THE COLDITZ STORY (1955)

Posted on June 2, 2024 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Guy Hamilton

SCREENWRITER: Guy Hamilton, Ivan Foxwell FILM STARS: John Mills, Eric Portman , Frederick Valk, Denis Shaw, Lionel Jeffries, Christopher Rhodes, Richard Wattis, Ian Carmichael , Bryan Forbes, Theodore Bikel, Eugene Deckers, Anton Diffring, Guido Lorraine, Witold Sikorski

COUNTRY: England

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: P.R. Reid

TYPE: Memoir

PUBLISHER: Hodder

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1962

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1952

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: War

WORDS: There were many dreary English “how we won the war” films made in the 1950s. They were the bread and butter of the English film industry at the time, almost (some charming comedies and the “Doctor” films did a lot of the heavy lifting also). They served the same function as westerns in the US … to entertain people with action and adventure within familiar boundaries and accepted mythologies.

However, unlike the western the English war movie boundaries of the 50s were never really pushed into dark or different areas. They stuck to a formula whether the film was about a victory, or a (victory in) defeat.

The films were, inevitably, in black and white (both visually and philosophically), with the English military up against a mightier enemy (the Germans) but with English fortitude seeing the day through.

Perhaps that’s how the English “won” the war … though I suspect American dollars and boots on the ground probably didn’t hurt, nor did the fact that Nazi Germany was under attack from all sides.

The films are largely “us” alone against “them”.

A couple of partisans here, a saboteur there but, generally, other allied combatants, are rarely acknowledged in those films. I get it – people don’t want to see films about outright defeats but they also don’t want to see films about other people’s victories.

And whereas the Americans tended to make “fictional” films about characters in real life war events, the English tended to make films about events where the characters were incidental. There is more “fiction” in American war films of the period but, as a result, more emotion, drama and philosophical questions being asked. The English films played like docudramas.

Every English military event, preferably a victory, was made into a film … Sink The Bismark (1960) (about the sinking of the German battleship Bismark), The Battle of the River Plate (1956) about the pursuit of the German battleship Graf Spee), Malta Story (1953) (the siege of Malta), Dunkirk (1958) (the retreat from Dunkirk), The Dam Busters (1955) (the bombing by the dam busters), Gift Horse (1952) (on the he St Nazaire Raid), The Cockleshell Heroes (1955) (on British Royal Marines Commandos attack on Germans cargo shipping, Operation Frankton), Ill Met by Moonlight (1957) (the Abduction of German General Kreipe).

You get the picture.

They were very different films to the American films which had events as backgrounds to explore issues of:

Class (From Here to Eternity (1953)), duty and personal responsibility in command (Flying Leathernecks (1951), Operation Pacific (1951), Away All Boats (1956)), mental health (The Caine Mutiny (1954)), cowardice and nepotism (Attack! (1956)), gender and societal norms (Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957)), race (Kings Go Forth (1958)), war itself (The Young Lions (1958), Mister Roberts (1955)).

Likewise, the British prisoner of war films like this film and The Wooden Horse (1950), Danger Within (1959), The Password Is Courage (1962) etc tended to be based on real events and about “escaping’ whereas an American variation like Stalag 17 (1953) was wholly fictitious and had little to do with the escape.

Because the films had to stick to the facts they were constrained. Don’t get me wrong they could be exciting within those parameters, but they were rarely surprising.

It was only in the late 1950s with The Bridge of the River Kwai (1957) that the English war film started to look beyond its modest ambitions and budgets. Perhaps it was because of the American money (Columbia studios financed “Bridge” and many other English films of the late 50s and early 60s) demanded story and spectacle which was not parochial and provincial.

The Colditz Story is based on the 1952 memoir written by Pat Reid, a British army officer who was imprisoned in Oflag IV-C, Colditz Castle, in Germany during the Second World War and who was the Escape Officer for British POWs within the castle and one of the few to escape. After the war Reid was a diplomat and administrator before eventually returning to his prewar career in civil engineering. He also wrote other books including another on his Colditz experience (The Latter Days (1953) republished as Latter Days at Colditz, and as Men of Colditz).

Unless you are particularly interested in the story there is no need to read the book. It reads as anecdotal history and is an easy read.

The film has its merits (good photography, no silly subplots) but it is also one of those Boys Own adventure stories you would read in Commando comics as a kid.

It acknowledges the contribution of other allies but in so doing suffers all the English ethnic stereotypes – the plucky Brits, the disorganised French, the stoic Dutch, the enthusiastic Poles, the stupid or nasty Germans with humour at their expense (you could mistake some of it for an episode of Hogan’s Heroes).

Guy Hamilton directs ((also co-writer))and he knew how to balance big action in war (Battle of Britain (1969), Force 10 from Navarone (1978)) with action The Best of Enemies (1961 ), Funeral in Berlin (1966) and four Bond films (Goldfinger (1964), Diamonds Are Forever (1971), Live and Let Die (1973), The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)).

The cast is good (with all the usual actors playing the usual Germans and other ethnicities) and anything with John Mills is worth watching but, ultimately, it is a little dull and seems like a “how to” lesson.

The film was the fourth most popular film at the British box office in 1955, however the film performed poorly at the US box office, like most British war movies of the time (it’s too parochial).

I also note as an aside, that this film like most English WW2 films of the time are set in the European or North African theatres of war … the English had little to sing about in the pacific war.

TRIVIA

  • The films opening credits: “Every incident in the film you are about to see is true. With the exception of the author, Major P.R.Reid,M.B.E.,M.C., who acted as technical adviser on the film, all names have been changed and certain events have been related out of their historical context. These and only these liberties have been taken with . . . .”
  • A 1972 TV series with David McCallum and Robert Wagner was based on Reid’s books (and was all the rage for kids when I was a kid) and a 1973 board game followed. It is a boardgame I have played …and a very convoluted one).

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Biography, War | Tagged | Leave a comment

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993)

Posted on May 19, 2024 by velebit2

renTHE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Jim Sheridan

SCREENWRITER: Terry George, Jim Sheridan

FILM STARS: Daniel Day-Lewis, Pete Postlethwaite, Emma Thompson, John Lynch, Corin Redgrave, Beatie Edney, John Benfield, Paterson Joseph, Marie Jones, Gerard McSorley, Frank Harper, Mark Sheppard, Don Baker, Tom Wilkinson, Anthony Brophy

COUNTRY: Ireland / United Kingdom

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Gerry Conlon

TYPE: Memoir

PUBLISHER: Plume

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1993

COUNTRY: USA

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1990

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: Proved Innocent: The Story of Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four

NOTES

GENRE: Drama

WORDS: This is one of those movies that is good but you don’t have to watch more than once, well, not unless, in this case, you are an ardent Irish republican or a moderate one with a masochistic streak.

Inevitably, and, perhaps, because of their need to examine a central event movies that often explore injustices and situations of injustice tend to be a little one note. Some transcend the situations to make universal statements but most offer a docudrama analysis of the situation. Nothing wrong with either though the former resonates more (with me) because you don’t have to have any skin in the game to relate. Often they have crusading journalists (or lawyers) at their core even if the (real) motives for journalists (and lawyers) varied so when they “crusade” I find them often risible.

This film is the latter … a look at an unjust situation in a one sided vacuum much like, but much better than, the similar Spotlight (2015) or Bombshell (2019). It is, perhaps, better because the injustice at the heart of the film is real and palpable and stunningly obvious.

Gerry Conlon, a young Irish man living in London, is wrongly sentenced to life in prison with his father after the IRA bombing of 1974. He spends the next 15 years trying to prove his innocence. His father’s lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who had been investigating the case discovers evidence which was withheld from the defence which leads to an appeal and the original verdicts being set aside as unsafe and unsatisfactory … which exonerates father, son and others convicted.

I note here that the film doesn’t make the lawyer (played by Emma Thompson) the central story though her role is central to the story. The real life lawyer in this story has “reportedly never watched the film and stated in 1995 that she was “an extremely unimportant participant in the story” but was “given a seemingly important status”” in the film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Peirce

The film smartly gives context and history and touches on the relationship between Conlon and his father, the British occupation of Ireland, the nature of the IRA, the British judicial system, and the perception of the Irish by the British. Okay the film is manipulative but it will, also, rightly anger you. The injustice is palatable even it’s astounding a liberal democracy (though one not above pointing fingers) could act in such a way in (relatively) recent history. When backs are up against the wall and the State thinks it is acting in the “greater good”  the sharper the injustice. Of course then (as they would be now) the public was, largely, indifferent. The film then can act as a warning about the evils that await when legal procedure is not followed, laws are enacted quickly as a response to an event, accountability is lost and the presumption of innocence is eroded.

And that, is something as relevant today as it was in 1974.

Having said that the film does take liberties with the fact. To some of the Irish involved Conlon was no hero. A false confession of his involved other people who were also subsequently exonerated but Sheridan and George aren’t making a film about the events but people external to the event, here a father and his son. The courtroom scenes are also, to anyone who has seen a trial, a little laughable but a viewing public brough up on television courtroom dramas probably would not notice.

Jim Sheridan, always a strong director (My Left Foot (1989), The Field (1990), In America (2002) ) with a love of all subjects Irish could make this compelling in his sleep. And he does, though, again, do you need to see it twice?

Terry George also a writer ( The Boxer (1997)) and writer director (Some Mother’s Son (1996), Hart’s War (2002), Hotel Rwanda (2004) The Promise (2016) ) also makes straightforward well made thoughtful films often revolving on a “situation”

The lead is played by Daniel Day-Lewis and he is good though you can see him acting. He was going through his Irish period here (in three films with Sheridan – My Left Foot (1989), this film, and The Boxer (1997) as well as Eversmile, New Jersey (1989) ) which led Stephen Frears, the director of one of his first films, My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), to say “I knew Daniel before he was Irish.” (to be fair Day-Lewis’ father was half Irish and half English … though the Irish side was Irish protestant not not Catholic (like all the characters he played) and reasonably well heeled, again, unlike most of the characters he played).

I know it’s only acting but if allegations of cultural appropriation and culturally correct casting are to be maintained – if native Americans should play native Americans , if gay people should play gay roles, then, should Irish actors play Irish roles? I know this film predates the current malarkey but just about all the major Irish roles here are played by English actors (and there are no shortage of Irish actors) …. I don’t think it matters when you have someone as good as Pete Postlethwaite … I’m just saying.

These sort of films like Spotlight (2015) or Bombshell (2019) are geared to Oscars and prestige. In the Name of the Father was nominated for seven Oscars at the 66th Academy Awards, including Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis), Best Supporting Actor (Pete Postlethwaite), Best Supporting Actress (Emma Thompson), Best Director, and Best Picture though it failed to win anything. It was a box office hit.

I’m not sure I need to read the book. I would prefer to read a non-fiction account of the whole injustice rather than a memoir.

See the film, once.

Interestingly as an aside:

After his release from prison, Conlon had problems adjusting to civilian life, suffering two nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide, and becoming addicted to alcohol and other drugs. He eventually recovered and became a campaigner against various miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom and around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Conlon

and

Three police officers were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the wake of the inquiry, but found not guilty in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven

I may not need to watch this film twice, but, clearly, a sequel would be interesting.

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Biography, Drama, Political Thriller | Tagged | 2 Comments

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)

Posted on April 21, 2024 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Stanley Kubrick

SCREENWRITER: Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick

FILM STARS: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Daniel Richter, Leonard Rossiter, Margaret Tyzack, Robert Beatty, Sean Sullivan, Douglas Rain, Frank Miller, Edwina Carroll, Penny Brahms, Heather Downham

COUNTRY: UK-USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Arthur C. Clarke

TYPE: Novelisation

PUBLISHER: Arrow

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1973

COUNTRY: Great Britain COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1968

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Sci Fi

WORDS: 2001 A Pretentious Space Boredom.

I speak heresy to some but luckily the generation (which includes some of mine) that were enthralled with this film are shrinking. Now, only film students, pretentious types, want to be intellectuals, pot heads or people who feel the need to “name drop” to show they know something about film, revere this film.

Harsh?

The film has its merits. The leads (Lockwood and Dullea) are good, the visuals (as in most Kubrick films) are stunning, the music is well chosen, the story is potentially interesting and the effects and set design are impressive, but all that is padded out with so much chaff. The filler combined with the weight of highbrow expectations that the film must be loved makes me kick the other way, perhaps more that I would have done otherwise, though the pacing alone, which is (typical of late period Kubrick) slow and deliberate (and more than a little dull) would have been enough of a fault in my mind. I’m not sure why pretentious critics like such ponderous films … there is an assumption that if it moves it can’t be good or serious …. sort of goes against what moving pictures are all about.

Another criticism, and one I didn’t come up with but is readily obvious if you watch enough Kubrick is that none of the humans are remotely human. They are cold and one note. This has always been a Kubrick problem when he is left to his own devices … his characters are marionets. Unfortunately, the lack of humanity in a the characters results in a lack emotional connection between you and the character. You may be impressed intellectually (though even that is debateable) but you are never involved or moved. It was critic Andrew Sarris who once said (in The American Cinema (1968)…one of my favourite books on film … “Kubrick spent five years and ten million dollars on a science fiction project so devoid of life and feeling as to render a computer called Hal the most sympathetic character in a jumbled scenario”.

Which is, perhaps, fitting as the film is about HAL and intelligent almost human computer (though even HAL isn’t as “human” or as interesting as Edgar the computer in Electric Dreams (1984))

As the on-board computer for a mission to Jupiter, HAL controlled everything from electronic systems, weapons, to adjusting an astronaut’s headrest. He boasted of his error-free record, but when he mistakenly declares a piece of equipment to be faulty, the two working astronauts (three others are in suspended animation) discuss the problem and decide to deactivate him (it). He (it), however, reads their lips and tries to terminate them before regressing, like some mentally unbalanced human criminal, into a childlike nature.

The novel by Arthur C. Clarke was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick’s film version (they worked on the book together but only Clarke got credit initially) and published it after the release of the film but is based in part on various short stories by Clarke, including “The Sentinel” (first published in 1951 under the title “Sentinel of Eternity”). I don’t really need to read it or the novelization. I like near future sci fi but the film has soured this for me.

Arthur C. Clarke called the eventual emergence of a HAL-like computer inevitable. Science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, a detractor of “2001” (but a friend of Clarke’s) dismissed it as speculation and fantasy and said computers were no more than libraries. The whole intelligent sentient machine argument in interesting though not for in depth discussion here. With the way technology has evolved (and with how sci fi has evolved in popular culture – Terminator and the rise of the machines anyone?) it is easy to lean to Clarke though there is something appealing about Bradbury’s position.

I know the film is meant to be thought provoking and intellectual but it’s so much much armchair pop philosophy. I mean it’s like reading Noam Chomsky instead of Aristotle for philosophy. There may be more catchy phrases but you aren’t going to learn much or get passing results.

Andrew Sarris famously panned 2001 when it was released (then reversed himself (apparently) after seeing it under the influence … there are no studies on how many people fell asleep during the film whilst under the influence). At the time he said:

“2001: A Space Odyssey is a thoroughly uninteresting failure and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick’s inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view. His film is not a film at all, but merely a pretext for a pictorial spread in Life magazine. Kubrick, like Lelouch, is an undeniably competent photographer, but photographers seldom make the best directors. 2001 has little writing or acting to speak of and makes little sense. The first section of the film begins where Planet of the Apes left off at the “Dawn of Man.” Kubrick and science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke employ a bunch of monkey masks and monkey suits to present a very debatable theory of human evolution in terms of force and acquisitiveness. We then suddenly leap into a routine moon voyage described in great brand-name-plug detail (Bell, Pan-Am, Howard Johnson’s, Hilton) with Poverty Row players like William Sylvester and Robert Beatty. A big, black slab figures in each section of the film, but we never find out exactly what it is or what it signifies. The third section, by far the most interesting, features Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood as two automaton astronauts pitted against a computer that speaks in insidiously wheedling tones. Ironically, the computer seems to have more feelings than the humans do, a curiously pessimistic attitude toward a project of this magnitude in predicting scientific “progress.” The ending is a mishmash of psychedelic self-indulgence for the special effects people and an exercise in mystifying abstract fantasy in the open temple of High Art”.

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/2001-a-space-odyssey-1968-reviews-by-andrew-sarris/

Later Sarris said: “I think the great impact of ‘2001’ is curiously a humanistic impact,” he says. “One thing that was uncanny about the movie and seemed like a shortcoming at the time was that it was boring and overlong. But it prophesied how boring space travel is, how outsized and incommensurate it is compared to human life and human consciousness. No matter how far into outer space we go, we can’t escape ourselves.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1992/01/12/just-for-the-hal-of-it/9baad638-3c6a-4a94-bcee-2f56fb64d4b8/

The defence to the dreariness is usually the film was prophetic about space travel … really?

I haven’t seen it under the influence, so my opinion remains.

And, in any event, 2001 has come and gone and we no nearer to travelling to Jupiter than we are to the rings of Uranus (pun intended). Will we be closer one day? … yes of course but if the timeline is that far out for experts Kubrick and Clarke out then so is the premise of the film, especially in its estimation of our abilities and of all the crap and shit that goes into making us human, which has nothing to do with the intellect.

When it comes to computers out of control, John Carpenter’s first film (as low budget as 2001 is expensive) Dark Star (1974), which was also something of a response to 2001, is far better (it’s a masterpiece). It has everything 2001 doesn’t – humanity, humour, and the acknowledgement of human intellect but with an understanding of our physical limitations. Yes, it is all very well travelling to Jupiter but it becomes a lot more difficult if the toilets don’t work.

It’s clear I’m not a Kubrick devotee but I’m not a hater. His films are all worth watching and well photographed (he was a glossy magazine photographer after all) but the middle-class pretentiousness and lack of humour kills them for me. Rarely do you watch them more than once (well some people do) and if you do you rarely watch them as a whole but find yourself rewatching specific scenes. His best films are his early B&W films (Killer’s Kiss (1955) and The Killing (1956)) when he was constrained by small budgets and which are wonderfully inventive), and his big studio productions which owe more than a little to star / producer Kirk Douglas (Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960)). The joys of Lolita (1962), Dr Strangelove (1964), Clockwork Orange (1971), and The Shining (1980) and there are joys, owe more a lot to external factors forces (Lolita owes more to author Nabokov and James mason’s performance, Clockwork Orange to author Burgess and actor Malcolm MacDowell’s performance, The Shining to Stephen King and Jack Nicholson’s performance) though they all seem a little dated. It may be true that Kubrick never made a bad film (and it says something that with his most well-known films you can see the money on the screen) but I’m not sure he made a truly great one.

Ultimately, he is part of the belief cult that the fewer films you make the better director you must be (here 13 films in 47 years) … of course all your films are going to be prima facie good when you don’t have to churn them out. But the directors that did churn them out year after year are ultimately more interesting, especially if they learnt from and transcended the commercial requirement to churn them out.

He (Kubrick), is much like those other great craftsmen (John Huston, Fred Zinnemann, David Lean) who, generally, found it difficult to make something out of nothing but always looked impressive on big budgets based on literary sources with A list actors. Yes, that was a backhanded compliment to all those mentioned.

Apparently, Kubrick continues to be cited as a major influence by many directors, including Christopher Nolan, Guillermo del Toro, Lars von Trier, Bryan Singer, Sam Mendes, the Wachowskis, Darren Aronofsky, and Gaspar Noé. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrick

This is perfect and only reinforces my position on Kubrick.

See it once … on the big screen (yes, I saw it on the big screen at a revival). Take stimulants.

LINKS

TRAILER

the reissue trailer

Posted in Novelization, Science Fiction | Tagged | 6 Comments

THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER (1982)

Posted on April 14, 2024 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: George Miller

SCREENWRITER: John Dixon, Cul Cullen

FILM STARS: Kirk Douglas, Tom Burlinson, Terence Donovan, Sigrid Thornton, Jack Thompson, Tony Bonner, Chris Haywood, Gus Mercurio, Tommy Dysart, Bruce Kerr, David Bradshaw, June Jago, Lorraine Bayly, Kristopher Steele, Howard Eynon

COUNTRY: Australia

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Elyne Mitchell

TYPE: Novelisation

PUBLISHER: Pinnacle

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1982

COUNTRY: USA

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK (Poem)

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: A.B. ‘Banjo’ Paterson

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1890

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Adventure

WORDS: I only saw this film because Kirk Douglas was in it.

Now, some would say that is un-Australian, but being the son of migrants from continental Europe I have no affinity with the stories of the Australian bush, Banjo Paterson (on whose poem this is based), colonial Australia, or the Anglo-Celt history of the same.

Of course, my ethnicity has something to do with my ambivalence but that’s not the whole story. I read novels set in the US of the same era and I’m not American. I just find the Australian stuff less than rewarding.

As admirable as Australian bush poetry was in the 19 century – with Australia trying to find its own identity as a response to British hegemony – the hole banging on about it, (especially) in the republican 1970s, probably turned me off it … off the bush poetry not the republicanism.

It was everywhere in the 70s when I was a kid.

And then in the 80s people started to look at Australia’s colonial past with nostalgia, and a nostalgia largely removed from reality.

I’m not saying the (actual) history isn’t interesting, it is to a point, but I was pretty much over it.

Bush poetry is too colloquial, and its themes are rarely universal (or so it seems to me).

But it is well known here and much like the Australian national anthem everyone of my generation knows the first couple of lines of the poem (and that’s about it):

There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around

That the colt from old Regret had got away …,

For me, any “poetry” in the lines is overwhelmed by the “old Australia” bush jingoism which follow Paterson and his poem.

The poem tells the story of a horseback pursuit by Australian bushmen to recapture the colt of a prizewinning racehorse that escaped from its owner and is living wild with the brumbies (wild horses) of the Australian mountain ranges in New South Wales.

As if a film wasn’t going to be made, especially after the mammoth success of another “horse” movie …  The Black Stallion (1979)

So when this film came out there was a groan from a kid in Paddington, Brisbane.

Though as a Kirk Douglas fan and anal completist I required a viewing, so I saw it.

I subsequently forgot about the film despite it having Kirk and a some of my favourite Australian actors: (the great) Jack Thompson, Chris Haywood and American ex pat Gus Mercurio.

Kirk Douglas plays two roles,  two brothers: one a wealthy cattle farmer, and the other a grizzled prospector, Kirk could often go over the top (and why not) and this is certainly in his (almost hammy) chewing up the scenery career phase. Kirk wasn’t adverse to broad strokes when required and here they let him run with it. Tom Burlinson (who does a great Frank Sinatra impersonation elsewhere) is the lead and he does a good job though he is too clean cut to be a bushman in my mind.

Beautiful landscape photography of Australian highland and scrub (which is rarely spectacular) and images of horses running are also merits.

People were expecting an (Australian) western which it’s not really, it’s more of a rural drama with action-adventure scenes. And that’s fine. I’m not sure why people assume all westerns have to be “shoot em ups”, they don’t (though they often are). With that in mind it comes off a bit Disney-ish or like an Australian version of My Friend Flicka (1943).

Director George Miller (Australian but Scottish born) is not the same director as other (and much better) George Miller (Australian born) of Mad Max fame.

Screenwriter John Dixon was sufficiently anachronistic to create an Australia (almost) devoid of anything but the off spring of the Anglo-Celts, which indigenous Australians and gold fields aside aside, it largely was.

The film’s screenplay contains numerous references to Banjo Paterson’s poem and injects him into the story as a character and throws in a passable story about a young man alone in the world who falls in love with the ranchers daughter.

A bestselling soundtrack of the same name (by Bruce Rowland) followed in 1982, as did a sequel The Man from Snowy River II (1988) as did a soundtrack to the sequel (Return to Snowy River (1988)), as did a TV series The Man from Snowy River (1993-1996), as did a musical theatre production (with horses and all) The Man from Snowy River: Arena Spectacular (2002) (I note that apart from some musical contribution from Bruce Rowland the stage musical has no great relationship to the 1982 film, its sequel or the TV series), as did a soundtrack The Man from Snowy River: Arena Spectacular (2002) as did a film of the theatre production The Man from Snowy River: Arena Spectacular (2003). Also, for the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia Rowland composed a special Olympics version of The Man from Snowy River “Main Title” for the Olympic Games.

Groan.

An interesting note : the silent era film of the poem The Man from Snowy River (1920) is not dissimilar to the 1982 version with its love interest and deviation away from the actual poem.

The Man from Snowy River was a box-office success and the highest-grossing Australian film until Crocodile Dundee was released four years later in 1986.

The novelisation is by Elyne Mitchell, a perfect choice to do the same. She was a keen horse rider, resident of the Snowy Mountains and the author of the Silver Brumby (about wild horses in the Snowy Mountains of Australia) series of books for children and young adults. I suspect Banjo Paterson, John Dixon and her all speak and write the same language, and I don’t mean English.

I don’t need to read this and I don’t need to see the film again unless I’m on a Kirk Douglas retrospective.

LINKS

TRAILER:

the American trailer

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2730427673/

Posted in Adventure, Novelization | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK (1971)

Posted on March 17, 2024 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Jerry Schatzberg

SCREENWRITER: Joan Didion, John Gregory Dunne

FILM STARS: Al Pacino, Kitty Winn, Alan Vint, Richard Bright, Kiel Martin, Michael McClanathan, Warren Finnerty, Marcia Jean Kurtz, Raúl Juliá, Angie Ortega, Larry Marshall, Joe Santos, Paul Sorvino.

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: James Mills

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Sphere

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1971

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1966

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Drama

WORDS: Its been a while since I saw this film and read the book (did I read it? … I think so, I recall so …).

I recall the film more and even that is a little hazy. As a late teen in the 80s I was watching a lot of “edgy” late 1960s and early 1970s films, and there were lots of them. It suited my youthful angry and committed attitude of the time. I was an avid “old” movie watcher and, though hiding in plain sight, these films were a revelation because for the first time in mainstream Hollywood, nothing was off limits.

(Hard) Drug addiction films in Hollywood weren’t new – The Man with the Golden Arm (1955), A Hatful of Rain (1957), Monkey on My Back (1957), The Connection (1961), Synanon (1965) all dealt with drug addiction. But those films as good as they are, and they are all good and some are excellent, still had to tip toe around the grim down and dirty “realities” of drug addiction. The 1970s films could look at the problem with a new realism, though, oddly, the 1970s had relatively few cautionary tales when it came to drugs. I assume people were enjoying their drugs too much to care.

What this film does do is weave a love story into the drug addiction so in a way it predates the more well knows Leaving Las Vegas (1995) and Drugstore Cowboy (1989).

The film put (the great) Al Pacino on the map. In his first lead role, Pacino plays the role of Bobby whose life is forever about the next score. He hangs out in “Needle Park” (a nickname at that time for Sherman Square on Manhattan’s Upper West Side near 72nd Street and Broadway – New York before it was cleaned up). He hooks up with Helen (Kitty Winn – her first film), a restless woman who finds him charismatic. She becomes an addict, and life goes downhill for them both as their addictions worsen, desperation and darkness become the norm, and all roads lead to a series of betrayals.

Author James Mills was a reporter for Life magazine and he drew upon his firsthand experience of New York City’s junkie underworld (in the mid 60s) to write this fictionalized account of a love affair between two junkies (he wrote an article about them before the book). Apparently, Mills spent months with a small-time street hustler and his girlfriend, a middle-class Midwesterner reduced to prostitution. Mills’ observations of their desperate struggle to score heroin during a shortage and their addiction is the whole story arc of the book, and it’s harrowing, without taking sides and without being preachy or moralistic. It is very “matter of fact”. It’s all about the nuts and bolts of drug addiction.

This is where the film departs from Mills’ novel … the film has the same characters, the drugs, and the setting, but concentrates more on the love story of Bobby and Helen.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

The film still refuses to preach or take sides but knows an audience needs to be invested in the characters and their lives, and knows it can’t just dwell on the drugs. The film shows the dangers of codependency crossed with addiction, and how a once positive relationship gradually decays into something unsustainable. It does this while avoiding all the usual stereotypes (though, perhaps, creating a few) by treating the story as a romantic drama with drugs. The love story here (and it’s not saccharine) gives you that. It is, perhaps, a hard drug version of (the wonderful)  The Days of Wine and Roses (1962).

The story is basically a two part-er and both actors are great with Pacino especially good before he created the Pacino film persona. Fellow New Yorkers Raul Julia (first film) and Paul Sorvino (second film) and Joe Santos (seventh film) have small roles. Jewish New Yorker Jerry Schatzberg wasn’t prolific but always made thoughtful dramas which weren’t stagnant – Scarecrow (1973) (also with Pacino), The Seduction of Joe Tynan (1979), Honeysuckle Rose (1980), Misunderstood (1984), Street Smart (1987), Reunion (1989).

The film adaptation, written by Joan Didion and John Gregory Dunne, who were married to each other and collaborated on a number of screenplays including – A Star Is Born (1976), and True Confessions (1981). And they worked well together. Dunne was a journalist who knew history and politics and Didion a novelist and essayist who was particularly perceptive and poetic (her collection “Slouching Towards Bethlehem” (1968) is especially good).

Panic in Needle Park wouldn’t get much attention at the Academy Awards (though actress Winn won the Best Actress Award at the 1971 Cannes Film Festival and director, Jerry Schatzberg, was nominated for the Palme d’Or – the Oscars … always missing things), it’s too gritty for that and even now it is still quite confronting and realistic. I note here that Mills in his book treats (if I recall correctly) heroin addiction as more of a psychological dependency than a physical addiction. We know now it’s both.

Read the book, see the film.

I wonder what became of the young fictionalised real people Bobby and Helen – did they quite heroin, remain together, grow old?

TRIVIA

  • Director Schatzberg photographed for magazines such as Vogue, Esquire and McCalls. As a still photographer he also took the cover photo of the Bob Dylan album Blonde on Blonde, released in 1966 (A collection of his images of Dylan titled Thin Wild Mercury was released in 2006)
  • Author Mills also wrote Report to the Commissioner (1972) another journalist type novel about undercover cops and drugs in New York, which became a film of the same name in 1975.

LINKS

TRAILER

FILM POSTER

Posted in Drama, Novel | Tagged | Leave a comment

REACH FOR THE SKY (1956)

Posted on March 3, 2024 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Lewis Gilbert

SCREENWRITER: Lewis Gilbert, Vernon Harris (additional scenes)

FILM STARS: Kenneth More, Muriel Pavlow, Lyndon Brook, Lee Patterson, Alexander Knox, Dorothy Alison, Michael Warre, Nigel Green, Eric Pohlmann, Michael Gough, Anton Diffring

COUNTRY: Britain

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Paul Brickhill

TYPE: Biography

PUBLISHER: Fontana

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1957

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1954

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: War

WORDS: The British film industry seemed to be inundated with World War 2 films in the 1950s. There were dozens of them. They were mainly set in the European theatre of war with only a handful set in the Pacific theatre (I assume that is because there was nothing for them to crow about there).

Reach for the Sky (1956) is one of the most famous of the English WW2 films (it won the BAFTA Award for Best British Film of 1956 and was the most popular British film of the year). It is, also, I think, one of the most dreary of their WW2 films.

Apparently my lack of appreciation may be due to the fact I am Gen x

Filmink later argued the film “became acknowledged as a classic, unfairly mocked by Gen-X critics who were forced to watch it on television too many times, and who forget that the film was made by people and for audiences who had been through that conflict, many of whom had seen people die, and could view it in proper context.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reach_for_the_Sky

I dispute that. My Gen X antecedents don’t prevent me from enjoying many other British war films from the 50s as well as propaganda war films from the 40s.

So, no, it’s just dreary.

The story of Douglas Bader is inspirational though apparently, according to a war buff friend of mine, the Bader character in the film (and perhaps in the biography) has been made more likeable than he was in real life.

Bader joined the RAF in 1928 and was injured in an aircraft accident which resulted in both his legs being amputated. He received prosthetic legs and at the outset of the war returned to the RAF and flew fighters during the Battle of Britain. He became a fighter ace (he was credited with 22 aerial victories, four shared victories, six probable, one shared probable and 11 enemy aircraft damaged). He was shot down in 1941, and only survived when he jettisoned from his aircraft in dramatic circumstances. One of his prosthetic legs was caught in the plane and he couldn’t jump free, his parachute had opened, which eventually caused his leg’s retaining strap to snap under the strain and he was pulled free. He was captured and sent to a German POW camp, he escaped, and was recaptured. He was such a nuisance that he was repeatedly moved from one POW camp to another, finally ending up in Colditz Castle. He was liberated after four years of captivity in 1945 by the First United States Army.

No wonder a biography and a film were made of him.

It may all be true, or largely true, but the film plays as if it was made during World War 2. There are no shades to Bader and the film comes across as a series of scenes building up to a flag waving ending.

Kenneth More is fine, and is the whole show. He plays Bader in the non nonsense unflappable way he played most of his characters, dramatic or comedic. There is no mid-century doubt or flaws in his character, or relatively little, he portrays Bader as if the film were a war movie made in 1944. There is nothing wrong with that though the film is a biopic as well as a war movie. Director Lewis Gilbert could do action dramas in his sleep (The Sea Shall Not Have Them (1954), Cast a Dark Shadow (1955), Carve Her Name With Pride (1956), Ferry to Hong Kong (1959), Sink the Bismark! (1960), H.M.S. Defiant (1962), The 7th dawn (1964)), as well as comedy dramas (Alfie (1966), Educating Rita (1983)) and straight comedies (The Admirable Crichton (1957) Light Up the Sky! (1960)), and big budget action ((Operation Daybreak (1975)), James Bond (You Only Live Twice (1967), The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979)) and even horror (Haunted (1995)). And with the exception of the horror and Bond all the other genres he tackled are here in Reach for the Sky. And this is the problem. There is too much crammed in making the film are series of “acts” rather than a film (a problem with many biopics). Each one of the pivotal events in Bader’s life could have been a film by itself. When all are incorporated, following each other, with their own trajectories and resolutions the film  becomes a very bitty. Acts should have bled into each other and there should have been a (strong) story arc in the background. With the flag waiving it becomes so much “ho hum”.

This and and the equally popular The Cockleshell Heroes (1955) are probably the least satisfactory of the 1950s English war films set in the European theatre. You would do much better with Gift Horse (1952), The Key (1958), Sea of Sand (1958), Morning Departure (1950), Above Us the Waves (1955), Appointment in London (1953), The Cruel Sea (1953),  Ice Cold in Alex (1958), Malta Story (1953), The One That Got Away (1957 film), They Who Dare (1954) and then the stodgy but entertaining The Wooden Horse(1950), The Dam Busters (1955), and I Was Monty’s Double (1958).

I’m not inclined to read the book (which the film is faithful to in spirit if not in detail apparently) though no doubt it would be readable. Author Paul Brickhill (1916-1991) was an Australian fighter pilot, prisoner of war, and author who wrote Escape to Danger (with Conrad Norton) (1946), The Great Escape (1950), The Dam Busters (1951) and others, the last two being the basis of successful films. But Brickhill was a journalist, not a historian, who was writing a heart-warming and romanticised tale for commercial purposes. His Bader (and the one portrayed by More) was often far removed from the actual Douglas Bader, and unrecognisable by many (apparently) who served with him. Bader was stubborn, dogmatic, uncompromising, invariably knew best and only a team player when he was the leader of the team. He was also a product of his socio-educational background, he was patriotic, an imperialist and tended to see things in an us or them lens. I’m not sure if that’s what made his remarkable achievement in overcoming his disability, learning to walk on artificial limbs, and returning to operational flying, what it was, which is inspirational. Bader in the film overcomes every obstacle with relative ease and without (much) help (maybe he did in real life – I don’t know). But Bader, despite his comedic asides in the film, also remains one dimensional.

The not dissimilar film The Wings of Eagles (1957) by John Ford based on the life of World War 1 aviator Frank “Spig” Wead, who breaks his neck in a fall, is paralyzed, learns to walk again, before becoming a Hollywood screenwriter and then returns to active sea duty with the Navy in World War II is a more satisfying film. Wead’s achievements may be more modest than Bader’s  but the film, which also covers many episodes in the man’s life and veers from slapstick comedy to drama, has a emotional (and central) arc running through the film – Wead’s relationship with his wife. It may be pure Hollywood but it makes the film feel like a film rather than a series of events. The colour, the great cast (John Wayne, Maureen O’Hara), the bigger budget and the usual high quality direction by John Ford don’t hurt either.

Bader’s story is, perhaps, ready for another film.

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Biography, War | Tagged | 1 Comment

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (1978)

Posted on February 4, 2024 by velebit2

 THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Richard A. Colla and, Alan J. Levi

SCREENWRITER: Glen A. Larson

FILM STARS: Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herbert Jefferson Jr., Maren Jensen, Tony Swartz, Noah Hathaway, Terry Carter, Lew Ayres, Wilfrid Hyde-White, John Colicos, Laurette Spang, Jane Seymour, Ray Milland, Ed Begley Jr., Rick Springfield, Randi Oakes, David Matthau.

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Glen A. Larson and Robert Thurston

TYPE: Novelisation

PUBLISHER: Futura

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1978

COUNTRY: Australia

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1978

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Sci Fi

WORDS: In the wake of Star Wars (1977) all sorts of big(ger) budgeted sci fi films (The Black Hole (1979), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), Superman (1978), Time After Time (1979), Alien (1979), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Battle Beyond the Stars (1981), Flash Gordon (1980), Saturn 3 (1980), Outland (1981)) and TV series (Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-1981), Jason of Star Command (1978–1981)) appeared, and  … of all that came immediately after, Battlestar Galactica (along with Star Trek) was perhaps the best suited to challenge the all encompassing behemoth that was Star Wars.

This film (now known as “Saga of a Star World”) started out as a pilot, an expensive one, for the television series of the same name It was re edited and released as a stand alone film on both television and in cinemas. It was a big hit.

The television show, Battlestar Galactica (1978–1979), that followed was cancelled after a season despite being popular at the time. It was, initially, a ratings success, but was cancelled in mid-April 1979 due to declining audiences, though the decline in audience may have something to do with changing its time slot to a less lucrative one. The shows cost was always a problem with the television network as well.

Its cancellation didn’t stop the fandom. It developed a cult and pop culture following spawning a media franchise which included comics, theme park attractions, games, and sequels.

“Battlestar Galactica … began with the original television series in 1978, and was followed by a short-run sequel series, Galactica 1980, a line of book adaptations, original novels, comic books, a board game, and video games. A reimagined version aired as a two-part, three-hour miniseries developed by Ronald D. Moore and David Eick in 2003, followed by a 2004 television series, which aired until 2009. A prequel series, Caprica, aired in 2010”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica

As an aside I note that those kids at the time who loved the original film and TV show grew up, and were the ones who rebooted the show. As with many of these 70s era reboots the frivolous joy of science fiction escapism one enjoyed as a teen had to be put to one side. People grow up, they can’t be frivolous, purely escapist in attitude, or light in outlook …. and this is something that affected (adversely). All the reboots – Star Wars, Star Trek, Tron, Terminator became increasingly darker and more serious and even the already serious sci fi – Alien, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes became even more serious and darker, if that is possible. FFS it’s sci fi not theology.

This film, the pilot, is full of great 1970s special effects and like Star Wars (1977) it’s primarily an adventure with a serious backstory (something that flipped on the reboots on both films). It has its own universe, characters who represent values and types, and its own internal history. At the time it was considered the poor man’s version of Star Wars which is a pity as the story is compelling.

In a distant star system twelve colonies of humans, living on different worlds, have been fighting a one thousand year war against the robotic race, the Cylons, who seek to exterminate all of humanity. The Cylons have unexpectedly sued for peace. But the plan is a trap. Only Commander Adama, of the battlestar Galactica has doubts and survives with his ship the slaughter of humanity. With the Colonies in ruins, Adama collects as many survivors as possible, and orders every intact civilian ship to take survivors, follow the Galactica and flee to a better world of legend. They hope that the Galactica can protect this ragtag fleet long enough to find that legendary thirteenth human colony. A planet called Earth.

It is an adventure but the cylons genocidal hated of humans is aped in the terminator movies and perhaps, also, takes inspiration from the religious haltered the east had for the west and Jews in the 70s (and more recently). There is something more than a little religious in Adama’s leadership and search for a new world.

There are also similarities to both Star Wars and Star Trek. And in a case of make sure there are no skeletons in your wardrobe: “In June 1978, 20th Century Fox sued Universal Studios (producers of Battlestar Galactica) for plagiarism, copyright infringement, unfair competition, and Lanham Act claims, claiming it had stolen 34 distinct ideas from Star Wars. Universal promptly countersued, claiming Star Wars had stolen ideas from their 1972 film Silent Running, notably the robot “drones”, and the Buck Rogers serials of the 1930s. 20th Century Fox’s copyright claims were initially dismissed by the trial court in 1980, then the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for trial in 1983. It was later “resolved without trial”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_a_Star_World

Glen A. Larson (creator of the television series Alias Smith and Jones, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo, Quincy, M.E., The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries, B. J. and the Bear, The Fall Guy, Magnum, P.I. and Knight Rider) was the creator and executive producer of Battlestar Galactica. He claims he had conceived of the Battlestar Galactica premise, which he called Adam’s Ark, during the late 1960s (he had had been working on the concept since 1968 with former Star Trek producer Gene L. Coon mentoring him in its early development). The series incorporated many themes from Mormon theology, such as marriage for “time and eternity”, a “council of twelve”, a lost thirteenth tribe of humans, and a planet called Kobol (an anagram of Kolob – Kolob is a star or planet described in the Book of Abraham, a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement). A coincidence? Probably not as Larson was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Battlestar Galactica was finally produced in the wake of the success of Star Wars (1977) and underwent a name change from “Adam’s Ark”, allegedly, because Larson was convinced to include the word “star” in the title to capitalize on Star Wars, hence Battlestar Galactica. Well, there was probably other easons – it also sounds tougher than Adam’s Ark or even something like Adam’s Starark.

Oddly, the film, and the concept to the film, strikes me as owing more than a little to John Ford’s masterpiece Wagonmaster (1950) (whose television non official spinoff Wagon Train (1957–1965) was an inspiration to Star Trek) about a Mormon wagon train circa 1880, led by the Elder Wiggs, escaping persecution and heading west to the promised land of the San Juan River country. Along the way the wagon train is joined by a ragtag assortment of people, a stranded medicine show troupe, some cowboy drifters, a peaceful band of Navajo indians, and together they face bad weather, and a malevolent slightly psychotic outlaw family, the Clegg gang. Given larson was a Mormon and this was one of the few classic films to have Mormons as characters this can’t be a coincidence.

For what is then, ostensibly, a space western it is perfect casting to have Lorne Greene as Commander Adama. His father, patriarch, and landowner figure, Ben Cartwright, in the ultra successful western series Bonanza (1959-1973) was ingrained in the mind of people across the world. Adama was just Cartwright in space. The other two male leads (the show was heavy on male leads, much like Bonanza) are Richard Hatch as Captain Apollo and Dirk Benedict as Lieutenant Starbuck. Like Han Solo (especially in the case of Starbuck) they are essentially space cowboys and they provide the action and humour. The rest of the cast is peppered with familiar stars of years past Lew Ayres, Ray Milland, Wilfrid Hyde-White and up and coming youngsters Ed Begley Jr. Australian singer Rick Springfield and Jane Seymour. The film, being a TV pilot, has a TV feel at times but the budget hides some of the (then) TV limitations.

The film was a box office hit and rightly so ..it is entertaining and manages to capture the balance between adventure and drama.

The novelisation is a straight novelisation. Though there are differences between the film and the TV series that followed it the novelisation seems to follow the film. Many other books followed all written by Glen A. Larson with other co-authors. Co-author here, Robert Thurston (28 October 1936 – 20 October 2021), was a prolific science fiction author well known for his works in popular shared world settings The books were critically disparaged, but proved popular, with this, the first novel, selling over a million copies within its first year.

TRIVIA

  • Larson also was a member of the folk revival/satire group The Four Preps.
  • In the 1990s, Hatch attempted to revive Battlestar Galactica. He began writing novels based on the series (Hatch wrote a series of seven tie-in novels set in the original Battlestar Galactica universe)

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Novelization, Science Fiction | Tagged | 2 Comments

NIGHT PASSAGE (1957)

Posted on January 21, 2024 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: James Neilson

SCREENWRITER: Borden Chase

FILM STARS: James Stewart, Audie Murphy, Dan Duryea, Dianne Foster, Elaine Stewart, Brandon deWilde, Jay C. Flippen, Herbert Anderson, Robert J. Wilke, Hugh Beaumont, Jack Elam, Tommy Cook, Paul Fix, Olive Carey, James Flavin, Donald Curtis, Ellen Corby, John Daheim, Kenny Williams, Henry Wills, Chuck Roberson, Tommy Cook

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Norman Fox

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Fontana

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1958

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1956

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Western

WORDS: I have had the rare benefit of both reading this novel and re-watching this film withing short compass of each other recently.

So, similarities and dissimilarities between novel and film are fresh in mind.

And there are a few and they, if nothing else, indicate how novels are adapted for the screen to suit the needs of screenwriters, but also more importantly, the needs of producers, actors with star power and directors.

This film is usually described as “picturesque” but “routine”.

Yes, it is picturesque but within its limitations it is a superior entertainment.

Most of the criticism arises from the fact that the film was meant to be another pairing of director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart who were on a roll making some of the best westerns of the 1950 (Winchester ’73 (1950), Bend of the River (1952), The Naked Spur (1953), The Far Country (1954), and The Man from Laramie (1955)) as well as the non-westerns Thunder Bay (1953), The Glenn Miller Story (1954), Strategic Air Command (1955)).

Eight films in five years … and all hits. All, also, well regarded at the time and most highly regarded now.

Another Mann and Stewart western was considered a sure bet.

Mann signed on but pulled out before production began.

There are many reasons advanced but who knows what the true story is. Lazy assumptions are always made by armchair pop culture historians and even where there may be some evidence to support conclusions sometimes the reasons advanced are only one of many reasons … even if they come from the horse’s mouth. ie: What I say flippantly may be true or not, may be taken out of context, may be my response on a “bad hair” day, may be only part of a story, may be me looking for a reason, or may be someone’s interpretation of my words.

Worse still, sometimes, pop culture historians look for “exciting” reasons rather than humdrum ones.

Like any case a full interview with participants would settle it, failing that, several circumstantial facts all pointing to the same conclusion would have some weight.

Here, it’s suggested Anthony Mann pulled of the project because:

  1. He had obligations on other projects;
  2. He thought the script was weak;
  3. He disagreed over the casting of Audie Murphy;
  4. He fell out with Stewart who he felt was only making the film so he could play his accordion. Apparently, this enraged Stewart so much that the two didn’t speak again.

Where the truth is I don’t know, but,

  1.  Perhaps there is some truth to other obligations as Night Passage was filmed Oct 1956 – Dec 1956 and Mann’s superior The Tin Star (1958) with Henry Fonda and Anthony Perkins which filming on and around Oct 22, 1956. There is also a suggestion, in a February 1956 HR news item (some 6 months before filming?) that he withdrew from the film to finish editing Men in War (1957) which he was co-producing (so had money in it). It’s hard to say at he was still filming that film around July 9, 1956.
  2. Yes, perhaps the script lacks the psychological intensity of Mann’s other westerns but only just. It was screen written by Borden Chase who also wrote Winchester ’73 (1950), Bend of the River (1952), The Far Country (1954) for Mann so I doubt that would have caused him to pull out. Chase gave him the framework for him to work his magic.
  3. Audie was a big star, and his role is relatively modest and against type (he clearly wanted to do the film and so accepted something smaller than normal) and Mann had worked with all sorts of personality actors in films so I doubt that disagreeing with Murphy’s casting would have been the main reason.
  4. Mann made eight films with Stewart before this and knew him, and no doubt his fondness for the accordion. Why leave?

I’ll take scheduling as the main reason for him pulling out (one film drags out, effects the next one, which effects the one that follows) but that’s never going to be as interesting as the other reasons.

Despite Mann leaving the film still works .. it is spectacular looking (much of it filmed on location in Silverton, Animas Canyon and Durango, Colorado) on the big screen at home but would be even better on the real big screen. It was one of the first produced in the Technirama widescreen process. Like VistaVision, the 35mm camera negative ran through the camera horizontally rather than vertically, exposing eight perforations-width frames rather than four perforations high, which made the image twice as sharp as CinemaScope, and other widescreen movies. Though in some theatres the large-frame negative was reduced to regular 35mm ‘scope prints”.

It was photographed by William Daniels who had done many films and had worked with Stewart a lot going back to the 1930s. He had also done Winchester ’73 (1950), Thunder on the Hill (1950), Thunder Bay (1952), The Glenn Miller Story (1953), The Far Country (1953), Strategic Air Command (1954) for Mann.

The script by Borden Chase excelled in the familial conflict and good vs evil westerns, most notably Red River (1948).

Director James Neilson was mainly a theatre and TV director, and this was his first film. With the team around him it comes off well though not distinctive. Neilson only did about 14 films mainly for Disney and a lot of television. Apparently, Stewart chose the director having been impressed with him when he worked with him on two (western) episodes of the anthology series General Electric Theater (The Windmill (1955) and The Town with a Past (1957))

I think the problem with the film is the script which feels a little truncated Some of the characters are a little underwritten or seem to have had motivation scenes cut. Normally I would say it is unlikely to be Borden Chase (given his form), and likely to be the result of producer tampering. Here the producer was Aaron Rosenberg and he, also has a proven track record with both Stewart and Mann (he produced Winchester ’73 (1950), Bend of the River (1952), Thunder Bay (1953), The Glenn Miller Story (1954), The Far Country (1954)) and Audie Murphy (producing Gunsmoke (1953), To Hell and Back (1955), World in My Corner (1956), Walk the Proud Land (1956), Joe Butterfly (1957)) as well as producing the good looking and thoughtful westerns The Man from the Alamo (1953), Saskatchewan (18954), Man Without a Star (1955), Backlash (1956), The Badlanders (1958).

Audie’s role (as the niftily named The Utica Kid) is quite small, and he isn’t nasty enough. He is more dark and edgy than in his normal roles which is great because knowing Audie’s history (personal, military and film) there is a darkness behind the boyish face which was rarely explored. It’s hinted here but that’s it. Worse still Stewart and Murphy are meant to be brothers …. they don’t seem to be born of the same mother in looks or in personality. Dan Duryea plays the villain here, a role he has played many times though here, he too seems to have a truncated role leaving only a lot of shouting. The female leads are marginal but rightly or wrongly they often were in these types of westerns (the more well-known Dorothy Malone had been cast but left the production after she was denied “preferred billing”). Brandon de Wilde as the kid is fine. Interestingly Paul Fix (John Wayne’s good friend and an occasional member of John Ford’s stock company) plays a railroader call Mr Feeney (director Ford’s real name) … a tribute perhaps? Ellen Corby (later of the Waltons) plays his wife. Robert J. Wilke and Jack Elam as henchmen are perfect.

The book is a solid western read. Author Norman Fox wrote around 30 westerns in 20 years. Coincidentally he wrote another novel Roughshod (1951) which became a western for Audie, Gunsmoke (1953).

He is well regarded if not highly regarded. The book here doesn’t have the psychological intensity I suspect the film was looking for, but it does have a lot of colour and detail. Fox’s stories were often set around actual events in Montana history and contained authentic detail for the period.

Whereas the film tries to concentrate on the story of two brothers on opposite sides of law (like Winchester ’73 (1950)) the novel fleshes out all the smaller characters around them that provide the backstory to their antagonism.

The story is tightened up for the film. There are subplots done away with, the female characters are reduced to posts the males can latch onto or launch off, so much so that in the film the character of Verna Kimball, who had a relationship with Stewart’s character, Grant McLaine (McLain in the book), is railroad camp head Ben Kimball’s wife in the book she is his daughter, with a fiancée from back east though that doesn’t stop her “using” Stewart. Likewise, the girl in love with Audie and Jimmy, “Charlie” Drew, spends much time in the book agonising over which brother to choose whereas in the film she flips pretty quickly. In the novel she had dated McLaine before the Utica kid took her away – no suggestion of that in the film. Otherwise, the action in the book (like the climactic gunfight in a saloon) is moved outdoors to make use of the location shooting.

The film also makes use of the actors’ personas … Stewart is a much more twitchy and neurotic (as he was in most Mann westerns) than the hero in the book, Dan Duryea’s Curly it more unhinged, Audie is more of a hero.

The film is not bad on its own terms and the book is a good late night read on a train, plane or bus.

LINKS

TRAILER

James Stewart and his accordion

Posted in Book Type, Novel, Western | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE SECRET WAYS (1961)

Posted on December 31, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Phil Karlson

SCREENWRITER: Jean Hazlewood

FILM STARS: Richard Widmark, Sonja Ziemann, Charles Régnier, Walter Rilla, Senta Berger, Howard Vernon, Heinz Moog, Hubert von Meyerinck, Oskar Wegrostek, Stefan Schnabel, Elisabeth Neumann-Viertel, Helmut Janatsch.

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Alistair MacLean

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Fontana

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1961

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1959

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The Last Frontier

NOTES

GENRE: Action Thriller, Cold War

WORDS: I love cold war era skullduggery type films. I love their black and white outlook on the world. It is tempting to say that the world wasn’t black or white but I suspect now, with the passing of time, that one could say to look at the cold war as black or white is entirely appropriate.

The collapse of communism (replaced nowadays with fundamentalism and nationalism or a mix of both) in such a rapid fashion after the cracks appeared indicates everything. Dyed in the wool leftists (as I thought I was once) will have an excuse for everything … the West outmanoeuvred the Eastern Bloc, the USA used their economic might to compel the communists to gear money to arms rather than social welfare which caused the collapse of communism, the Communist states were not proper communist states). All this may be true but it is also clear the Eastern Bloc was a house of cards. From the first day only repression kept people in line. A buoyant economy may have kept them happy for a time (the buoyant economies were never buoyant for long) but they were only marginally happy as the buoyant economy came with repression, censorship and restrictions on religion and speech.

Once communism went, it went quickly. There were some who lived there and shed a tear, but not many. Only in the educated West did you get any support, sympathy or excuses made for the former communist regimes … regimes those people never lived under. In the former Eastern Bloc the stigma of communism remains, if it didn’t there would be no need for the parties of the far left to distance them from the old style communists and use “green”, or “socialist” or “liberal” in their names.

At the time though if it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny. The amount of people escaping (yes, “escaping” as there was no migration for 20 to 30 years after World War 2) from those countries by any means possible was akin to something out of a slapstick comedy.

All the Eastern Bloc nations were repressive, but they weren’t equally repressive. My parents, Croatians, escaped Yugoslavia which was relatively (perhaps) benign compared to Czechoslovakia (as it then was), East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and the puppet master that is the Soviet Union but that doesn’t mean you didn’t go to jail for looking sideways, it didn’t mean you could get ahead if you weren’t a member of “the party”, it didn’t mean there weren’t inequities and inequalities which were supported by law, it didn’t mean there wasn’t a new dominant class who preached brotherhood for all but failed to implement it. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than other … to paraphrase some author.

And that, perhaps, is yet another difference between the East and the West. The West was not without inequality, but they tried through law to address the same, and if that failed the people would point out why (though, perhaps, without much success). The East had similar laws though they were only tinsel. There was no desire to enforce them, and criticism and discussion was forbidden.

And there was no hiding it, internally or externally. No attempt even. There was no real attempt by communists to pretend that communist society was anything other than what it was.

It was easy then to paint the world in black and white, and Hollywood was very good at, and leant itself to such black and white storylines.

There were many interesting cold war films made, set in the US (The Manchurian Candidate (1962), Big Jim McLain (1952), The Fearmakers (1958), North By Northwest (1959), Pickup on South Street (1953)), or the Far East (Blood Alley (1955), Soldier of Fortune (1955), Hong Kong (1952)) as well as in Europe (The Third Man (1949), Torn Curtain (1966). Man on a Tightrope (1953), The Journey (1959), Diplomatic Courier (1952)).

MacLean’s book is black and white … there are good guys (from the West) and bad guys (the Communists). He isn’t into politics or history but gives enough background (perhaps a little more than normal in this book) to create an espionage thriller inspired by the events surrounding the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

James Bond may be the height and most well known of the cold war spy characters but he is, in book and especially in film, a superman.

Here the protagonist, Michael Reynolds, is a British secret agent who doesn’t have gadgets or superskills. He is more real though not as “real” as the spies that would populate John le Carre novels later. Reynolds is sent on a wintertime mission to Hungary at the height of the Cold War to rescue an elderly British scientist who is held by the communist government against his will.

MacLean writes exciting adventures with enough of a foot on the road to stop his stories from taking off on fanciful flights, and importantly, he writes stories that are filmable.
His novel The Guns of Navarone (1957) was in film production, a big budget production as The Secret Ways (based on his novel The Last Frontier (1959) ) on a smaller budget was being filmed in Zurich and Vienna. The Secret Ways would be released first, becoming the first of the many Alistair MacLean film adaptations.

It’s a great little film … all black and white and of course adapted for American audiences.
Michael Reynolds here becomes a (more cynical and in it for the money) American adventurer hired by an international espionage ring to smuggle a noted scholar and resistance leader, Professor Jansci, out of Communist-ruled Hungary.

Star Richard Widmark, whose production company produced the film, was a bit of a liberal but he had no problems with the story which he called “an anti-Communist thing” which “had nothing to do with my [personal] politics.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Ways

Widmark’s wife, Jean Hazlewood, adapted the novel, her only screen credit. I suspect Widmark may have had a hand in the script but took no credit (he married his wife in 1942 and they were together until her death in 1997) because he was producing the film through his company.

The script is heavy on realism, well, realism surrounding the action. I suspect Widmark was looking for something in mood like his earlier cold war actioners Pickup on South Street (1953) and Hell and High Water (1954).

(The great) Phil Karlson was the perfect director for this or rather would have been five years earlier. Karlson was a master of injecting realism via brutal violence and unsentimental characters into films. He was on a roll in the 50s with masterpieces like Kansas City Confidential (1952), 99 River Street (1953), The Phenix City Story (1955), The Brothers Rico (1957) as well as superior entertainments Scandal Street (1952), They Rode West (1954), Tight Spot (1955), 5 Against the House (1955), Gunman’s Walk (1958), Hell to Eternity (1960). But, apparently, Karlson wanted something lighter – whether he is recalling this later as a result of hindsight in a post Bond world or not I don’t know – “Widmark hired him on the basis of The Phenix City Story because “he wanted to try to get realism in it” and the director told him “I wanted to do it as a James Bond. But he hadn’t heard of James Bond. I said, “If we do this tongue in cheek, we’ll be the first ones.” He said, “No, I don’t want to do it that way”.” Karlson says he left for the last week of filming (Widmark directed the last week uncredited). Years later, after Karlson made The Silencers (and the Wrecking Crew), a Bond-style spoof, he says Widmark tried to get him to do three more pictures. The director said, “He realized we’d have had, maybe, the first picture that would have taken him out of the role of the guy who kicks the old lady down the steps (referring to Widmark’s famous nasty tour de force in Kiss of Death (1947)).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Ways

Interestingly, apparently, Karlson was Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman’s first choice to direct their first James Bond film Dr. No (1962), but they were forced to decline him after he asked for too high of a salary.

Certainly, in the early 60s Karlson was moving away from the tight crime dramas and westerns he had made his name on and tackling romantic drama The Young Doctors (1961), musical drama – the excellent Elvis film (though not without its violence) Kid Galahad (1962), and an adventure film set in Malaysia, Rampage (1963).

In any event the decision to concentrate on realism is not a bad one. There is a lot of cold war atmosphere in this film and that is much of its attraction (filming in Europe helps also), and there was an appetite for such films even as Bond rose … The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) was a success.

The cast is great. Widmark was never a conventional hero. He was always shifty, or rather, he was at his best when brutally pragmatic. The rest of the cast is populated by German and Austrian actors, which just adds to the cold war realism.

A much underrated film based on one of the best MacLean novels.

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Action, Novel, Thriller | Tagged | 2 Comments

ST TRINIAN’S (2007)

Posted on December 17, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Oliver Parker and Barnaby Thompson

SCREENWRITER: Piers Ashworth and Nick Moorcroft

FILM STARS: Talulah Riley, Rupert Everett, Jodie Whittaker, Gemma Arterton, Kathryn Drysdale, Juno Temple, Antonia Bernath, Amara Karan, Tamsin Egerton, Lily Cole, Paloma Faith, Holli Mckee, Cloi Mckee, Russell Brand, Lena Headey, Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Mischa Barton, Stephen Fry

COUNTRY: Britain

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Pippa Le Quesne

TYPE: Novelisation

PUBLISHER: Penguin

THIS EDITION

PUBLISHED: 2008

COUNTRY: Australia

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Ronald Searle

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1950s

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: St. Trinian’s School series of books (Hurrah for St Trinian’s (1948), The Female Approach (1950), Back to the Slaughterhouse (1952), The Terror of St Trinians or Angela’s Prince Charming (1952), Souls in Torment (1953))

NOTES

GENRE: Satire

WORDS: Sometimes you look at the books you have and think, how did that get there?

That is the case here

A pretty ordinary film which will not lead me to read the novelisation.

The Girls of St Trinian’s films are a British comedy institution much like, though not as good as, the “Carry On” or “Doctor” films.

St Trinian’s originated as a British gag cartoon comic strip series, created and drawn by Ronald Searle which ran from 1946 until 1952. Interestingly Searle’s first St Trinians cartoon was draw in 1941. He subsequently went to war and was captured and a prisoner of the Japanese. The cartoons that came out after the war were, perhaps understandably, darker.

The setting, the St Trinian’s school, is a madhouse. The teachers are sadists and the girls are juvenile delinquents. The humour is anti authorian and barbed. “Cartoons often showed dead bodies of girls who had been murdered with pitchforks or succumbed to violent team sports, sometimes with vultures circling; girls drank, gambled and smoked”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Trinian%27s_School

The cartoon strip was popular.

Films followed starting with The Belles of St. Trinian’s in 1954, with sequels in Blue Murder at St Trinian’s (1957), The Pure Hell of St Trinian’s (1960), The Great St. Trinian’s Train Robbery (1966), The Wildcats of St Trinian’s (1980).

The 50s films are fun if for no other reason than the casts are a who’s who of British supporting players and comedians of the time. The satirical extremities of the cartoon strip aren’t attempted (or have ever been on film from what I have seen) and are replaced with good natured cheekiness (especially sexual,  which became cheekier as they went on).

St Trinian’s is depicted as an girls’ school where the younger girls wreak havoc, act like delinquents whilst the anti authorian older girls express their femininity and sexuality overtly, by turning their modest shapeless schoolgirl dresses into sexy and risqué outfits (by the standards of the times) and by smoking and carry on like boys etc. In the films the school became embroiled in various shady enterprises, thanks mainly to the headmistress trying to save the school from being shut down, and the activities of the girl students (who  are the wayward offspring of gangsters, bookies etc).

The 2007 film I watched because I like Rupert Everett and Colin Firth … even since I saw Another Country (1984) in the cinema whilst I was at Uni (and it looked as if Rupert was going to be the bigger star). Both are great actors and clearly friends and are always watchable … and though they are both slumming it here and not stretching themselves this film is still hard work.

The film is called a “reboot” (why can’t they just say “remake”?) and not a sequel as the story about trying to save the school was the basis of the first film from 1954.

Rupert Everett plays the female headmistress (the reboot / remake continues the tradition, established by Alastair Sim in the original film, of casting a male actor to play the female headmistress) and Colin Firth plays (in a large supporting role) the education minister (who has a romantic history with the headmistress). There are many familiar faces (but names sometimes unknown) amongst the girls – Gemma Arterton, Tamsin Egerton, Talulah Riley, Juno Temple – as well as comic turns from more well known actors and celebrities – Jodie Whittaker, Lena Headey, Stephen Fry, Russell Brand, Toby Jones.

Despite this it is all loud, obvious and noisy with a “punky” (the girls are rebellious remember) rock soundtrack and a digital video feel. The earlier films (specifically the 50s ones) were the same in tone but their era wasn’t as loud, noisy or obvious, and to us, watching them now they are well (but cheaply) made sometimes charming time capsules of an era. The girls are tomboyish and run amok but are still female. Their antics clash or rather complement the school administration who drive the story. There are chuckles to be had. Contrary to that, this 2007 film concentrates more on the girls than the administration and teaching staff. Which is, perhaps, a mistake though, empowered youth movies were all the rage in the 2000s so it makes sense money wise. The film becomes just noise and random mayhem with kick arse all knowing women, err schoolgirls. It buys into the schoolgirl fetish (as did the earlier films) with only a minor nod to changing mainstream attitudes. The girls are both 21st century empowered and in your face and girls that inhabited teen T&A films of the 80s and earlier. The schoolgirl actors here were all (mainly) in their 20s or late teens and not of school age and act it. So, it is okay to look, or is it? Ultimately, though, that is the problem. The film wants to update the girls but also feed off what made them popular in the past. A cake and eat it too story.

The author of the novelisation, Pippa Le Quesne, writes books for young teen girls.

The film was successful enough to have a sequel, St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold (2009), hich had much the same cast.

LINKS

TRAILER

the English trailer

the US trailer

Posted in Comedy / Satire, Novelization | Tagged | 2 Comments