Brigadoon (1954)

BRIGADOON (1954)
Article #1312 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-17-2004
Posting Date: 3-16-2005
Directed by Vincente Minnelli
Featuring Gene Kelly, Van Johnson, Cyd Charisse

Two hunters stumble upon the Scottish village of Brigadoon, which only appears on the earth for one day every one hundred years.

There was a time in my life when I hated musicals. Then there was a period of time when I was under the influence of Danny Peary’s “Film Fanatic Guide” (which encourages trying out all genres), and I ended up watching musicals on a more regular basis. I found that practically every genre (with the possible exception of soap operas) has the ability to speak to me, and that includes musicals. Nowadays, even if I can’t really call myself a fan of the form, I don’t hate them and can enjoy them if I wish.

One of the powers of a musical is that it can take a corny concept and, through the use of music and dance, give it depth and resonance. The concept here is that “love can work miracles”; this may make my rational mind snicker, but it does touch a chord in my emotional mind, and the music and dance draws on that part of my psyche. Now I wouldn’t call BRIGADOON a great musical (it gets a little boring at times), but it is a good one. At the very least, it does accomplish the task of making its theme resonant enough so that you find yourself touched and moved at the end of the movie rather than annoyed. You even feel a little sorry for the Van Johnson character, whose materialistic nature makes an appreciation of the magical nature of Brigadoon and the power of love inaccessible to him. Movies like this do have a valuable function; in a world where it is so easy to give in to cynicism, that there are other options if we have the heart to pursue them.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Black Camel (1931)

THE BLACK CAMEL (1931)
Article #1311 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-16-2004
Posting Date: 3-15-2005
Directed by Hamilton MacFadden
Featuring Warner Oland, Bela Lugosi, Robert Young

Charlie Chan investigates the murder of an actress in Honolulu.

Fantastic aspects: Slight. They largely consist of the presence of certain actors associated with horror, and a sequence involving a crystal ball.

This may be an important movie historically. Not only does it appear to be the earliest surviving of the Warner Oland Charlie Chan movies, but it may be the first time a horror star was cast as a red herring in a mystery. I base this assumption on the fact that Bela Lugosi was the first horror star (yes, Lon Chaney predated him, but he was never really a “horror star” per se, nor do I think he was ever used as a red herring in a mystery), and this movie gives him a very high credit, indicating that it must have been made after he gained fame in DRACULA. Actually, he’s well used in this movie; he’s given a lot more to do than to give sinister glowers, and DRACULA fans will also be happy to see that Dwight Frye is on hand as well. This one is a lot of fun, with Oland quite hilarious at times. He’s assisted by a rather dim helper named Kashimo rather than his number one son, but we do have a great sequence with Chan at home with his family (which is quite large), and makes a great comment about escaping the frustrations of family life to the calm and peace of solving murders. Hamilton MacFadden (who directed) plays a movie director in the movie, and a young Robert Young (no relation to Old Robert Old) also appears.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Bird of Paradise (1932)

BIRD OF PARADISE (1932)
Article #1310 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-15-2004
Posting Date: 3-14-2005
Directed by King Vidor
Featuring Dolores del Rio, Joel McCrea, John Halliday

A white man falls in love with a native girl on a south seas island, not knowing that she is the daughter of the chief and fated to be cast in the volcano to appease the gods.

Apparently, this type of story was old hat even at the time this was made. It’s a pretty elaborate production, though; my only wish is that it could have been in color. It’s also pretty racy; this was before the production code, and we have scenes of the native girl swimming naked (I don’t know if it’s Dolores del Rio or a stand-in; you never get a good look at her during this sequence) and another of del Rio wearing a top that consists of nothing more than a couple of leis. You also get a scene of Joel McCrea swimming with a turtle, sliding down a hill on a palm leaf, and teaching English to Dolores del Rio. This being the type of story it is, it’s at least borderline fantasy anyway, but the appearance of a shark and a plot point involving the volcano’s curse give it marginal horror touches as well. A certain Creighton Chaney (you know; Lon’s son) plays one of the sailors, though I can’t say whether he was given any lines of dialogue. The movie would be remade in 1951.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Beware Spooks! (1939)

BEWARE SPOOKS! (1939)
Article #1309 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-14-2004
Posting Date: 3-13-2005
Directed by Edward Sedgwick
Featuring Joe E. Brown, Mary Carlisle, Clarence Kolb

An incompetent policeman loses his job when he lets a criminal escape, and he vows to catch the criminal to get his job back.

For many years I was most familiar with Joe E. Brown as a supporting player in any number of movies (like SOME LIKE IT HOT, COMEDY OF TERRORS and A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM). He was always very enjoyable in these, but for some reason I never caught his starring vehicles. Having seen a couple of them now, I suspect that none of them ever really became comedy classics. Brown himself has good comic timing and a memorable face, and he did make the best of what he was given. However, his comic persona in these was strictly routine (the good-hearted bumbler), and rarely do they seem inspired. They were watchable, but hardly great.

The fantastic content in this one is slight; the last part of the movie has Brown matching wits with a criminal in a carnival spook house. This is also one of the better scenes in the movie, as a fight scene set among the usual fun-house acoutrements (stairs that turn into slides, slippery floors, etc.) does make for an interesting sequence. Other than that, the best scene of the movie is a sequence where Brown finds himself alone in a hotel room with his newly-married bride, and his nervousness results in his accidentally making a shambles of the room. Other than that, this movie is pretty slight and forgettable.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Bat (1926)

THE BAT (1926)
Article #1308 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-13-2004
Posting Date: 3-12-2005
Directed by Roland West
Featuring Jack Pickford, Louise Fazenda, Eddie Gribbon

A murderous bank robber known as “The Bat” is loose in a country estate, and the residents believe he may be hiding in a hidden room in the mansion.

THE BAT is one of the cornerstones of the whole “Old Dark House” genre, but oddly enough, I had a little trouble warming up to it. I’d seen its remake THE BAT WHISPERS (with the same director) twice, and though I seemed to like it well enough the first time I saw it, I was very bored the second time. This boredom almost repeated itself on my first viewing of the original here, but I ended up warming up to it as it progressed, and I believe this might be due to the fact that I didn’t find myself struggling with the creakiness of an early talkie. Visually, this is one of the finest looking of the “Old Dark House” movies; the excellent Art Design by William Cameron Menzies is very effective, and even though the miniatures do look like miniatures, they are still evocative and moody. The movie starts out very well indeed, with an audacious robbery-murder; my problems usually start when the action moves to the country estate. Two problems I had with the movie are that I don’t think it does a good job introducing its various characters (it takes longer to sort out who’s who than it should), and that it puts too much emphasis on the comic-relief maid, who spends all of her time either looking scared or accusing people of being “The Bat”. However, the confusing middle section eventually gives way to the more focused final third of the movie, which is quite fun. The soundtrack is marvelously moody, but this in itself is a bit problematic; since the movie is at least partially a comedy, it should have a lightness of touch at times that it doesn’t have.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Atomic Kid (1954)

THE ATOMIC KID (1954)
Article #1307 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-12-2004
Posting Date: 3-11-2005
Directed by Leslie H. Martinson
Featuring Mickey Rooney, Robert Strauss, Elaine Davis

A man survives an atomic blast, and he becomes a national secret as scientists try to figure out what saved him from being destroyed.

Mickey Rooney was well into his thirties when this was made, so he’s really stretching it to play someone who could still be called a “kid”, but then Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey were even older at the time, and they were still “boys”, so what do I know? Rooney produced this one himself, and the story (though not the script) came from Blake Edwards, but for all that, it largely feels like one of the weaker efforts from Abbott and Costello; in fact, it’s very easy to see Costello in the Rooney role and Abbott in the Strauss role. At any rate, this is one fairly weak comedy.

Now, given the fact that it is a comedy, you do expect them to play fast and loose with theories of atomic energy. Let’s take a look at the scientific phenomena on display here.

1) You can survive an atomic blast if you’re hiding in a closet with a peanut butter-sardine-banana sandwich. After your survival, you will be able to endorse peanut butter products.

2) Once you survive the blast, your neutrons will speed up. This will make you talk like one of the Goofy Gophers. This wears off after a while.

3) For your own protection, you must wear a geiger counter wristwatch to keep track of your neutrons. If you kiss someone, this will set them off. This will cause fires to spontaneously light up in the fireplace.

4) Another side effect of having survived a nuclear blast is that slot machines will automatically cough up all their winnings to you.

Foreign agents will want to know these secrets, so keep your mouth shut.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Anatomy of a Psycho (1961)

ANATOMY OF A PSYCHO (1961)
Article #1306 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-11-2004
Posting Date: 3-10-2005
Directed by Boris Petroff
Featuring Ronnie Burns, Pamela Lincoln, Darrell Howe

A troubled teenager seeks revenge on those he holds responsible for the arrest, conviction and execution of his older brother.

I’m not sure what you should expect from a movie with a title that seems to promise the high drama of ANATOMY OF A MURDER crossed with the giddy thrills of PSYCHO, but if this juvenile delinquent revenge story falls somewhat outside the auspices of your expectations, join the club. It’s pretty much REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE territory, except our troubled teenager acts a little loonier than usual, and outside of a few moments of stressed-out madness, the fantastic aspects of this one are nonexistent. On its own terms, it’s a mess; though it picks up during the last third of its running time, you have to sit through the confused, obvious and annoying first two thirds of the movie, and it’s not a fun ride (unless you find catching snatches of music from PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE to be a thrilling experience). You won’t know any more about psychos after watching this movie than you did before. Incidentally, Ronnie Burns (who plays Mickey) is the adopted son of George Burns and Gracie Allen.

On a final note, one character in this movie wins the DS Bag O’ Hammers award (for characters who do monumentally stupid things). It goes to the psycho’s sister’s boyfriend, who takes the time to tell the obviously hostile psycho that 1) it was his (the boyfriend’s) father that provided the testimony that sent the psycho’s brother to the electric chair, and 2) he’s about to marry his (the psycho’s) sister.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941)

THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (1941)
(a.k.a. ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY)
Article #1305 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-10-2004
Posting Date: 3-9-2005
Directed by William Dieterle
Featuing Edward Arnold, Walter Huston, James Craig

A down-on-his-luck farmer makes a deal with the devil for seven years good luck.

When I first started this series, the name of William Dieterle didn’t mean a lot to me. It was only after I realized that this man was responsible for two old favorites (THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939), PORTRAIT OF JENNIE) as well as some newer discoveries (SIX HOURS TO LIVE and this one), that I’ve really grown to appreciate the man’s craft and vision. William Dieterle is one of the great directors of all time, and I’m glad that this series has helped me to realize this.

This movie is indeed something special; it’s basically a folksy New England legend done with such charm, wit and visual splendor that it transcends itself. The biggest attractions here are the acting and the visual sense. The casting of the roles was perfect, though a little unexpected. I’m usually used to seeing Edward Arnold in more villainous roles, but the role of Daniel Webster is a perfect fit for him, especially during the trial sequence that climaxes the movie. I was also a little surprised to see John Qualen in the role of Miser Stevens, which seemed an odd bit of casting; however, when Stevens starts to spill his soul during the party sequence, I can see precisely why he was cast. Add to that the great Walter Huston as Mr. Scratch, Simone Simon as the seductive Belle Dee, Jane Darwell as the mother, James Craig and Anne Shirley as the young couple, and other familiar names and faces such as Gene Lockhart, Frank Conlan and H.B. Warner, and you’re in acting heaven.

The visual style is breathtaking, almost surreal at time. Just a list of them is worth considering; the appearance of Mr. Scratch after Jabez says that he’ll sell his soul for two cents, the hailstorm that breaks out when Jabez first tries to efface the date in the tree, the eerie faces peering through the window during the party scene, and the ensuing dance (I wouldn’t be surprised if Herk Harvey was as much influenced by this sequence as he was by Bergman and Cocteau when he made CARNIVAL OF SOULS), and the introduction of the judge and jury of the quick and the dead. Furthermore, Dieterle’s direction is masterful in even seemingly small moments; the scene where Mr. Scratch causes the gold pieces to rise out of the ground, the one where Jabez manages to kill his conscience by shaking hands with the devil, and the one where Daniel Webster gives a spanking to his godson all stick in mind. Throw in a simply sublme score by Bernard Herrmann, and you have an unforgettable cinematic experience. And I bet that final scene is a real treat in a crowded theatre.

This one’s a classic. Don’t miss it if you can.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939)

THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939)
Article #1304 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-9-2004
Posting Date: 3-8-2005
Directed by Alfred L. Werker
Featuring Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Ida Lupino

Professor Moriarty decides to embarass Holmes by diverting his attention away from a brilliant crime he’s planning to commit.

This was the last of the two period Sherlock Holmes movies featuring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce for Fox; the two actors would then be picked up by Universal for a series of modern-day stories. Some people say it’s the best of the series, and quite frankly I agree; though all of the Rathbone Holmes films are fun, this one is especially fine. I knew this one was special the moment Moriarty mentions that he’s going to use Holmes’ own restlessness as a tool against him, and from that point onward you’re caught up in both parts of the plan; can Holmes solve the intriguing murder plot he is presented with and still see through it to the daring robbery attempt that it is meant to cover up? Both Rathbone and Bruce are excellent, with Bruce slightly less of a buffoon than usual. However, George Zucco’s performance as Moriarty is one of the high points of his career. Zucco is always fun to watch, but I’ve never seen him quite as nuanced as he is here; I love the scenes where he berates a servant for having failed to water his plant and the scene where he banters with Holmes. The horror elements are fairly slight, but an exciting chase that ends in a graveyard adds an ample amount of horror atmosphere to the proceedings.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Z.P.G. (Zero Population Growth) (1972)

Z.P.G. (ZERO POPULATION GROWTH) (1972)
Article #1303 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-8-2004
Posting Date: 3-7-2005
Directed by Michael Campus
Featuring Oliver Reed, Geraldine Chaplin, Don Gordon

To stem the rise of overpopulation, the government makes a new law forbidding child-bearing. A couple decides to break the law and have a baby.

You want dystopia? You got dystopia! First of all, you have a totalitarian government similar to something you might find in 1984 or FAHRENHEIT 451. They’re so totalitarian that they even booby-trap their libraries (the scene where Oliver Reed is whisked off to an interrogation chamber after watching part of a tape on “premature birth” is one of the most energetic scenes in the slow-moving movie; it’s just a shame that the scene is unintentionally comic). The world is also heavily polluted; unfortunately, the pollution is represented by having all of the outdoors sequence take place in a thick rolling fog that a) obscures the action (this is the foggiest movie since THE SLIME PEOPLE) and b) looks entirely too clean to be pollution. All of the animals are dead, people eat from tubes, etc. etc; the movie is quite relentless with how depressing this world is. Then there’s the central premise, which seems a little extreme; even given the totalitarian government, the decision to ban all child-bearing seems extreme, but then I’m not a politician, so what do I know? The movie is slow moving, arty, and has a musical soundtrack that makes me wish that it had no musical soundtrack. Everyone is also acting in that detached style borrowed from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY; I guess some film-makers thought science fiction was supposed to be like that. However, it’s theme can’t help but have a little power, and there’s a sequence about two-thirds of the way through the movie where the couple with the baby is discovered by another couple, who, instead of turning them in, begin blackmailing them so that they themselves can have time with the baby, and this easily marks the best sequence in the movie, as you can really feel the strong desires of all concerned. The ending is inconclusive and unsatisfying. You have to really like dystopias to like this movie.

0 CommentsLeave a comment