter the slurpasaurs (a modern term for the results of the cinematic practice of gluing horns and fins onto living reptiles and projecting them at enlarged sizes to represent dinosaurs).  All kinds of lizards, and a few mammals, stand in for the giants.  This trick might have worked for an audience with a significant degree of suspension of disbelief, if anyone involved in filming had the slightest notion of how to put spear-wielding humans and the slurps in a frame together.  The fights are comical, and tend to consist of close-ups of a caveman thrusting a stick at the camera, followed by a shot of the head of the beast.

It’s hard to say if the use of slurpasaurs eventually died out because audiences would no longer accept it in action pictures, or because of legal difficulties due to the animal abuse involved.  It certainly was cruel, which is best demonstrated in One Million BC when a baby alligator (or crocodile, I can never tell which is which) with a large rubber fin attached to its back, fights a lizard, and real bites and death rolls are exchanged.  Pressure from anti-cruelty organizations did make filming slurps tricky, so the footage from One Million BC  was simply used over and over again, in at least ten films and several early TV shows.

If you are writing a paper for your sophomore film history class on the caveman subgenre, on the development of special effects, or on the filmography of Victor Mature or Hal Roach, then One Million BC  will be of interest.  If not, you’ll never miss it, but it is just amusing enough to sit through for a laugh.

 Giant Monsters, Reviews Tagged with:

Pride and Prejudice (A Whole Lot of Pride and a Little Prejudice)

Oct 061940
 

Pride and Prejudice (A&E – 1995)  five reels
Pride & Prejudice (2005) four reels
Pride and Prejudice (BBC – 1980) three reels
Pride and Prejudice (1940) 3,5 reels
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) three reels
Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy (2003) one reel
Bride and Prejudice (2004) two reels
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) four reels

A classic novel by Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice is the story of Lizzie, the brightest and second  oldest of the five Bennet sisters.  The Bennets are a caring family at the bottom rung of the upper class with a problem that is forever on Mrs. Bennet’s mind: how do you acquire suitable husbands for so many girls.  Things look up when wealthy Mr. Bingly takes the nearby estate and shows an interest in the eldest girl, Jane.  Unfortunately, he brings with him his much richer, but unpleasant friend, Darcy.  Darcy is rude and haughty, and Lizzie finds him the most detestable man she has ever met.  Her opinion is supported by Mr. Wickham, a handsome soldier that knows Darcy from the past.  Darcy’s behavior devolves further when he breaks up Bingly and Jane because her family is unsuitable.  Thus, it comes as a shock to Lizzie when Darcy professes his love for her, and asks for her hand.  Of course she refuses, which comes as a shock to him.  It all seems straightforward, but perhaps the prejudices of both Lizzie and Darcy have them viewing good people poorly and corrupt ones as noble.  Additionally, it is possible, with the proper motivation, for people to change.

Pride and Prejudice, in any of its multiple forms, is an odd selection for me to review on Foster on Film.  It doesn’t fit into any of the genres I have listed, nor is it likely to slide into one that I will add in the future.  Granted, I have a lot of categories, and most people would already find some to be strange bedfellows: Zombies and Post War British Comedy are rarely matched on a double feature.  But what would I have to add to find a place for Jane Austen’s most famous story?  Chick flicks?  There’s no question that Pride and Prejudice is a feminine novel, and none of the filmed versions change that (which is best; I can’t imagine what would be left if you tried to tell this as a masculine tale).  However, for what is a notoriously weak genre (that is, chick flicks), Pride and Prejudice is a standout.  I have cleverly watched all except one of these features (and several other Austen works) with my wife.  I doubt I would have the same affection for them if I were to see them alone.  This isn’t a problem for my review since I’m not recommending a Jane Austen festival to lone males.  Guys, before watching these, find a girl.  So, I’m reviewing these films because they are good, and because, when I see five films in short order (I picked up the others later), based on the same material, I feel compelled to write about them.  Film criticism—it’s a sickness.

While the interpretations of the story vary, they all (except one) make one mistake.  Film is much more objective than literature.  A novel is generally slanted by the point of view of the protagonist, but unless the filmmaker takes elaborate steps (see anything by Davie Lynch), what you see on the screen represents reality.  A key element in Pride and Prejudice is the character of Darcy.  That character must change over the course of the story, but also, Darcy must be shown to be less of an ass than he first appears.  On the page, his unpleasantness is filtered through Lizzie’s eyes, making it very plausible that he isn’t, as Lizzie sees him to be, the biggest jerk in the world, but rather a very flawed man who still has good qualities.  On film, where the viewer is not peering through Lizzie’s prejudices, if Darcy looks like an ass, then he really IS an ass.

Pride and Prejudice (1995) – Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth

The 1995 adaptation, considered to be the definitive one by…well, just about everyone, isn’t a film at all, but a miniseries.  Clocking in at just over five hours, it has the time to present the intricacies of the society and relationships, similarly to how it was done in the book.  All main characters are fully fleshed out.  Changes occur naturally, in steps that make sense and are clearly shown.  That might make it sound leisurely, but it isn’t.  The pace is swift and there are no slow moments.

The novel has been described as some combination of romance, comedy, and satire (obviously, there’s some overlap).  The miniseries leans more toward romance.  There is comedy, but it is primarily reserved for comic relief characters (particularly Mrs. Bennet, who is constantly complaining about her nerves, and  Mr. Collins, a toady cousin who wants to marry Lizzie and seldom utters a line that doesn’t refer to the marvels of his aristocratic patron).  Lizzie is brought to life by Jennifer Ehle, who accomplishes the impossible task of making women the world over, who always pictured themselves as Lizzie, see her as the beloved character.  She is charming, and her eyes dance when she isn’t allowed to.  Beautiful and witty, she is the personification of the intelligent costume-drama heroine.  Colin Firth became a star due to his portrayal of Darcy, and a million women sighed in unison when he got wet, diving into a pond.  I must admit, even I wanted these two to get together.

There is no skimping on the other relationships.  Lizzie’s father is an important character, and here we see his love for Lizzie (and to a lesser extent, the rest of his family).  It’s a pleasure to watch him as he comes to understand what has happened to his favorite daughter.  Jane and Bingly are given time as well, enough to pull the viewers into their uneven romance.

Exquisite location shots (the U.S. simply doesn’t have mansions like these), appropriate costumes, and pleasant, non-intrusive music, all add to the ambiance.  The camera work is adequate in showing off the stars and environments, and is better than expected for a television production.

This is the choice of purists, who want any film to match the novel.  Well, they have nothing to complain about, and outside of Darcy being too much like Hitler’s second cousin in his first scene, I don’t either.

Pride & Prejudice (2005) – Keira Knightley

I wonder if I would have reacted differently to the 2005 Pride and Prejudice if I hadn’t seen the miniseries first.  I’m used to books being chopped up and compressed when they are turned into movies, and it doesn’t bother me (they are different media, so the stories need to be told differently).  I am less accustomed to seeing a film condensed to make another film.  But that is one of the primary impressions of this version.  It is much like the ’95 series, but with substantial portions missing or shortened.  As no subplots were removed, it’s no surprise that things are rushed: it is three hours shorter.  There are also minor changes to the design.  The Bennet’s house is no longer pristine, and the larger budget has allowed for some cliff-side romance shots, but none of that is significant.  It is the loss of development time that matters.

So, we know what this version hasn’t got.  What does it have?  It has Keira Knightley.  She owns every second of this film.  Some critics were astonished at her performance, but that’s only because critics are a snooty lot, and don’t consider expertise in a pirate movie to count.  Well, it does count, and as Lizzie, she’s now proved it to all.  Knightley sparkles throughout.  It doesn’t hurt that the actress is the same age as the character, but more important is the life, intelligence, and joy that she brings to the part.  You care about all the events in the film, not because of their thorough development, but simply because Lizzie—this Lizzie—does.  Watching the miniseries, you understand how someone could love Lizzie.  In this film, it is you who will love her.

Is this version all about the star?  All of the other actors are good (some, such as Rosamund Pike as Jane, and Donald Sutherland in the much reduced part of Mr. Bennet, are superb), the sets and locations are beautiful, the dances are energetic, and the music is pleasing.  But yes, in the end, it is all about the star.  And it is enough.

Well, perhaps not for everyone.  While most people were thrilled with this version, one group was upset: the Janeites.  These are fanatical Austen fans who want no deviation from the book, nor any changes from how they saw it in their minds.  In the case of Keira Knightley’s Pride and Prejudice, they were dismayed that the Bennet’s don’t do more house cleaning, that when Darcey walks down the road, it is foggy and his coat flaps in the wind, and, most of all, that Darcey and Lizzie almost, but still do not, kiss.  This is too gothic for their tastes (God help them should they ever see a vampire film; the gothic texture would cause them to explode) and smacks too much of romance.  The trivial nature of these elements doesn’t matter to them.  I like to think of these people as crazy, because it’s convenient to have neat categories for people, and because that way I can look at them with pity instead of distain.  Pity’s nicer.

Pride and Prejudice (BBC – 1980) – Elizabeth Garvie/David Rintoul

While this is an earlier rendition than the two discussed above, I saw no reason to cover it before the others.  I didn’t see it first, and that should count for something.  Besides, as it is dry and slow, much of the pleasure in watching comes from comparing it to the others.

It is another miniseries, and may be more complete than its cousins, but that depends on how you define complete.  Certainly there is dialog which can only be found here and in the book.  But there are also major scenes missing and lines relocated to unlikely locations.  I suppose I should leave discussion of the “purity” of the material to the Janeites.

This version is almost wholly a comedy, although that doesn’t mean it is funny, only that it attempts to be.  I did laugh (when Mr. Collins shows off his dancing skills), but generally it failed to coax even a smile out of me.  The absurdity of the characters is highlighted, but it often goes too far, making them unpleasant to watch.  Mrs. Bennet and the three younger sisters are always hard to take, but this time their obnoxious behavior (repeated again and again and again) will make you long for the subtlety of a Jim Carey movie.  Mr. Bennet is played as a harder man, showing no love for most of his family.  He is even occasionally cruel to them, but it is quite understandable, and I sympathized with his hiding in the library more than ever.  Even Jane’s sunny disposition is tedious.  This is Pride and Prejudice with people you don’t like and will never want to meet.  The few that aren’t horrible by their own traits are so by association.  Each time Elizabeth shows respect or fondness for her family, friends, and Darcy, my estimation of her decreases.

While the acting is often attacked as stilted, I can’t see that as a fair criticism.  As with most comedies, realism is nudged to the side (if not thrown out all together).  There is no reason why anyone should sound like an actual person.  Also as a comedy, it can be excused for the lack of chemistry between its stars.  If I was informed that Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul hated each other, and that there were several attempts by each to pluck out the other’s liver, perhaps with a more than normally dull spoon, then I’d be able to fathom their performances.  Garvie is a bright-eyed and appealing Lizzie, more of an “every woman” then the exceptional one I’m used to seeing.  But “every woman” or not, she holds Darcy in contempt from beginning to end, no matter what lines she is reciting.  Rintoul brings the real humor to the show, although it is almost certainly accidental.  I had thought of Darcy as a jerk before, but never had I taken him to be a psycho-killer.  This Darcy, with his inability to move his neck, constantly slit mouth, obsessed stare, and artificial gait, is just weird.  I could plop him down in a horror movie as either an escaped mental patient that keeps eyeballs in a jar, or as an undead mummy, only recently unwrapped, without any alteration.  He’s a sick, unpleasant freak, and Lizzie even spitting out the words that she’s fond of him (no matter how much we don’t believe her) shows she’s under a demonic spell.

This sounds negative (and I haven’t even mentioned the uninspired sets and fake military uniforms), but it is still Austen.  If you are a fan of the story, Garvie and company are worth one viewing.

Pride and Prejudice (1940) – Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier

Anyone bothered by the changes from the novel in the versions reviewed above will enter a state of apoplexy with this one.  That doesn’t mean it isn’t charming, just different.

The satire has faded away in the face of romance and humor.  This is a frothy, funny take on the material, much in the style of the romantic comedies of the era.  The advertisement suggested: Bachelors beware! Five gorgeous beauties are on a madcap manhunt!  A bit misleading as the movie never enters the land of screwball comedy, but you are definitely working with a different tone.

Also in keeping with those times, the actresses are too old for their parts.  No wonder Mrs. Bennet was panicking when she’s got an unmarried thirty-six-year-old daughter in the house.  Wickham’s ability to talk a twenty-year-old into an illicit encounter also seems less scandalous.

Even age-challenged, Greer Garson makes a delightful Lizzie.  Smart, sharp, and attractive, she’s more of an ideal 1940s woman than an 1820s one, but an ideal woman is an ideal woman, so let’s not get picky.  Edmund Gwenn (Miracle on 34th Street) is a more than amiable Mr. Bennet and Mary Boland makes even Mrs. Bennet sympathetic.  Melville Cooper (The Adventures of Robin Hood, The King’s Thief) takes on a defrocked Mr. Collins (the production code forbid disparaging men of the cloth) and simpers as only he can, and Edna May Oliver gives us the only version of Lady Catherine de Bourgh that I would like to meet.  In the largest alteration of any character, Lady Catherine becomes a loving aunt to Darcy with sensibilities from another age.

As a romantic-comedy, the 1940 Pride and Prejudice works because of the changes to Darcy.  Laurence Olivier does a fine job bringing him to life, but it’s the script that counts.  This is the only Darcy who isn’t an ass.  Yes, he’s pompous and arrogant, but in an easily forgivable way.  He’s what Darcy should have been in all the films, a good, but flawed individual with a touch too much pride and his own prejudices.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) – Lily James/Sam Riley

The first in the recent run of literary classics/horror mashups, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies made it to the screen a bit slower than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which is just as well, since that attempt didn’t work out. What is surprising about it is how the basic story is straight Austin. It’s still bright Elizabeth, beautiful Jane, and their three silly sisters, trying to get by as their mother goes overboard trying to get them husbands. Mr. Bannet is still loving but would rather keep to himself. Pleasant Mr. Bingley shows up with his rude friend Darcy, as does Collins who’s again looking for a Bennet wife and drooling over his benefactor Lady Catherine. It’s the whole story, and if they pulled the zombies and dialed back Lizzie’s modern sensibilities, this could be a normal, and pretty solid version of Pride and Prejudice. Lily James is a fine Lizzie and the rest of the cast fulfill their rolls excellently, except for Sam Riley’s Darcy. He lacks the charm and depth needed, but he’s not the worst cinematic Darcy.

Combined with that, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies offers a fun zombie story with some fabulous world building. That allows for some fantastic scenes of Regency women in layered frocks pulling their multiple weapons and going full Resident Evil on the undead. So it is fun, twisted action along with Austin’s words. It sounds great.

But it isn’t great. The problem is right there in its success. Pride and Prejudice’s story not only fills up a movie, it requires that much time at a minimum. Previous film versions have felt too short. Now add in a zombie story complicated enough to fill an entire film on its own and we’ve got a time problem. Everything is way too rushed. We barely get to know the main characters. Forget about any of the secondary folks. At times this is less of a film then an overview.

The film needed to figure out what it wanted to be. If it was Austin, with zombies, then it needed at least another hour—I’d recommend making it a ten episode series. Jane seems great. Give me time to get to know her. Give me time to get to know the entire Bennet clan. Matt Smith appears funny yet affable as Parson Collins. Let’s have another thirty minutes with him. Lena Headey’s Lady Catherine was barely onscreen while I could have spent another hour just with her. As for Lizzie and Darcy—for there to be any chance of me caring about that relationship, wanting it to work, I needed to see him slowly revealed (or changed) into a man worthy of Lizzie and needed to see her broaden her views of the world. And then delve into that zombie plot a bit more.

If it just wanted to be a cute zombie story set in Austin-land, then pull way back on the Austin. Give us zombie slaughter that just happens to have leads named Elizabeth and Darcy who exist in a faux-Regency setting.

There’s enough in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies for me to recommend it, but it is a mild recommendation aimed at people already fans of Austin’s (but not purists) and already fans of zombies, who think the title is funny.

If costume dramas aren’t your thing, Austen has been updated for the new millennia, with three “hip” renditions in four years.  That’s got to be a record.

Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy (2003) – Kam Heskin

If you’ve seen Clueless, and know that it is an adaptation of Austen’s Emma, then you’ll know what the filmmakers had in mind when Elizabeth and Darcy (that’s Will Darcy) are transplanted to a Utah college town.  Mom and Dad Bennet are gone, and Elizabeth’s four sisters are now her roommates.  Darcy is a partner in a publishing firm, and stuffy, middle-aged pastor Collins has become stuffy, young, LDS (Latter Day Saints) missionary Collins.  The comedy aspects of the story are given priority, and a rock beat backs up many of the scenes.

Not surprisingly, there are a few rough edges in the transition to current times.  The story doesn’t make much sense in modern America, where women have options, a sense of decorum and the necessity for a good reputation do not strangle behavior, and marriage is not an absolute necessity.  So, either the story has to be changed, or you’ve got to find a culture with a very conservative set of values.  They did both.  The characters are Mormons, which helps elevate the importance of virginity and marriage, but not enough to make it all sensible.  Wickham’s plot has been altered to try and bring it into this century, but it doesn’t work.  The emotion is missing.

While the connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is purely cultural (there’s no preaching), and essential to explain the concerns of the character, strangely, the distributors of the DVD played it down.  The title has been changed, removing “A Latter Day Comedy,” and a few lines have been cut or re-dubbed.  This is the work of the brain dead.  Removing the name of the church that everyone belongs to does not make the film more accessible, just inexplicable.

Kam Heskin is a likable Elizabeth, and most of the other actors are reasonable for a low-budget picture, but the film never jells.  There is no sexual tension between the leads, the ending is forced, and worst of all, it isn’t funny.  The jokes aren’t necessarily bad, but the timing is off.  It’s part delivery, part editing, and part directing, but however you assign blame,  there isn’t a laugh in sight.  Elizabeth and Jane’s PMS ice-cream pig-out should have been funny, but it drags.  There’s even a montage (yes, a montage, and it doesn’t even deal with martial arts training), which is a sign that the director and writers were lost with the material.  It isn’t the plot that makes the novel a classic, but the language.  Austen wrote excellent dialog and it’s not here.  No one connected to this project was up to the task of replacing Austen.

Bride and Prejudice (2004) – Aishwarya Rai

The Bennets go Bollywood (well, faux Bollywood as this movie was produced in the West), with bright colors, singing, and dancing, but it’s a fairly straight rendition of the story from the novel.  The advantage of the modern Indian setting is that the important old-style English sensibilities (marriage is vital, status is paramount, etc.) are still in place.  The disadvantage?  Well, once again we don’t get Austen’s language (except in rare instances), and the replacement is mediocre.

As for that singing and dancing, if you are a fan of Bollywood films, and don’t mind musical numbers that do not advance the story and are often at odds with the tone of the surrounding drama, you may find them tolerable.  But probably not, since the songs very from not-too-bad to atrocious.  If you haven’t acquired the taste for Bollywood, you’re in for a rough time.

Aishwarya Rai, a former Miss World, has no problem being beautiful.  As Lalita Bakshi, the renamed Elizabeth, she doesn’t overwhelm with her acting chops, nor does she muck up the works.  Unfortunately, she has no chemistry with Martin Henderson, whose William Darcy isn’t as much of a jerk at the film’s opening as his other incarnations, but also lacks the fire.  He’s a milquetoast Darcy.   The unfortunate actors are given little help by a script that requires them to argue about Indian culture, the problems with tourism, and the destruction of true India caused by the building of hotels.  Ummmmm.  Sure.

There’s fun to be had, and no one could complain that this isn’t bright and shiny entertainment, but it’s also no more than ankle deep.  Think of it as Austen with some of the charm, but none of the soul.  It would be a great extra on the DVDs of the Ehle/Firth or Knightley versions.

Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) – Renée Zellweger/Colin Firth/Hugh Grant

If you are having trouble fitting Pride and Prejudice into a modern setting, why bother forcing it?  Just take what you like.  That’s the philosophy behind Bridget Jones’s Diary, which isn’t a version of Austen’s work, but merely inspired by it, and then only when convenient.

Bridget has the kindness and wit of Lizzie, but not her intelligence (yes, wit doesn’t equal intelligence).  Where Lizzie was a special girl, Bridget is every girl.  Mark Darcy is Darcy, with little alteration, and is even played by Colin Firth, who changes nothing from his previous version.  Daniel Cleaver is a more charming version of Wickham, who is just as slimy, but somehow more loveable.  His feud with Darcy has completely changed, as has the “foul deed” that makes the heroine change her opinion of him.  Mr. Jones is more befuddled than Mr. Bennet, but he has the same warm relationship with his daughter.  And Bridget’s mother is trying to get her married off in embarrassing ways.  More of the characters could be mapped onto counterparts in Pride and Prejudice, but the fit becomes awkward.

People can argue about how well this works as Pride and Prejudice, (and they do, with many Janeites offended by the language and sex—they are really silly people), but as Bridget Jones’s Diary, it works brilliantly.  There’s just enough romance and plenty of humor.  Renée Zellweger transforms herself into a pleasingly plump, London, thirty-something with the insecurities of a generation setting on her shoulders; without prior knowledge, you’d never guess that she spends most of her time as a Texan stick-insect (to borrow a term from the movie).  Bridget fears almost everything, but also enjoys her vices.  She smokes, drinks, eats chocolate, and runs off to the country for anal sex with her boss.  She’s looking for love, self-respect, and a good time, and in the end, she gets all three.  But first she has to do everything just a little wrong (and a few things monumentally wrong).  Most of it is funny (particularly whenever Hugh Grant shows up), but it wouldn’t work if you didn’t care so much for Bridget.  It also has the finest fight between two forty-year-old men ever filmed (the average forty-year-old does not know martial arts, boxing, or any other combat skill to save him from looking as silly as a kindergartener when it comes to fisticuffs ).

You’d think after all those—plus viewings of Sense and Sensibility and Emma—I’d be all Austened-out.  But I could repeat (most of them) tomorrow.  Happily, they are out on disk, so I can.  And guys, these aren’t popcorn movies.  Get out the champagne and strawberries.  Trust me.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews
1 2 … 117 118 119 120 121 … 131 132