groening-2 Reviews

Out of the Fog (1941)

Poorly cast, patronizing and dreary

[6/10 · 15 June 2007]

I found "Out of the Fog" to be a dreary film, in part because it takes place entirely at night (in a Hollywood studio's version of the slums of Brooklyn), and in part because its take on human nature is bleak.

John Garfield, as a small-time gangster, offers up no redeeming qualities; he's pure evil in a smarmy sort of way, and so not very interesting. According to TCM's Robert Osborne, Humphrey Bogart was considered for this role. Though Garfield was strong in other movies, I believe Bogie would have brought more to the table in this one than we see from Garfield.

Ida Lupino as the working class girl who wants to see a bigger, brighter world, falls equally short. She's sweet and kind to her father, yet dates Garfield's Goff character even after learning that Goff is shaking down dear old Dad. Her acting fails to reconcile these two facts (although the screenplay may equally be to blame).

Though "Out of the Fog" apparently had its roots in socialist perspective, it comes off as patronizing; the working class folk should be happy with their lot, it suggests, and when their pleas for help are ignored by their government (represented by the court here), their only ally is the working class cop who walks the local beat.

"Out of the Fog" fails as a film noir crime drama and as a morality tale. The ending is happy -- though everyone we're supposed to care about returns to their bleak existence -- but it is an unsatisfying resolution.

Shampoo (1975)

A mid-1970s look back at a pivotal time... but saying what?

[7/10 · 20 February 2007]

Seeing this film 30 years after its release makes its intentions clearer then when I saw it back then, but it still fails to deliver fully.

One way of understanding "Shampoo" is as a movie about the '60s. It may be hard for some to believe today, but by 1975 the '60s, as a culturally time-stamped era, were over. Long over. The '60s really began with John F. Kennedy's assassination and ended with Richard Nixon's resignation (November 1963 to August 1974). The times and the atmosphere had changed by the mid-1970s, probably because the youth rebellion movement fractured as the Vietnam War wound down, and because many student radicals either "joined the human race" (as a Steely Dan song from the period put it), became more radical underground, or went off to live in the woods somewhere.

But what does "Shampoo" mean to say about those wild years? Warren Beatty's George character takes pains to note that he's not a hippie. And he's not. He's devoid of social and political values, and he says, late in the film, that he has no interest in fighting the Establishment. What he is interested in is casual sex -- and that certainly was part of the social upheaval of those years -- and he's interested in hair styles. But not much more. So is the film suggesting that in the end, the '60s were about soulless, casual sex and hair? It's not by accident that the film takes places in the 24-hour period in which Nixon becomes president. And the film was made just after (or just before?) Nixon resigned in disgrace. The TV clips of Nixon and his vice president Spiro Agnew expressing their hope for an open and inclusive government ring funny but sadly against what we know would follow. Is "Shampoo" saying that with all the partying and hedonism, the younger generation missed the boat and allowed Nixon to get elected? Interestingly, George doesn't vote, nor do we see any of his women friends voting, or even acknowledging the election.

Or is "Shampoo" about the shallow California lifestyle that was fully ripe by the mid-1970s? The Eagles' landmark album statement "Hotel California," which savaged the vapidity of that cocaine- and sex-addled culture, was released just a year after this film (see also Jackson Browne's song, "The Pretender"). It also occurs to me that Beatty may be satirizing himself -- or at least the version of himself that Carly Simon satirized in "You're So Vain" -- in this role.

"Shampoo" is worth seeing to understand the reassessment of the '60s that was already underway by the mid-1970s. But films like "Deer Hunter" and "Nashville" I think do it better. "Shampoo" falls short in that we can't really sympathize with Beatty's character, or with anyone else. The perspective we have is as distanced and as numb as George is in his relationships with women. There's lots of "fucking," as George puts it, but not much building tension or release achieved here.

In the end, it's not entirely clear what the film is saying about 1968, 1975 or about people like George.

Secret Command (1944)

Not much drama in this WWII propaganda

[5/10 · 14 February 2007]

"Secret Command" wastes what must have been a fairly large budget and high-power cast on a predictable story with little suspense or drama.

Pat O'Brien is miscast in the leading man role, failing to convey the quiet masculine strength and sexuality called for here.

The home-life scenes, with the European orphans, designed to tug at our heart strings, don't quite work either, and detract from the drama of the hunt for Nazis in the shipyard. And our hero is never really put in any danger.

I have a fondness for the World War II propaganda flicks, but even I didn't warm to this one. What I generally like about the propaganda films is that they have some edge to them, since they are dealing with life and death stuff. "Secret Command" seems to go light on these elements.

A posted comment questioned "Secret Command" winning a special effects Oscar, and I found myself wondering about that as well. I concluded that the underwater shots, and the (apparent) location shots on the crane were considered "special" effects in the 1940s. (Today we assume special effects relates to only fabricated shots or images.)

The Spiral Staircase (1946)

Not very scary, but engaging enough

[7/10 · 14 February 2007]

TCM's Robert Osborne suggested "The Spiral Staircase" may have scared the wits out of audiences in 1946, but it doesn't pack that punch today. Still, it's a well-executed, well-cast and fairly well-acted film, and the story is engaging enough. And the identity of the murderer is dangled out of reach for most of the film's duration.

I find myself biased against movies made in this era that are set in the late Victorian period. For those living in the 1940s, the late Victorian period must have conjured up some nostalgia, or atmosphere, whether people remembered those years or not. It would be like contemporary movies set in the 1930s, I suppose, which give films a ready-made patina of desperation and poverty. But the gas lights, horse-drawn wagons and the like don't cast any spell, at least for me. I would rather have seen it set in 1946.

Secrets & Lies (1996)

As clear and intelligent a view of family life as there is on film

[10/10 · 17 January 2007]

Trying to make sense of family dynamics -- in all their raging dysfunction -- has been the theme of too many films to count. Few have done it as well as "Secrets & Lies." The story centers on an adult woman, adopted at birth, who is seeking her biological mother. Yet this is not what the film is about. The woman is black, the mother, white. Yet even this twist is not really what the film is about.

Without getting mired in Dr. Phil-style pop psychology, "Secrets & Lies" unravels the very simple and basic -- yet powerful -- emotional forces that taint and enliven our relationships with family. It's all here, but presented in a restrained, realistic manner: jealousy, resentment, failed expectations, identity and rebelling against one's inherited identity, hope for reconciliation, and -- finally -- love.

And though director Mike Leigh's touch and vision seems right on the money, much of the power of the film is owed to the stellar performances, particularly Brenda Blethyn's.

To borrow the title of another film, "Secrets & Lies" is "as good as it gets."

Spellbound (2002)

How do you spell America?

[10/10 · 8 January 2007]

On its surface, "Spellbound" is a modest but engaging documentary about eight regional finalists on their way to Washington D.C. to join 241 others in the National Spelling Bee. Director Jeffrey Blitz keeps the structure simple, spending time with each of the eight in self-contained chapters, then moving to the built-in drama of the competition itself.

But what makes "Spellbound" so much more -- and a stellar example of the power of the genre -- is that Blitz has succeeded in giving us eight intimate portraits of American families. Had he set out to probe the scope of socio-economics in this country, and the way education is understood and valued, the roles of race, national origin and region, and the variations in family and parental dynamics, Blitz would not have achieved the insights he presents.

The quest for the spelling title -- or is that we each is really hoping for? -- unifies the film, but it also seems to strip away each family's defenses. Parents alternately gush and fret about their children, some push while others deflate expectation. And the children themselves, while perhaps not representative of average 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds, are disarmingly candid about their fears and dreams.

"Spellbound," with its apparent low-budget approach, should inspire a new generation of documentary makers.

Grand Theft Parsons (2003)

Sweet, but not as satisfying as it might have been

[6/10 · 8 January 2007]

Movie trivia fanatics will remember the play Dustin Hoffman's character wanted to stage in "Tootsie." Written by his roommate (played by Bill Murray), it was called "Return to Love Canal," about the (apparently) true story of a couple who returned to live near the toxic waste site, knowing what was there. "It really happened," Hoffman's character says earnestly to anyone who will listen.

"Grand Theft Parsons" is also based on a true story, one equally bizarre and yet compelling -- after country-rock pioneer Gram Parsons died in 1973, his road manager and buddy Phil Kaufman stole the corpse to cremate it in the desert, as part of a pact the two made in life. But just like "Return To Love Canal," "Grand Theft Parsons" does not have a leg up on being great drama simply because it is based in fact.

The film works hard at building momentum and dramatic tension by bringing in former girlfriends, Parsons' father and the inevitable cop or two, but none of these elements really have much to do with the heart of the story. In the end, "Grand Theft Parsons" succeeds modestly in making us feel the emotions that accompany friendship between men who have been on a long, strange trip together. And actually, we get two versions of that kind of friendship: the bond between Parsons and Kaufman, and the Butch-and-Sundance partnership that emerges between Kaufman and the drug-addled hippie who supplies the hearse used in the body heist.

There's a sweetness to "Grand Theft Parsons," but it's not as satisfying as it might have been if more of the back-story had been told.

Captains of the Clouds (1942)

Color! Action in the air! A story that crashes and burns!

[6/10 · 4 January 2007]

"Captains of the Clouds" seems to be a big-budget production that splurged on a star like Cagney, color film, and lots of exciting flight footage. There must not have been any money left for a cohesive screenplay.

The story never gains traction, and instead ends up being a series of episodes. First, we're in the backwoods, beginning to learn about the life of Canada's bush pilots. Then we're off to a big city hotel. A love triangle of sorts is introduced, then a third of the way through is abandoned. At an odd point in the plot's progression, we're off to prepare for flying planes in the war, and then Cagney is back in his bush plane, buzzing an airfield.

The performances are weak, too, with the actors relying on overly broad strokes and lots of mugging and strutting.

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

Big Tobacco skewered, but lots more, too

[8/10 · 1 January 2007]

It's like an assignment for a film school student's final project -- make a movie about a spokesman for Big Tobacco, and make viewers sympathize with him. By this measure, "Thank You For Smoking" succeeds.

And it succeeds on other counts as well. The expected satire of the tobacco industry is here, and it's intelligent and somewhat enlightening, but it's also nicely restrained, and takes a back seat to bigger topics.

Tobacco is just one example, the film seems to say, of larger evils at work in society. Those evils include the sad state of rhetoric and debate in the age of sound bites; media-manipulation across a spectrum that includes movies, talk shows and Congressional hearings; and a morphed definition of personal and career success that suggests that a moral compass is far less important than possessing rare -- and therefore valuable -- skills.

A plot device has Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) explaining himself to the viewer by having to explain himself to his son, who travels with Dad as he schmoozes movie execs and bribes cigarette critics, all in a day's work. We see the internal logic that holds together an industry whose products kill 400,000 in the U.S. each year, and the surprisingly reasonable-sounding principles its Golden Boy spokesman leans on to justify his work.

"Thank You For Smoking" is light on laugh out-loud humor, and there's not much plot exposition, but its breezy style and cleverly framed philosophical questions make it an engaging and worthwhile film.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

well cast and acted, but plot is too thin

[6/10 · 14 December 2006]

The vivid violent images, probably pushing the limits of the era, and the over-sized macho version of Mike Hammer, as interpreted by Ralph Meeker, fail to enliven "Kiss Me Deadly" enough to outweigh the poorly paced story.

Meeker has attitude galore, and pushes the hard-nosed tough-guy persona beyond what Humphrey Bogart showed us in similar films from a decade earlier. But plot remains an essential element to murder mysteries, and "Kiss Me Deadly" spools out its thread, string and rope -- to use an image from the film -- in a fashion so slow as to bore a kitten. These films work best when the viewer has to struggle to sort out who's done what, and what the implications are for each new development. All we get are questions, leading to more questions, with nothing tossed our way to chew on and experience an "A-ha!" moment or two along the way.

The "dames" are gorgeous, and remind me of the seemingly sex-starved Bond girls that would appear in films 10 years later. But we're not given enough character to decide for whom we should be rooting, so when one is not who she appears to be, it's hard to care.

The strong casting and acting are ultimately wasted on what is probably a poorly adapted screenplay.

The Sure Thing (1985)

Predictable, but sort of charming

[6/10 · 31 July 2006]

The plot of this predictable but sort of charming film is really "The Sure Thing." As in, put two attractive young adults who seem to hate each together on the road for a few days and watch them fall for each other -- it can't miss, it's a sure thing! But apparently this film wasn't a sure thing, as it is an overlooked title in the canons of both director Rob Reiner and actor John Cusack. Much of the dialogue, particularly that delivered by the very talented Cusack (who must have been 18 or 19 when this was filmed), is clever and sharp. But even Cusack sounds like a community theater actor at times, and his sparring partner, played by Daphne Zuniga, is even less convincing as the uptight preppy co-ed. "The Sure Thing" seems like a remake of Frank Capra's "It Happened One Night," but Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert had more chemistry. Even though you knew what would happen in that 1934 film, the fun was in seeing the pickles the young couple found themselves in, and watching them bicker their way through it. There are some of those moments here, such as the car scenes with a very young-looking Tim Robbins at the wheel, but there aren't enough to keep the film popping along. Reiner has a nice touch with light romantic movies ("The Princess Bride"), but the story here is a bit too light. If you're a Cusack fan, and want to see him just before he hit his stride as a leading man, "The Sure Thing" might rate a "7" instead of a "6."

Georgy Girl (1966)

Surprisingly engaging and moving

[9/10 · 25 July 2006]

A movie that starts and ends with an ingratiatingly contagious pop song would portend to be as substantive as a Fluffer Nutter sandwich. But Georgy Girl is surprisingly engaging, and tugs at far more profound emotions than those tapped by, say, Bridget Jones' Diary, which might be seen as a modern equivalent.

The song -- or actually, two different version of the same song -- is essential to understanding the movie, which makes one wonder which came first. Was the song inspired by the novel, or was it written for the movie? The opening, like a music video, introduces us to Georgina, or Georgy, and to her plight as a terribly un-chic 60s chick. But what makes Georgy interesting is that she clearly doesn't care that she's out of sync with Swinging London, circa 1966.

The timing of the film is also critical, just as it was with The Graduate. The London youth scene we are introduced to -- in black and white, no less -- is one in which conventional morals and values are being shed, yet there is still an innocence about it. The decadence that would taint the later '60s is hinted at in the troubles Georgy's roommate, the seemingly hip and carefree Meredith, faces in the latter half of the film. And the character of Jos, Meredith's boyfriend and then husband, also embodies the joie de vivre spirit of the day, but then crashes into the dead end that inevitably comes when a man lives like a child (even one of the flower variety).

Georgy's relationship with her father's employer, James (played by James Mason), is troubling in its incestuous overtones, but maybe the discomfort the viewer feels is intended.

My only gripe is that the conclusion of the film -- when we learn what Georgy is really all about, what she wants out of life -- is explained in the song, and not as clearly revealed in the plot or character exposition. But I suppose that lends a certain charm to the story, as if Georgy is indeed living inside a pop tune.

Georgy Girl, though very much of its time, is not dated, and explores choices we all make within a unique context, that of a moment in time when culture and values began tilting off their axis.

Picnic (1955)

A visual feast, well-acted, but fails to fully deliver on early promise.

[7/10 · 3 July 2006]

Beautifully shot and well-acted, "Picnic" peels back some of the layers of convention that covered 1950s small-town life, and raises serious questions about sexuality, gender role, relationships and class. William Holden, looking quite buff, delivers an engaging performance that has one rooting for him to win over his new friends, and to transcend what has been his fate, that of a Biff Loman-type ne'er-do-well drifter.

Kim Novak is rather wooden, and fails to convey the restlessness suggested by the script about her future with the son (Cliff Robertson) of the town's biggest businessman. But the secondary characters played by Susan Strasberg, Betty Field, and Elizabeth Wilson more than make-up for Novak's slow fade.

The generous treatment of the Labor Day picnic attended by the whole town contributes nicely to the languid, but appropriate, pacing. And it affectionately pokes fun at small-town life without being cruel or dismissive.

Just when the film approaches some resolution to the issues it raises, such as why Holden's animal sexual magnetism causes such chaos in what had been a safe little world, and what the glass ceiling of class really means, "Picnic" gets muddled. What follows seems more like a "Hollywood" ending, similar to the neutering the film "Peyton Place" did to Grace Metalious' novel. Why do such serious conflicts get neatly packaged in matrimony? Isn't life more complicated than that?

Still, "Picnic" is worth seeing for its luscious color treatment of small-town life, and a story that at least attempts to portray honestly the complex matters of sex, marriage and work.

Nobody Lives Forever (1946)

Weak attempt at mixing gangster, love story

[5/10 · 16 May 2006]

Though John Garfield and the gorgeous Geraldine Fitzgerald turn in strong performances, this film can't seem to decide whether it wants to be a film noir/gangster flick or a love story. There's even a bit of war propaganda thrown in, as we're pointedly told a couple of times that Garfield's Nick has grown in character from his service overseas. Plot-wise, not much develops, and there are few surprises along the way. Nick's old girlfriend (Faye Emerson) shows up again late in the film, but plays no real part in the action of the final act. George Tobias as Nick's sidekick is annoyingly one-dimensional, and offers little in the way of the comic relief the director intended. This movie feels like it was written by committee. It's worth seeing only for real Garfield fans.