Odd Man Out (1947)

2010 #115
Carol Reed | 111 mins | TV | PG

It may be a bit of a cop out to begin a review by pointing you to another, but I must recommend Colin’s heartfelt appreciation at Ride the High Country. It certainly inspired me to watch the film, which had been sat on my V+ box for over a year. As you’re going to read that (assuming you haven’t already), I’ll just offer a couple of observations I jotted down.

The consciously episodic story, screenwritten by R.C. Sherriff, author of the exceptional World War One play Journey’s End, presents us with an array of characters. James Mason is ostensibly the star, but he spends much of the film in a daze, drifting from group to group. And that’s fine — it leaves the way open for other characters to shine. For instance I liked the driver, Pat, played by Cyril Cusack. My notes don’t say why, but I thought his character was rather good — not a good guy, perhaps, but a good character. The real star, if anyone, is Kathleen played by Kathleen Ryan, who comes into her own during the film’s final act and its conclusion. I’d throw an adjective in front of “conclusion”, but perhaps you should discover it for yourself.

This episodic structure does make for some lengthy, perhaps even borderline dull, asides. I could do without F.J. McCormick’s Shell and, especially, Robert Newton’s Lukey. (You’ll also note Newton’s performance is criticised in Colin’s piece so, in aid of not sounding like I’m too easily influenced, I’d like to point out I didn’t make the connection between his comments and my own notes on Newton until afterwards.) Shell and Lukey have a bit of a point in the end, but I didn’t enjoy getting through them in comparison to the rest of the film.

What the structure really facilitates is the depiction of a cross-section of Northern Irish life, and particularly their reaction to “the organisation” — it doesn’t take a genius to guess what that means. As the opening scroll said, this is indeed concerned “only with the conflict in the hearts of the people when they become unexpectedly involved”, but by leaving out detail of the politically contentious background to the unrest, it perhaps robs the characters’ indecision of any basis. All bar a couple of exceptions fall into the “don’t want to pick a side, don’t want to get involved” camp, foisting Johnny out of anything to do with them ASAP, but at least it suggests such a view was widespread across people of all backgrounds.

The score, by William Alwyn, is really nice, particularly in certain places — for example when it begins to snow and Johnny wanders the streets, or at its most effective during the haunting climax, as Kathleen hauls a near-dead Johnny through the falling snow towards the safety of the shipyard as the police finally close in.

My notes also say “discuss the use of the kids? And Johnny’s visions?” I’m afraid to say I forget why. Comments on these elements are welcomed.

I hesitate to make a comparison between Odd Man Out and The Third Man, director Carol Reed’s more famous film noir, because I’ve not seen the latter for far too long; but I imagine this holds its own, because it’s certainly an engaging and suitably unusual entry in the genre.

4 out of 5

The Spiral Staircase (1945)

2010 #112
Robert Siodmak | 80 mins | TV | PG

A serial murderer is on the loose in 1900s New England, or 1910s Massachusetts (pick which website you want to believe). His victims are all disabled women, so at the wealthy Warren residence, both family and staff worry for mute maid Helen — particularly as it seems the murderer may be among them…

From this relatively simple premise, screenwriter Mel Dinelli and director Robert Siodmak spin a yarn that, over the course of just one dark and stormy night, blends together gothic horror, film noir, serial killer thriller and Christie-esque whodunnit. The resulting blend makes for a film that is, for several reasons, an exceptionally entertaining work. Perhaps I’m predisposed to like it, though, as those four constituent genres are all among my favourites.

Dinelli’s screenplay sets up the cast — and, therefore, the list of suspects — almost casually. With the threat not necessarily coming from within, we (or, at least, I) don’t immediately realise that we’re being shown a list of people to suspect. But as the bed-ridden and delirious Mrs. Warren issues dire warnings, and the house closes itself off from the outside world in the face of the storm, it becomes apparent that the culprit is already among them.

Some viewers allege that it’s at this point the story falls apart; that there’s only one possible suspect. I disagree. Though I can’t say the film entirely had me fooled, there are several suspicious characters, particularly if you’re prepared to consider extraordinary leaps of probability — and in genres like gothic horror, film noir and whodunnit, you should be. Indeed, while some see the killer as obvious others may consider them unlikely; but, for the attentive, the groundwork for the motivation is laid throughout.

And even if the killer is obvious, the film has much more going for it. Siodmak’s direction is exemplary, supported by equally alluring camerawork from cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca. In perhaps his most daring move, Siodmak takes us literally into the killer’s eyes to view his subjects, making the viewer to some degree complicit in this voyeurism. Elsewhere, genuine tension is wrung out of numerous sequences, something that can rarely be said these days, when victims and victors are all too obvious in most films. One excellent sequence sees repeated potential threats being set up, dissipated, only to be followed by another. It ultimately ends with humour rather than shock, but we’re still left with the thought — seemingly forgotten by the characters — of why was that window open in the first place? The climax, on the titular staircase, is all sharp angles and deep shadows, easily the equal of anything else in the film.

A mention for the sound design, too. Even during simple dialogue scenes, where one might expect silence but for the words in a film of this era, rain lashes against the window in the background, the heavy weather a ceaseless reminder of the threat lurking close at hand. It is, to use a cliché, a character in itself. Thanks to the enclosed setting, we spend a fair amount of time with these characters, and there are good performances too, but that’s for another reviewer to discuss — try Riding the High Country’s excellent appraisal, for instance.

What struck me most about The Spiral Staircase was its atmosphere. It’s the perfect filmic evocation of a dark and stormy night, and with its setting contained to one securely locked (or is it?) house, this is — depending on your disposition — either the last film you’d want to watch late on a rain-lashed night, or the perfect one. Having watched it on one myself, I most assuredly side with the latter.

5 out of 5

The Spiral Staircase is on BBC Two tonight (or, more precisely, tomorrow) at 1am. Let’s hope there’s a storm coming…

Force of Evil (1948)

2010 #92
Abraham Polonsky | 75 mins | TV | PG / PG

Force of Evil comes well recommended, with places on several 1,000 Best Movies lists and inclusion both on They Shoot Pictures…’s 250 Quintessential Noir Films and in the US National Film Registry, not to mention a full 5/5 in Paul Duncan’s consistently handy Pocket Essential Film Noir. But it didn’t work for me.

To be blunt, I found it dull. The romance subplot feels tacked on and implausible, the main gambling plot is often poorly explained. I never felt properly attached to any of the characters — it doesn’t help that the lead is half-villainous, but then that’s worked fine elsewhere — and as the plot rumbles confusingly on I cared less and less, which made it tough to sit through. I was struggling to play catch up too often; in some films this can be part of the point, a virtue, but I didn’t feel like it was deliberate here. It doesn’t help that some events are virtually glossed over — worst of all, the death of a major character, which occurs off-screen and with little explanation.

IMDb notes that the film was cut by 10 minutes to be shown in a double-bill and this is now the only version that survives, which may explain some of these oversights. Despite my complaints, there are good moments, particularly a couple of short sequences that are beautifully directed and edited, but they’re few and far between and to me feel like they belong in a better film.

Duncan’s analysis (Force of Evil is one of seven noirs treated to an extended segment in his book) suggests a more complex reading of the film than I took from it, explaining much as symbolic or metaphorical. Considering I didn’t engage with the film, I’m tempted to see Duncan’s reading as a way of rationalising things that either aren’t there or were flawed, but the film’s wider critical acceptance suggests he may well be right.

Force of Evil has, as I noted at the beginning, come to be “recognized as a masterpiece of the film noir genre” (to quote Wikipedia’s handy summation), so I can’t help but feel I’ve missed something. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve underrated a film — or, indeed, a film noir — only to reassess my opinion with further hindsight. And yet, for that awareness, I can’t imagine ever looking back on this one with increased fondness. Sadly, the only force I experienced was boredom.

2 out of 5

Late Spring (1949)

aka Banshun

2010 #78
Yasujirō Ozu | 104 mins | TV (HD) | U

Late SpringThis is one of those films I always feel horrendously under-qualified to bother offering any kind of thought on. It’s the kind of film you suspect benefits most not just from repeated viewings and a desire to dig deep into its themes, but also a wider understanding of the director’s work and thematic concerns. This is only compounded in the case of Ozu by the fact I watched Tokyo Story a few years ago and didn’t get on with it in the slightest (but more on that whenever I get round to re-watching & reviewing it).

For all that, I don’t mean to say Late Spring requires the wish or will of a viewer to watch it multiple times, watch at least a selection of Ozu’s other films, and supplement that by reading a variety of articles and books; just that, when it comes to discussing a 60-year-old film that is the subject of numerous intelligent and well-informed articles and books, it seems there’s nothing for the first-time viewer to add. Which is always the case I suppose, so I offer my usual handful of thoughts of a modern first-time viewer.

In which case, what can I say? Well, any Ozu enthusiast who hasn’t been switched off by the last two paragraphs will be pleased to know I got on considerably better with this than Tokyo Story (which bolsters my belief that his most renowned work is indeed worth a second shot). One issue, I suspect, is that I knew nothing of Ozu before my first experience; having read up on him (if only a little), his idiosyncratic squared-off shots and straight-on close-ups feel less blatant and frequent here, and being aware of their deliberateness perhaps makes them less intrusive. That said, I remain unconvinced by it as a guiding notion — I’m sure there’s a reason beyond the proliferation of American cinema that the visual style we’re used to seeing in most film and TV is, well, the visual style we’re used to seeing.

Similarly, the film has an intentionally unhurried pace. Again, perhaps one (or, at least, I) needs to be prepared for this to engage with it. Perhaps I’ve just grown up a bit — despite the image some may have of film students as pretentious art-lovers, I was far from alone in my second-year-uni group in finding Tokyo Story intolerable (indeed, I never heard anyone bar the lecturer express a liking for it). This enduring impression renders elements like Late Spring’s consistently cheery, bouncy music a surprise when maybe it shouldn’t be — after all, it would seem to reflect Noriko’s ceaseless smiling, laughing and happy demeanor; which all serves to increase the emphasis on her anger and sullenness when the prospect of marriage and leaving her father seriously raises its head. (And I’m afraid that’s the closest to analysis you’ll find here.)

It would be a lie to say Late Spring came as some kind of personal revelation to the unimpeachable genius of Ozu; but, at least, I got on with it considerably better than I did Tokyo Story. I might even go so far as to say I enjoyed it. Wonders never cease.

4 out of 5

Late Spring is on Film4 and Film4 HD tomorrow, Thursday 11th, at 11am.

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

2010 #106
Vincente Minnelli | 108 mins | TV | U

Someone (who exactly is long lost to the depths of my memory) once observed that, though a lot of people claim to not like musicals, they’re quite happy to acknowledge their love for The Sound of Music, or Grease, or Disney films, or (these days) Mamma Mia, apparently unaware that all those bits where people start singing make those films musicals. I expect such a person’s defence would run along the lines of affirming they like those musicals, but don’t like musicals on the whole. Despite its occasional fair placing on lists of great musicals — or even great films, sometimes — I think Meet Me in St. Louis would fall into that second group.

The film is based on Sally Benson’s autobiographical stories, collected as 5135 Kensington, though at times it reminded me of Pride & Prejudice — a family of daughters seeking marriage — albeit a version of Pride & Prejudice with much of the dramatic tension removed. For instance, Austen’s tale spends a long time creating a bad impression of Mr Darcy, only to eventually reveal his (mostly) good intentions. St. Louis, on the other hand, manages all of five minutes (if that) in which John Truett (the Darcy-ish character) is suspected of having done something dastardly before the truth is revealed.

Garland and O'BrienJudy Garland is fine in the lead role — still playing a teen, despite being 21, but suitably distant from Dorothy. Margaret O’Brien receives prominent second billing in the role of ‘Tootie’, despite being just seven years old. She was, I learn, something of a star at the time, in spite of her young age, which perhaps explains the (arguably) undue prominence in both the credits and the film itself. That said, she’s a rather good actress, and picked up an Oscar for her performance here (and other roles she played in 1944).

Most of the time Meet Me in St. Louis ambles along agreeably enough, throwing in a few nice songs — including well-known numbers like The Trolley Song and Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas — before (spoilers!) everything turns out alright in the end. It’s all perfectly pleasant, but I’m not sure I could offer it any higher praise than that.

3 out of 5

Meet Me in St. Louis is on Film4 today, Wednesday 17th December 2014, at 4:10pm.

Road to Rio (1947)

2010 #101
Norman Z. McLeod | 97 mins | TV | U

Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour return for the fifth film in the Road to… series.

If you’ve seen one Road to film then you’ve a fair idea what to expect from any other: lots of comedy, a few songs, a bit of romance, as well as some general hijinks. The differences, in all of these aspects, lie in the specifics: which songs, which gags, and so on. Even the plot’s largely the same, though transplanted to different settings. Not that the story really matters — it’s a post on which to hang jokes, slapstick routines, musical numbers, and whatever else the stars and filmmakers felt like throwing into the pot. One might say it’s a variety show with a framing device, though there is a little more to the narrative than that.

In this particular entry, my personal preferences largely extend to the comedy scenes, though the musical side is noteworthy as the only film Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters appeared in together. But my preferred trio here is the Wiere Brothers, as three Brazilian musicians who enable a couple of good comedy routines. It’s awkward to list specific favourites when it comes to such sequences — there’s a danger of either ruining the joke or not conveying why it’s worth mentioning — but Rio has its share, I promise.

To relate it to the other Road to movies I’ve seen (and reviewed), in terms of quality Rio falls ahead of Singapore but behind Morocco. The three stars I’ve awarded to each belies how much I enjoyed them, with Morocco in particular worth a fourth. But I think it’s also fair to say these films are a rather dated style of entertainment. That’s not necessarily a bad thing — as noted, I still think they’re fun, and I’m sure many others do and would too — but plenty of modern viewers would find them (to be polite) too quaint.

3 out of 5

Sherlock Holmes Faces Death (1943)

2010 #79
Roy William Neill | 65 mins | DVD | U

After a shockingly long absence, I’m finally getting on with watching the Rathbone/Bruce Sherlock Holmeses. (I started this series over two-and-a-half years ago now — I think I’m watching them slower than they made them!)

Sherlock Holmes Faces DeathHe’s put down the hound of the Baskervilles; silenced the voice of terror; uncovered the secret weapon; had, um, some other adventures; and, uh, been to Washington… but now, Sherlock Holmes faces death!

Not a man in a black robe with a scythe, just, y’know, the threat. Of dying. Except there’s no threat, really. I suppose Sherlock Holmes Does Some Investigating With No Real Threat To Himself doesn’t sound quite as dramatic.

Nor, it would seem, does The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual, the popular Conan Doyle story on which this film is loosely based. It’s not a tale I’m familiar with so can’t accurately comment on the faithfulness of screenwriter Bertram Millhauser’s adaptation, but it concerns the Musgrave family and their ancient ritual, so as the Rathbone/Bruce films go it’s practically word-for-word. It isn’t actually, of course, because the ritual at least has been changed significantly. Whatever the qualities of the original, the chess-based screen variant works marvellously.

Faces Death leaves behind the proto-Bond WW2 spying of the last three films (“it can almost be viewed as the starting point of a completely new Holmes series” asserts one review I’ve read) to involve Holmes in a genuine detective mystery (though still set during the war, it’s less front-and-centre). The story is packed with proper deduction, which is excellent, and to top it off Watson isn’t as bumbling as he could be, not that Bruce’s characterisation improves. Most of the humour comes, more appropriately, from a typically useless Lestrade, as well as frequently-drunk butler Brunton.

Relocated in the war years, the Musgrave manor is currently a home for convalescent soldiers, providing no end of potential suspects. Some may guess the culprit from the off, others will land upon them at other places throughout proceedings, but it seems to me there’s still enough going on to keep us guessing.

The film ends with another of Holmes’ speeches, this time less patriotic and more about the duties of man to his fellow men. It’s quite naively optimistic about mankind’s ability to care for others, though any analysis of humanity’s propensity or not for charity, and how that may have changed in the last 70 years, seems somewhat misplaced in discussion of a ’40s detective adventure.

The sixth film in the Rathbone/Bruce series is one of the best so far. And Rathbone finally has a sensible hairstyle to boot!

4 out of 5

Ministry of Fear (1944)

2010 #70
Fritz Lang | 83 mins | TV | PG

Ministry of FearI like cake. It’s all soft and sweet and tasty. But I don’t like cake as much as Stephen Neale, the protagonist of Ministry of Fear.

Neale (played by Ray Milland) likes cake so much that, as soon as he’s released from an asylum at the film’s start, he goes almost directly to a nearby fête to win a cake. And win it he does… though as he leaves with his prize, he’s told he didn’t win it after all. But Neale loves cake so much that he pays them off so he can keep it. Then he gets on a train to London — and he loves cake so much, he can’t resist tucking in straight away. At least he’s kind enough to give a piece to the blind man who shares the car with him. Except the blind man whacks Neale over the head, steals the cake and jumps off the (fortunately, stationary) train with it. Not because he loves cake too, but we’ll come to that.

But the blind man — who isn’t actually blind, as you may have guessed — hasn’t counted on just how much Neale loves cake. He jumps off the train too, giving chase. The not-blind blind man shoots at him, but that’s not enough to deter Neale from cake. It’s only when a Nazi bomb drops on the cake, destroying it (and the not-blind blind man) that Neale finally gives up. And even then he goes back to look for the cake later in the film.

I think he's about to cut the cake...Ministry of Fear isn’t really about cake, but the opening 20 minutes or so plays out more or less as above and it is rather amusing. Less amusing — and, in fact, part of the film’s biggest problem — is a ‘humorous’ epilogue that returns to the cake theme. I found it hilariously funny, but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. The other part of the problem is the abrupt ending that immediately precedes this brief coda. On the bright side, everything is resolved and you can imagine the post-climax resolution scene for yourself, but it still leaves the tale’s telling cut short.

To say too much about what Ministry of Fear is actually about would ruin it, which I don’t want to do because in fact it’s a great twisty little thriller, a rather Hitchcockian ‘wrong man’ tale with a baked MacGuffin. You might need a decent suspension of disbelief to get through it, as Neale races round London trying to find out the truth behind the activities of a wartime charity and its army of little old dears, but doing so rewards with a tale where you can never be sure who is on whose side and where any character will end up.

Director Fritz Lang brings his customary expertise to proceedings, with several shots and sequences worthy of appreciation in their own right. Nazi drone, perhapsThe train cake theft and chase, for instance, could be thoroughly laughable thanks to the cake element and what’s clearly a studio-built wood/wasteland, but it’s atmospherically shot and, in its main burst of genius, scored only by the drone of a Nazi air raid taking place overhead. It makes for a more tense and effective soundtrack than most musical scores manage.

In spite of the potentially laughable opening and the need to suspend one’s disbelief — or, perhaps, because of it — Ministry of Fear is a most enjoyable wartime film noir in a Hitchockian mould.

4 out of 5

His Girl Friday (1940)

2010 #2
Howard Hawks | 88 mins | TV | U

His Girl Friday is an acknowledged classic — 19th on the AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Laughs, 58th on Empire’s 500 Greatest, 106th on They Shoot Pictures’ 1,000 Greatest, 245th on IMDb’s Top 250, preserved by the US’s National Film Registry, and countless other such accolades — so you probably don’t need me to tell you why it’s so good. But it really, really is.

The dialogue flies at phenomenal speed, dragging an ever-changing plot along with it, the funny lines at times literally on top of each other as they tumble to get out. No modern comedy would dare move so fast. It’s clever and witty, the characters apparently in on the joke too, and despite some black plot points it’s always hilarious and, somehow, never disrespectful.

If you ever meet anyone who claims all old black & white films are slow, simple and boring, show them this. And if you ever meet anyone who hasn’t seen this, show them it; and if you haven’t seen it, watch it; because it’s brilliant, and, despite being on so many lists, one wonders if some rate it too lowly.

5 out of 5

His Girl Friday placed 7th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2010, which can be read in full here.

The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

2009 #66
Ludwig Berger, Michael Powell & Tim Whelan* | 102 mins | TV (HD**) | U

The Thief of BagdadThe Thief of Bagdad is, in many respects, one of the forefathers of the modern spectacle-driven blockbuster, packed with innovative effects designed to dazzle the viewer. One can only imagine how incredible the special effects looked to a 1940 audience. Today the flaws are obvious, but, surprisingly, not by much.

There are too many enchanting sequences to mention — the ginormous genie, the flying mechanical horse, the giant spider, the toys, the flying carpet… Models, huge life-scaled props, matte paintings, early blue screen — all this and more are put to use beautifully. The ingenuity of the effects work contains more artistry and charm — and, frequently, more excitement — than the bland, wannabe-perfect CGI we’re force fed today; and, because of this, and in spite of being almost 70 years old, the sense of wonder remains. It doesn’t matter that it’s not 100% believable — in fact, that’s almost the point: the child-like ability to suspend one’s disbelief and accept the fantastical seems to be the message of the film (or, at least, one of them).

All of this is emphasised by the cinematography. This is one of the earliest films to use Technicolor and use it it does. Everything is vibrant and lush, vivid and otherworldly; especially to the audience of the time, I should imagine, not accustomed to foreign holidays and endless TV travel shows as we are today. But the film’s world is a heightened version of reality and, as with the effects, the fantastical style means it doesn’t really date. Wish You Were Here has nothing on this.

The story itself has a bit of everything: romance, fantasy, action, adventure, humour and, no doubt, more. The cast are up to the task, with John Justin swashing his buckle Errol Flynn-style as dethroned prince Ahmed; Conrad Veidt perfect as slimily evil vizier Jaffar “the usurper”; Sabu suitably valiant, amusing and clever as a peasant hero; and Rex Ingram making a memorably self-centred genie. If Disney fans think some of this sounds familiar, it must seem obvious to anyone who’s seen Aladdin that The Thief of Bagdad was a major influence on the 1992 animated classic.

These days, The Thief of Bagdad may be something of an acquired taste — some viewers will struggle to engage their sense of make-believe enough to accept the rough-round-the-edges effects and fantastical storyline — but that’s their loss, quite frankly. For those of us with some imagination to spare, it remains a magical experience.

5 out of 5

* Although only these three are credited on screen, six directors were reportedly involved. The others were producers Alexander Korda, Zoltan Korda, and William Cameron Menzies. ^

** Though listed by the Radio Times as being in HD, the D didn’t look particularly H to me. ^