iami-4 Reviews

Red Tails (2012)

Red Tail as just about an OK Tale

[6/10 · 22 January 2012]

"Red Tails" is barely a good enough movie for the ticket price. Too much special effects (obligitory nowadays for the young crowd, and the older too if not serious about what's more important) and too reliant on cliché. Faces in cockpits (too close close-ups) ... edit to zooming airplanes peppered onto every corner of the screen ... edit to faces in cockpits. And so on, including a subplot of romance, another of strong liquor, and one about a POW escape. There's Jr Gooding -- and it's a good thing he's given a pipe to chew because he's not so capable at portrayals. Still, I'm sincerely glad he gets work. The acting is all-in-all better than OK. Give 'em credit. It may not be so easy to act out these kinds of stories. Give special effects credit, too, because it's technically great. As for dialog, there's a sort of occasional documentary brand here that gets us the documentary message. (Did the makers forget what "theme" is, and how to get there?) Well do we see the obstacles of fitting this into a couple of hours at the neighborhood theater: skip boring essentials -- how this very significant American story came to be. Actually, skip too much and you have barely an adequate movie. (George Lucus looked guilty of something on TV, now I know. But his heart is in it and his money, too: $58m & $35m.) Television documentaries have been very good showing the world these brave and hardy, patriotic, dedicated people who stood up and were counted in a time of national crisis - and then treated shamefully (this can't be overstated) in and out of their military service. How long it took for recognition! How ugly America looks for its failures to live up to "all men are created equal." (As Hubert Humphrey is supposed to have said: "If we don't believe that, we'd better stop saying it.") So, maybe this would have passed muster as a honest to goodness theater documentary. It's worth seeing, yes, with something in mind about an episode in our history and why we do such things to ourselves. War. Discrimination. Denial. Too late the redress.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Knight is Dark and He is Far (sort of) From Home

[15 September 2011]

It takes a ton to put this plot into words. (As we see in so many printed for this opportunity.) Complicated / Complex won't even suffice for starters. The theme has plenty going for it. The film is maybe 33 minutes too long so that the point or points are nearly drowned. And what does the job is overdone special effects. AGAIN! When will we learn to fore-go that stuff, which is to please the juveniles of any age in the seats, so that an idea can gain traction! Somewhere down the line of years someone will edit this for the smaller home screen, if any of those remain when advertising has once again sold us too much for self-gratification. Then the mind will be able to concentrate on the paradox of ideas in The Dark Knight, and we might be the richer for that good deed.

The Happy Time (1952)

Moralities Explained: Frankly French and Subtly Perfect

[8/10 · 6 May 2011]

An unscheduled afternoon's rest put me back in touch with The Happy Time. The film was several minutes into itself, but I recognized a good thing when I saw it again. To be honest, not quite. For a moment I was remembering Charles Boyer in another comic-drama whose title I've never been able to recall. In it he says "Nuts to the squirrels" several times so that it becomes a catch-phrase for "Live and let live." So here I am getting reacquainted with Boyer, Louis Jourdan, Kurt Kazner, Marsha Hunt, and the growing-up Bobby Driscoll. Along comes a scene which is one of filmdom's best for sorting the difference between morality and moralizing. Driscoll, as the son entering puberty, reveals a strop beating by his school master. Not severe physically, but emotionally hurtful. He had taken to school a sort of French postcard. It was in the house as one of an uncle's possessions. At school, someone had sketched it "dirty," so to speak. But it's merely risqué. This French-Canadian family has retained all of its French. Therein is the theme of tolerance for humanity's differences, including love in its varieties explained in our Classical history by the Greek three of agape, philos, and eros. In a scene which could be used for a father-son banquet, Boyer is at his best in a dialog with his son Driscoll, composed by film writers:

-- Robert 'Bibi' Bonnard: There is something more, but I don't know what it is. Jacques Bonnard: Ah. Well. It is this 'something more' of which we shall speak. Now you see, Bibi, this... desire you have, it's a natural one, and since it is natural, it cannot be bad. It becomes bad only when the reason is bad. That is why so many people are mixed up Robert 'Bibi' Bonnard: I, too, am mixed up. Jacques Bonnard: Well, of course! So am I. Well, let's try to unmix ourselves, shall we? Now, Bibi, we speak now of love. And where there is love, there is also desire; they go together. Love must have the desire; I don't believe there can be love without it. But, it is possible to have the desire without love, and this is where the world falls apart. For instance, you don't understand why the principal of your school beat you. Robert 'Bibi' Bonnard: No, papa. Jacques Bonnard: Well, it is because he has been brought up to believe that the desire is wrong. And since he himself has the desire, he's even more mixed up than we are! He has been brought up in a world where the desire has been used so badly--so badly, believe me--that it itself is thought to be bad; and this is wrong. This is wrong, Bibi. And you know the reason for this condition? It is because so many people are without love. ... In a way, the world comes down to a house, and a room, and a bed. And if there are two people in love there, then that is the whole world. Of course you won't know this for many years. You know, it is possible never to know it? I hope you will. If you are as lucky as I am, you will. ...the secret is not to imitate. Look for your heart's need, and then she will come. Well, I've talked enough, and still you don't know what I wish to say. ... Well, perhaps, when we speak again, I will find better words. --

This, of course, is merely a taste of the whole fruit delivered so deliciously by Boyer. And of course a girl has put Bibi into these troubles at school as she works her way into his attention. Of course, also, this young thing appears in the next the scene. She and Bibi stand alone and gaze, and they kiss. And the mother, of course, walks in on them, of course. While there is surprise, there is no trouble because they are French. They understand.

The Odyssey (1997)

Odyssey as Excellent: A Wish for More Classics

[10/10 · 22 April 2011]

A 10! I mean, why not? How grateful I am (we should all be) for Classical lit to get its due in media of the current world -- film with fine attention to acting and telling and special effects. To be literate in film language is essential. That includes TV probably moreso than the movie screen because TV is pervasive. We have it in many rooms of our homes and in waiting rooms and lobbies anywhere. Odyssey (1997) was made in two parts for TV but done as though for movie theaters. A joy to experience. A credit to excellent use of special effects, that much-abused art which gets wasted when used as just so much filler and fodder. Previous to the art of digital effects (shall I call it that?), Greek and Roman mythology was unsatisfactory on film. Imagination is a great human asset, and in reading it's everything. But when the supernatural stories are attempted on screen, and audience participants expect to see something equivalent to what they've visualized while reading, the mechanics of mid-twentieth century film language was often just laughable. And, believe me, people did laugh inappropriately. Which of course gets me to the the point of a super-great story teller Odysseus/Ulysses who, essentially, lies (exaggerates to a high end) about where he has been, what he has done on the way home from war, and what happened to his band of men. This classic story is exactly that -- one of the very definitions of the term. Odyssey has it all in the way Greeks tried and succeeded in explaining the world of humankind with every bit of its individual and universal frailties and strengths. To go too far in a review would be to deny the reader and the viewer an opportunity for discovery. Just think how many have experienced this story, and all others of those times, told and read over the centuries! The total is, of course, more than the combined total of all modern best-sellers and all persons who have passed through the box offices of all theaters of every kind since "shows" were invented. The Classics are the stuff of a liberal arts education, and we have been lacking in that regard for awhile. Therefore, such films as this are another opportunity for our world to gain the insights and wisdoms of our human past. With a hope that our future will benefit as well. Add to this the excellent filmed version of Illiad, titled Troy (2004), and our opportunities are expanded. Now let's have Aenied, the Roman adventures of Aeneas. And more classic stories. About the acting in Odyssey, to say it's just fine would be inappropriately weak. The director did not accept anything but excellence, and the actors are capable of that, for sure. Armand Assante and Greta Scacchi lead an excellent cast which includes an array of experienced stars and great extras. Assante, listed at about 5-feet-9, seems smallish for the part of a great heroic age hero. But of course the real Odysseus (whoever he must have been, whether an individual or a combination of real persons) wasn't physically big. Assante fits the sizing just fine. Let me explain that four of us saw Oh Brother, Where Art Thou! in a theater, and we wanted to review this filmed Odyssey to refresh our reading memories and try to solve the subtle Coen Brothers. We four (an older couple with our son and daughter-in-law) rented Odyssey, went home and watched the first part. Next morning we did the second part. Such fun! We intended to rent the 1954 Kirk Douglas movie Ulysses, but it wasn't in the store. It is Italian-made and actually quite good but with obvious reservations by comparison. Yet, comparison is good to do with such a many-faceted tale with such themes of humankind.

The 39 Steps (2008 TV Movie)

The 39 Steps of 2008 Better than OK TV

[7/10 · 10 April 2011]

When the Guthrie Theatre of Minneapolis announced its 2010 dates of live presentations and The 39 Steps was a part, I thought first of Hitchcock and wondered. His 1935 film was immensely entertaining when I first saw it on TV in the '50s or '60s -- Mr. Memory at the Music Hall, the Scotland chases, the room at the inn, and back to the Music Hall with Mr. Memory's explanation. I could hardly wait to see it again, and when I did it had lost something for me. Obviously, with mysteries, that is the case. Nevertheless, I'll always treasure the first experience. Years later I found Buchan's 1915 novel (one of a series using Hannay as the protagonist) at a yard sale and ate it up. As John Huston did with The Maltese Falcon novel, Hitchcock did with The 39 Steps -- followed a great story well told and just translated it to film. Or so I thought. I'd forgotten until finding this under "Questions" about the film: "... the actual 39 steps are different ... Hannay is never handcuffed to a woman...the romantic bit was made up for the movie...". But "both stories are highly episodic.... Buchan ... long discrete chapters ... whereas Hitchcock hurtles abrupt changes...". Well, why not since novels employ the art of high, middle, and low points but film language is the art of high points, mainly. Gotta be that way. Reluctant to watch this TV version, I did so anyway. You have to for comparison sake. I found the two leads, male and female, attractive and effective, and the camera work just as good. I'm still planning to find the book on one of my shelves. And when I do, I'll give it another go. And lay it out for my wife to consider. (Oh, oh. She says I did that the first time, and she has read it.) I remember the book as rather thin in appearance but thick with adventure. A red binding. The Guthrie stage version was a testament to creative stage adaptation. The fast pace was great fun with five (5!) actors doing quick changes for multiple roles but never harming the context. Now I found the book: copyright MCMXV, fewer than 230 5x8 pages.

Moby Dick (1956)

Contained in its 1950s time, Moby Dick is big

[8/10 · 20 March 2011]

With 6,300+ viewers and 88 reviewers ahead of me on this one, I'm surely low on any list for readers. Nevertheless, a good film seen again deserves a few repeats. And an opportunity for self-expression. This film deserves praise. For one thing, Gregory Peck is true to the role. That fuller-face makeup helps - and the scar. Leo Genn is as fine an antidote as was ever put next to an obsessed man. But Genn's Starbuck can't help but fall into the obsession. It's the way Melville wrote it. For most of us, this film plugs the hole in our reading of classics. I think this anecdote is a jest, but it goes like this. A fifth grade bright boy chose Moby Dick for his outside reading. Maybe the teacher thought he'd get a version intended for young readers. But he didn't. And he wrote the shortest review on record: "Moby Dick told me more about whaling that I cared to know." When "Jaws" was published, a very good reviewer saw a greater potential than Peter Benchley gave it. The critic saw a modern day Melville story. And why not? Well, here's probably why: 1) Benchley didn't have that talent; 2) he knew the modern day reader and was satisfied with making a whale of a killing on the best-seller lists. As for the movie, this is intended as praise: Much of it appears to have been filmed in a bowl. That takes talent John Huston had. As wide as the plot seems to be because of the open seas story line, it's contained within a few heads and guts on one ship. It is shot in tight scenes, even the scenes going after whales. It requires the best special effects of the time because there ain't no white whale to cooperate. All in all, I think I'll accept the special effects of the 1950s over those of the present time. Which are vastly over-done, over-rated, and are supposed to BE the story rather than be PART OF the story. Oh, how I'd liked to have been the fella who had the talent to begin a novel with "Call me Ishmael"! Call it "pen-envy" if you want to. I'm getting old and have to get to work on that great American novel in my imagination. -- "Call me Tom Jode." Should I settle for Tom Sawyer? "Call me Huckleberry Finn."

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

The girlfriends and wives of Henry VIII - and the children of same

[7/10 · 12 March 2011]

Many are the attempts to tell the wide and deep story of England's talented but power-spoiled Henry VIII and his wives. The intrigue and the ramifications for Europe and the Christian religion are the "wide and deep" of it. This one rates well for acting, costumes, and scenery. Its flaw is in the concept of limiting it to the Boleyn family. That should have been its strength. Something doesn't go right. The skips and jumps, the telescoping in transitions may be the culprit. That's a director's job, and that of his staff. If it were to be otherwise, the story takes more care and not 115 minutes as is allowed here, but about twice that. It has been done. A series. This cast could have been a good one for that re-effort. Portman and Johannson are excellent as the Boleyn sisters. Their ambitious and doomed father and uncle are done very well. And King Henry's actor has the figure and face that could be aged unto his death, shall I say, comforted by his sixth wife. It would then take another few hours to tell the story of the daughter of Anne and Henry, Elizabeth I. History demands this to be told many times, probably each generation. Henry's father, Henry VII, was the last English king to win his title on a battlefield, at Bosworth in 1485, defeating Richard III. It would be good to see the story from that point. It could be carried through to Shakespeare and beyond Elizabeth to James I. Therefore, from 1485 to the earliest part of 1600. That would be something to shoot for. I wanted to see "The Other Boleyn Girl" and did so over a 2.5 hour stretch with 45 minutes of TV commercials. Interruptions were every 10 to 15 minutes, and the ads were a jumble of nothingness as several were stacked without consideration for whatever part of the plot is chopped into. That's what TV has become: the greatest salesman ever invented, and yet powerless to do much beyond brand-naming. It may well be the goose that laid the golden egg but is cut open in greed to find them all -- so greed will kill it. Television is not an entertainment medium so much as it is an advertising medium. Rent the movie for a better experience and a chance to appreciate.

Red-Headed Woman (1932)

Red Headed Woman in film history

[7/10 · 9 March 2011]

It's necessary to judge movies and actors the same way we have to judge athletes and their performances; that is, with regard to their eras. Therefore, rather than saying I now wouldn't walk across the street to see Red Headed Woman, I'll have to say it was worth sitting through. It's part of the industrialization applied to film entertainment as developed in Hollywood. It is history. It has that which should to be seen when following film history in general. An actress, Harlow, trying really hard in the standard role of an over ambitious girl convinced that she is the only person who matters; Chester Morris, miscast, showing why he was shifted to gangster plots; Lewis Stone doing perfectly well as a considerate father even before he was Andy Hardy's pop; Una Merkle as better, at this time, than Harlow, and I think she always was a superior performer; Henry Stapleton arriving late in the story and better than just about anyone in the film; and early Charles Boyer who seems to be someone else in profile but there he is when the director finally shoots him full-face. Speaking of director, his work is most annoying to follow because he hardly ever pays enough attention to transporting us from one place to the next. Yes, of course, the poetic art of film relies on our willingness to overlook some of what's not logical, but when it's not well done it's jarring. As a script writer, Anita Loos is also "in the process," despite the fact that she has been doing it for years. Her early work in silent shorts is reflected here as she pushes hard to draw an extreme - a woman who has no moral scruples, no heart, no regard for others, no taste, no soul, and won't grow up. Merely an insensitive juvenile delinquent at 20-plus. At the end we know that this Harlow character has yet to learn anything important about herself. Comedy, yup, but I'll differ with those who find very much humor in it. Nearly a tragedy, too, with the shooting scene after which, by the way, we have a good example of really bad transition. In addition, the writer doesn't give the director enough nuance to work with. I began with a willingness to judge this picture with its peers, and so I'll give it 7 out of 10. I'll always remember it, but not without a feeling of discomfort, having chosen it for an evening's entertainment because of "1932 Jean Harlow comedy." As for the combination of role and real life, I'm happy to find out, through her bio, that she was respected by many who knew her. It seems that she learned a little about harnessing her early excesses. And she was prettier and pretty good the next year in Dinner at Eight.

The Hill (1965)

Spoiler -- the Denouement is Tragic

[9/10 · 1 July 2009]

Between Goldfinger and Thunderball, Sean Connery's depth of soul and need for self-respect may have asked him to take the role of a disgraced Sgt. Major in the Brit army. Not "disgraced" so much as "being true to his own humanity," of course -- with no one aware but himself. The stuff of heroism and the stuff of tragedy. Early on, you can smell the denouement of this one, unless you always need a happy ending and you believe that truth inevitably brings justice. Why it receives only three stars in U.S. ratings is beyond me. Obviously, even some film critics don't like to be set to really, really thinking beyond THE END. And we see those words on screen just at the time the going gets good. The sequel would be something like Paths of Glory where military lawyer Dix (Kirk Douglas) has to defend against really big odds. And by "odds" I suppose I could mean soldiers in charge who live by an outdated and blind code. I first saw this one on late night TV, a long time ago, and was so riveted I forgot to keep drinking beers. I've seen snatches since, and inside me was that feeling of "why put yourself through this again?" I mean, you gotta be just in the right frame of mind to watch something so stark and true. Yesterday, I was, after lunch. And I can't shake the ripples of thought. Same as after reading Bridge Over the River Kwai, but not so much as seeing Bridge On the River Kwai because the highly rated film has to glorify the U.S. brand of anti-military attitude instead of allowing the British to speak for itself. Not that William Holden didn't do great; just that his character wasn't in the book! For heaven's sake, Hollywood, be true to your art! It's a testament to Sir Alec Guiness that he never seemed to complain about that one. Just when you think you're never going to get comic relief in The Hill, Ossie Davis is okayed to let 'er go. If you've been paying attention, you're going to suspect something in the wrap-up -- make 'em laugh and then kick 'em in the guts, says director Lumet. That'll teach 'em. So, wanna think about the human condition in relation to why we have to fight hot wars instead of discuss our differences? Pull a straight backed chair up to this one and be ready.

Angels & Demons (2009)

Ultra-closeups, special effects, editing: not much fun anymore

[4/10 · 14 June 2009]

Greetings -- Good expectation for a good bit of entertainment and perhaps even some edification. But... Just another darn night at the mega-theater, putting up with utterly atrocious previews of coming attractions. Both the previews and what they preview. If a coming attraction has quality, it's lost in this piling on of excess. I cringe and talk to myself and "whoever" in a mutter of high dissatisfaction. I pull my cap down. And I make me another promise to show up late next time. Swoosh!! Edit fast faster fastest. Swooosh! Disdain for the viewer. Swoooosh! Woosh! Distortions. Don't they suppose anyone with taste goes to movies anymore? Is that why movie makers do this to us? Why not have some regard for youthful intelligence and taste, too? Give us ALL some. Oh, well. Oh, Hell! -- Enough. It's on with the feature, and I take off my cap. -- Film language. The editing, the kind used during features, also comes near to hurting Angels and Demons. Closeups are vastly over used. Sure, they aid the ability to give us special effects. And that's part of the hurt -- special effects overused. --Let's try the plot and the film language which tells it. One review puts it like this: "... and Howard's excellence in directing ... make this film so superb. It also lies in the simple things that keep characters like Hanks true to life...." --OK, I can certainly buy that about Actor Tom, but not this example: "... with his wearing of a simple Mickey Mouse watch ...." --My guess is that Director Ron has so few chances for comic relief, he has to use this trite edit and 1 or 2 others. As we exited, a couple ready to enter asked. I said, "Oh, OK. It's a commercial about religion." And I was thinking about a lot more, including: --There are many Catholics and religious literalists in our world, and Hollywood wants their ticket money, too. So let's not offend. Wrap it up kinda like the end of Singin' in the Rain so's we wanna feel good and come back.

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

Jolly Cholly's enlightenment (and his well-rounded office staff)

[5/10 · 2 January 2008]

Mike Nichols? I thought he was dead. Right, I was wrong on that point and some will think me wrong in this evaluation. Here goes. Director Nichols takes Jolly Cholly Wilson, well-dressed but still a slob on government payroll, and shows us how and when he finds enlightenment concerning violence and carnage. Pardon me, but during the viewing I got to wondering why he didn't learn that at home or in a Texas high school. Or was his favorite teacher the football coach? (I got nothing against sports -- nothing that a more real combo of student and athlete wouldn't satisfy.) Nichols, maybe, is telling us that snazzy dressers win elections in our system of self-governance. OK. When a man can't even govern himself, he can pretend to be a political leader. Funny? That much is. But this movie's dialog isn't so much, unless we consider the f-word skilled writing. (Jon Stewart, take notice.) The office banter and bodies are oh so cute, dontcha know. Tom Hanks does what's required of the role, and I can't deny his skill at understatement. Aided by wild black hair, Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays constant pique at not being relied upon to direct sanctioned murder. Julia Roberts is in this one so she can appear in the ads. You can tell by now that I didn't have fun on New Year's Eve in the theater. Probably I needed a good documentary on the subject of foreign wars involving U.S. intrigue. Instead I got another fictionalized "based-on" flik. Also, could be I was too eager for beer, a semi-raw steak, and good conversation. As for the latter, at dinner we couldn't even dredge up much of that about this story which gets lost in the crowded world of fast edits and (I repeat) cute dialog. Hey, almost forgot to mention the portrayal that strong drink is what fuels Congress and its helpers. Yup, war is Hell. But not much worse than our nation's inability to elect representatives who know something important before they even dare run for office. Thanks for telling us that, Mr. Nichols. But it ain't even very entertaining nowadays. Mike gives us a denouement statement on screen with, once again, that humorous word in it. Why not, I wonder, something in a dozen words or less that would help us to imagine how silly we are looking after rushing into this current extended violence that is sapping our strengths? He did that, you say? Naw. Mr. Nichols settled for cutesy with a pretense of shock.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

It's A 'Ten' and It Is 'A Measure of Movies'

[10/10 · 24 August 2006]

This "Maltese Falcon" of John Huston's is a movie by which to measure others. Certainly I didn't see its first run (I was 6 years old), but by the late '40s when I saw "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" as it came around, and also found "Casablanca" and "...Falcon" as they made return trips to our little town, I was attracted to Huston and Bogart. Also kept an eye out for Lorre, Greenstreet and all things film noir if Class A and not "budget."

(But I have to admit that Mary Astor's hair style put me off as a junior high kid with other preferences for good looking females such as, shall we say, Betty Grable. But I learned to value Astor's performance here and elsewhere. Especially here. Great admiration.)

May I explain that at a recent yardsale I found what we're calling my Maltese Owl. At a glance it resembles the falcon of the film. About half the size. Marked $4. Got it for $2. The important thing is it reminds me that some years ago I was given the video, later found a tattered copy of the novel, read it, slipped in the video and, with book and remote in hand, started and stopped and took notes. What a lot of fun.

Years earlier I saw a great TV two-hour examination of how Hollywood propagandized WWII for our nationalistic use. The documentary emphasized group loyalty with some of Bogart's final words to Astor. This choice of scene, in which he tells her that his detective partner's death gave him an obligation, was deftly extrapolated to the individual soldier's loyalty for his buddies. Something like this: -He was your partner. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner, and you're supposed to do something about it.- Here the documentary used Huston's voice explaining that Sam Spade is a man representative of those who "walk their own lonely road," true to themselves and therefore true to the concept of individual freedom and responsibility. Thoughts worthy of our Bill of Rights.

"The Maltese Falcon" and other really good films of that time did things like this unconsciously, better than trying too hard. There were of course many movies that deliberately portrayed Japanese and Germans as sub-humans. It was Hollywood's way of "assisting the war effort" (read: support the troops), but Hollywood later had to undo the hurt. It wasn't easy; and for some it wasn't possible to undo. The job was very well done.

Thank our lucky stars (WWII phrase) that we have such good film literature as this savvy work of Huston and his crew telling a good story in the honest way. There are funny scenes like Bogart taking both of Wilbert's big pistols and telling the two-bit gunman: -This'll put you in solid with your boss.- And c.1940 topical references like Bogart handing the guns to Kaspar Gutman and saying: -A crippled newsy took these away from him.- It was years before I had enough information to appreciate that great throw-away line. A "newsy" was a boy selling newspapers on the street corner.

More than one astute critic of culture has said that the best of any genre is most often in its beginnings. Film noir began with "The Maltese Falcon." It is really hard to find a more brilliantly filmed example with such fast, funny dialog and unsurpassed acting. (Check out the eyes and the cheeks of Bogart and Astor in the final scene when she says something like, -Don't say that. I can't tell whether you're joking. It's not funny.- And he says -Don't be silly. You're going over.-)

For art and for entertainment, I give it a 10 as I do "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" and "Casablanca," despite their inconsequential faults. These three, and many others, are worth a very close study resulting in a deeper appreciation for film language in particular and art in general.

The Conspirators (1944)

The Conspirators as an imitation of Casablanca: interesting with potential, but with sub-par results

[4/10 · 10 November 2005]

In the justly famous film Casablanca, Richard Blain (Rick) is seated at a table in his nightclub with Nazi Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt) who is quizzing him informally. A dolt-like officer companion of Strasser's is on hand as well. Rick is testy with him but more cooperative with Strasser. In a rejoinder to a remark the major makes concerning his birthplace, Bogart's Rick adroitly rubs his chin and slyly says something like, "There are certain parts of New York City I wouldn't advise you to go at night." By coincidence, within a short time after that viewing I came across a movie entitled All Through the Night with Bogart, Veidt, and Peter Lorre. The setting is NYCity, and it has Nazis infiltrating. I assumed it was a spin-off, but now I see it was released in 1942, the year before Casablanca. Yesterday I bump into The Conspirators, 1944, at the very beginning and became interested enough to put up with it. I didn't know it existed. I noticed similarities to Casablanca: Veidt, Lorre, Greenstreet, Henreid, and many who played minor roles or whose faces are panned in a crowd. Henreid is wounded slightly in the arm here, similar to getting it cut while breaking through a window in Casablanca. Here, however, a bullet is removed and he loses neither strength nor mobility. One of several examples of unconvincing portrayal or continuity. Lisbon, so yearned for in Casablanca but never attained by Rick or Renault, is the setting, the open port to freedom. The only one in Europe. The fog scenes are poor. Parts of scenes here are nearly copied from the greater film: market place, cafés, streets, and so on. Lines are sometimes very similar. Leo Rosten is a writer of All Through the Night and of The Conspirators. He has apparently been hired to do a quick job of imitating Casablanca to capitalize on its popularity. Romance triangle, gambling tables, too, and so on. Nevertheless, I began to think that had they taken more care, Conspirators could have been much better. But instead of care they became careless with clichés. The climax is so poorly done that I can't rate this film above 4. Members of the spy network headed by Greenstreet are among others seated around a roulette table. Greenstreet and Henreid are standing tense in anticipation of 3 numbers that will be played moments before 1:00 a.m., and that will be the clue to the infiltrating spy. The scene drags. The clock reveals 10 minutes to the hour, then 5 several times, and finally it creeps. The camera pans and the editing takes us many times across and around without skill. Ditto on the faces of Henreid and Greenstreet. And when the villain is revealed, the ending is dragged through a shootout in the fog, again. Hedy Lamar is useful but not very convincing; always in need of good direction, she get none here. Her husband is a Veidt-like German named Hugo. Whatever talent is hired for this film is nearly wasted. The background music gets too close to Casablanca's, also, and is hurried and cluttered, indistinct, and adds virtually nothing. Sorry to say, I think this film is interesting mostly as a comparison and as a how-NOT-to-do-it production. But worth watching for Lamar's face and to see how close a director can come without succeeding. Deadlines may have been too much for him. For instance, the talented Greenstreet isn't allowed to be the convincing actor he often was. Lorre, ditto. Henreid is given much opportunity, but he's an actor who needs better direction or editing. Lamar? Well, mostly we study her face and wonder about all those wonderful garments that cover a body as indistinct as the music and the plot. 625 words