THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1959)
Article #1532 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-25-2005
Posting Date: 10-22-2005
Directed by Terence Fisher
Featuring Peter Cushing, Andre Morell, Christopher Lee

Sherlock Holmes investigates the death of a nobleman who is believed to have been frightened to death by a hellish hound.

I think it’s a bit of a shame that Hammer never made any more movies featuring Peter Cushing as Holmes; he is exquisite in the role. Still, I suspect that they were more interested in the horror content of this particular story rather than seeking to start a series; this is far and away the most horrific of the Holmes stories. In fact, many of the alterations to the original story seem to be there to augment the horror content; though it’s been a while since I’ve read the novel, I don’t recall anything involving the sadistic sequence involving Hugo Baskerville, the tarantula, or the excursion into the mine, though they do feel like scenes I’d find in a Hammer movie. Still, these scenes don’t really do any damage; in fact, the Hugo Baskerville sequence is quite memorable. My main problem with the movie is the sometimes sluggish pace that I find in many of the Hammer movies. Still, this is a minor quibble in light of Cushing’s performance; in particular, I love a scene where Cushing’s Holmes tries to encourage Doctor Mortimer to lead him to the entrance of the mine, because Cushing does such a fine job in expressing both his manipulative power over Mortimer while showing us how much he dislikes him. Andre Morell also deserves kudos for his solid portrayal of Watson, which somewhat makes up for one of the central problems with the story itself—to wit, that Holmes himself is missing from a goodly section of the story.

HOMEBODIES (1974)
Article #1530 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-23-2005
Posting Date: 10-20-2005
Directed by Larry Yust
Featuring Douglas Fowley, Ruth McDevitt, Frances Fuller

Senior citizens in a boarding house try to stave off having to move from their condemned home by murdering those intent on making them leave.

If yesterday’s movie made me question whether it was really worth my time to pursue this project, today’s was an affirmation that it really was worth my time. It’s not so much that yesterday’s movie was awful (I’ve seen worse) or that this one is a classic (it has its problems). It’s just that yesterday’s movie had nothing about it that made it seem worth the effort on my behalf to watch it. This one is different; the premise is offbeat and eccentric, I found myself thoroughly engrossed in the movie, and it’s one of those forgotten movies that I’m glad to have encountered. Sure, these senior citizens commit some horrendous acts to keep from moving, but their struggle is fascinating for several reasons, not least of which is that you know that their struggle is futile; there is no way they can prevent their home from being torn down. The fascination is in seeing just how far they’ll go for their lost cause. The movie is also helped by a wicked sense of humor, and at times I really suspect that this is a black comedy of sorts. The cast is mostly unfamiliar to me; the only two names I recognize are veteran character actor Ian Wolfe, and one-time star of several science fiction movies Kenneth Tobey. All of the actors and actresses playing the senior citizens do a fine job, with particular kudos going to Paula Trueman, as an ominously elfin woman who is the most committed to the cause at hand. There are a number of memorable scenes here, including a chase scene involving pedal boats. The ending is a bit of a puzzle and can be interpreted in several ways, but one interpretation hints that there may be a supernatural force behind the events. All in all, an engaging curiosity.

THE HEAVENLY BODY (1943)
Article #1529 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-22-2005
Posting Date: 10-19-2005
Directed by Alexander Hall
Featuring William Powell, Hedy Lamarr, James Craig

An astronomer caught up in his discovery of a new comet neglects his wife, who turns to astrology. She becomes convinced that she is going to meet the man of her dreams, and decides to break up their marriage.

It’s not necessarily the nature of the fantastic content that makes a movie belong in marginalia; it’s the way that the movie handles the content. The fantastic content here is the discovery of the comet that will collide with the moon. Though the special effects employed for this happening are quite entertaining, ultimately it is only used to serve as a counterpoint to a critical moment where the astronomer believes his wife is engaging in adultery. As a consequence, I consider this movie only marginally fantastic.

It’s also one of those movies that makes me wonder just how far afield I care to go in exploring marginalia. At heart, I really don’t care for romantic comedies, and despite the fact that this one has a decent reputation, I think it’s fairly weak. I do like William Powell, but I think he’s floundering with a weak script here. Despite the fact that I find it a bit clever that the movie deals with both astronomy and astrology and involves predictions from both of these sources, I don’t think the movie ever effectively builds its comic moments around this. Too much of the high comedy seems forced; in particular, a sequence in which the astronomer tries to fake an illness and it results in his house being invaded by a gaggle of partying immigrant Russians comes off as so badly contrived that I didn’t enjoy it in the least. The only gag I really liked in the movie is that the wife is constantly hiring new maids. Still, the cast is interesting; besides the names listed above, it also includes Spring Byington, Fay Bainter and Morris Ankrum.

HARVEY (1950)
Article #1528 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-21-2005
Posting Date: 10-18-2005
Directed by Henry Koster
Featuring James Stewart, Josephine Hull, Peggy Dow

When a woman is frustrated in her attempts to find a match for her lonely daughter by her mild-mannered brother (who claims to be friends with a giant invisible rabbit), she decides to have the brother committed.

I’d seen this comedy when I was a child, but I haven’t seen it again till now. Over the years since my initial viewing, I was left with two impressions. One was that Harvey (the invisible rabbit) was a figment of Elwood P. Dowd’s imagination, and the other was that I found it curious that the movie had such a high reputation. I had enjoyed it well enough as a kid, but there didn’t seem anything about it at the time that was special enough to merit its reputation.

Watching it now, I have revised both of these impressions. First of all, I now lean towards the belief that, within the context of this film, Harvey is very real indeed. I had originally chosen to ignore or forget the evidence in this regard, but I can no longer do so. I found no other acceptable explanation for the hat found by Dr. Chumley or the definition of a “pooka” as read by Mr. Wilson, and the various openings of doors towards the end of the movie further confirms this belief. In fact, I find it more satisfying to believe in his existence; somehow, it says a lot about Dowd’s character that Harvey chooses to be his companion for as long as he does.

I also now fully understand the film’s reputation. Within this rather silly and whimsical premise, writer Mary Chase found an enormous amount of emotional resonance. We end up caring deeply for Elwood P. Dowd and the other characters in the movie, and we find his philosophy of “being pleasant” rather than “being smart” rather touching, especially when this philosophy is delivered by one of the most likable actors ever produced by Hollywood, James Stewart. This emotional resonance transcends the premise; it becomes greater and deeper than its comic premise would indicate in a way that ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (a movie which in some ways resembles this one) does not. It is also filled with other fine actors and actresses; Josephine Hull won an Oscar for her role as Elwood’s sister, Victoria Horne does a fine job as Elwood’s awkward niece, and it’s always nice to see such familiar faces as Cecil Kellaway and Jesse White. And one-time star of many an ‘old dark house’ movie Wallace Ford has a great cameo here as a taxi driver, whose observations at the end of the movie manage to turn the tide of the story. In short, this one fully deserves its classic status.

HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN (1952)
Article #1527 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-20-2005
Posting Date: 10-17-2005
Directed by Charles Vidor
Featuring Danny Kaye, Farley Granger, Zizi Jeanmaire

A cobbler with a gift for telling fairy tales makes his way to Copenhagen, where he falls in love with a ballerina.

For many years, my only cinematic encounter with Danny Kaye had been watching a few scenes from this movie when I was a child. In particular, I never forgot a scene where he sings the story of Thumbelina to a young girl from his jail cell. I wondered for many years why I didn’t stick through the whole movie. Seeing it in its entirety many years later, I know why; the scenes of Andersen telling/singing stories/songs to the children give way to scenes about his love for a ballerina, and this whole subplot would have bored me to tears as a child. Nowadays I can weather it a bit better, but it, along with the big ballet numbers, is still the weakest part of the movie. It would have been better if they had stuck to the fairy tale songs, which, in their childlike simplicity, are simply perfect; “Inchworm”, in particular, still rings in my ears. It’s a shame this movie falters as often as it does; if it had managed to maintain the charm of its early scenes, it would have been a real classic.

THE HAND (1960)
Article #1525 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-18-2005
Posting Date: 10-15-2005
Directed by Henry Cass
Featuring Derek Bond, Ronald Leigh-Hunt, Reed De Rouen

When a drunkard is picked up in the street with his right hand amputated and carrying a wad of cash, the police investigate his story that he was paid to have it amputated.

Fantastic content: I would say that this movie is rather marginal. The horror content is mostly due to the grisliness of the concept of hand amputations.

This movie actually starts out with a bang; there’s a dramatic sequence in a prisoner of war camp, and then the story jumps to the rather intriguing mystery as described above. Unfortunately, it’s all downhill from there; the story becomes increasingly muddled and confusing, and it ends with an obvious and contrived ironic twist. Perhaps the worst problem, though, is that when you hold the story up to the light, it seems lame and poorly developed, and you end up wondering if you wasted your time.

Nevertheless, I find myself reluctant to abandon the story altogether. Though the story doesn’t work in this context, there are some hints of a more complex story underlying it all, enough so that I began to feel that it isn’t so much a bad story as a good story very badly told. If I had written that underlying story, I would have jettisoned the detective plot and concentrated on a more straightforward and character-driven version of it, because this story could only work if the characters are carefully developed (something this movie fails to do).

Even if I had been required to keep it a mystery, I would make one major change; I would move the opening prisoner-of-war sequence at the beginning to the accompanying flashback at the end of the movie. The reason for this is that it reveals too much; the mystery would have been a lot more engrossing had we not already known how certain characters lost their hands. Quite frankly, the sequence is too strong for this movie; you keep waiting to get back to it and the mystery plot starts to become a coy annoyance. At any rate, this is all speculation. In it’s present form, the movie falls flat.