THE ENEMY BELOW (1957)

Posted on July 30, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Dick Powell

SCREENWRITER: Wendell Mayes

FILM STARS: Robert Mitchum, Curd Jürgens, Theodore Bikel, David Hedison, Russell Collins, Kurt Kreuger, Frank Albertson, Biff Elliot, Ralph Manza, Doug McClure, Darryl F. Zanuck

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: D.A. Rayner

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Fontana Books

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: War

WORDS: Author D.A. Rayner (Denys Arthur Rayner 1908-1967), was a Royal Navy officer who became a writer. Born in Muswell Hill (home of the Kinks – I randomly threw that in), in North London, he joined the naval reserve in 1925. By 1939, he qualified himself to command the 14th Anti-Submarine Group comprising a unit of armed trawlers. In 1940 he was appointed commander of a corvette, HMS Verbena, operating in the Atlantic. Just after Christmas 1942, he was given the lead of an escort group, in command of the destroyer HMS Shikari, becoming one of the first RNVR officers in the Royal Navy. In October 1943 Rayner was given command of destroyer HMS Warwick and he was on board that ship when it was torpedoed by a U-Boat. He was then given command of the destroyer HMS Highlander and then in 1944 corvette HMS Pevensey Castle. After 24 years with the navy Rayner retired from the RNVR in 1949. He saw action, was sunk by a u-boat, sunk u-boats he thinks (who knows … they are under water) and talked the talk.

The Enemy Below reads like something by someone very familiar with warships

The book is the story of a prolonged duel between a U-boat and a British destroyer in September 1943 … they cat and mouse each other all over the South Atlantic ocean. The book focuses on the tactics by each of the commanders, Britisher John Murrell, Captain of the HMS Hecate, and German U-boat Kapitän von Stolberg, a man from an aristocratic background who is not enamoured with the Nazi regime (naturally enough … Rayner was trying to elicit (some) sympathy for the opponent).

The battle ends with combatants together in lifeboats in a fistfight, after the destroyer has rammed the submarine.

The end is highly unlikely but the build up is plausible though still unlikely.

Rayner, himself in a preface, points out that the story is fictional and, as far as he is aware, no British destroyer ever fought a single-ship action against a U-boat. He goes on to suggest that in such an action, the odds are more in favour of the submarine, which has more chances of sinking her adversary by torpedo and deck gun, whilst presenting a smaller target for the destroyer. He is also of the view that an attempt by a ship to ram a submarine would cause major damage to the latter and little damage to the U-boat due to the thin metal used to plate the ship.

He did say it is fiction.

It’s a good read but perhaps it is a little technical which drags the narrative, though salty sailors may get more from it. There isn’t much background to the story apart from the tactics and the commanders deciding on what tactics to use. It doesn’t build suspense so much as read like a description of an actual event.

The film on the other hand milks the central premises for everything and comes out as one of the best war films of the 1950s.

Of course being an American film the hero is now American.

The American Buckley-class destroyer escort USS Haynes commanded by Murrell (played by the always good Robert Mitchum) detects and attacks a German U-boat (Unterseeboot) commanded by (the always good) Curt Jurgens.

The ending is also slightly different, they develop a respect (a war movie trope) for each other more so in the film than in the novel (where they are also both more war weary), perhaps as a result of Americans being less snarky about the Germans, than the English.

Apparently producer-director Dick Powell let the public decide the ending for the film. Details of the two endings were reported (in a July 1957 edition of ‘The Hollywood Reporter”) which stated that Powell filmed the two endings because he thought that the original ending (the unused one) may be too bleak (and if it is the one below it is more bleak than the novel), and then he let a preview audience vote for the ending they liked best. The ending he used won by “unanimous vote”. The ending which wasn’t used had both commanders die by drowning at the end of this picture when Murrell dives into the sea to rescue Von Stolberg as opposed to them both surviving.

Screenwriter Wendell Mayes said “Its original ending was better. You remember where the German captain is on the submarine surrounded by fire, and the character played by Mitchum brings him across on a rope? All the men were off the ship but these two men. Now these two men were burnt-out cases, both of them. They are not there for any reason except that they have to be there. The moment Mitchum gets hold of him [the German], and starts pulling him aboard, the ship blows up, and at that point, you pull back to watch this tremendous explosion, and you keep pulling back until there’s nothing left for the audience to see but the great, vast, empty sea with a little group of boats floating on it. The point was Dick and I both felt that these two characters were men who had no reason to live. There’s much more feeling if they should die, one finally trying to help the other after killing him. But the studio said, “No, you like both of them. You can’t kill them. It’ll disappoint the audience.” Nothing. So we had the ending with them standing smoking a cigarette on the back end of the destroyer, something like that. One of those things one must do”.
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft138nb0zm&chunk.id=d0e13271&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

The action is solid but Mitchum and Jurgens are the whole show. Mitchum plays the naval captain without a hint of the surliness, or rebellion his characters had in the past. He didn’t always play roles this straightforward but it works here because in the back of our heads we know this is Mitchum and he will do something unexpected and he does that in the cat and mouse and ramming of the u-boat. Something left of center is natural and wholly satisfying when it comes from Mitcham. Jurgens is solid also and took the role seriously – in an interview in July 1977 with ‘The New York Times”, he said: “This was an important picture for me because it was the first film after the war in which a German officer was not interpreted as a freak”. This is probably about right though James Mason’s Rommel in The Desert Fox (1951) and The Desert Rats (1953) isn’t a one sided stereotype and neither is John Wayne’s sea captain in The Sea Chase (1955), though admittedly he is not a German officer but a former German navy officer and German captain in their merchant marine.

The rest of the cast provide support as sounding boards, Bikel for Jurgens and Hedison (who seemed to spend a lot of his career on boats or submarines) for Mitchum. Of interest, to me, is Doug McClure appears unbilled. You have to love Doug.

Former actor and singer, Dick Powell, turned to directing in the 50s and produced some effective, more thoughtful than most, entertainments. Even his Genghis Khan epic with John Wayne, The Conqueror (1956), has some effective moments and the film isnt nearly as bad as is always suggested. If anyone other than John Wayne (or a Hollywood leading man of action films) had played Khan the film would be credited as a passable and Hollywood epic.

Screenwriter Wendell Mayes was starting off on his film screenwriting career and loved working from novels. He went on to do The Hunters (1958) (with Powell as director and Mitchum as star) as well as war films Von Ryan’s Express (1965) and In Harm’s Way (1965), thrillers Death Wish (1974), and character dramas Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Advise & Consent (1962), Hotel (1967). All have roots in his screenplay here.

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Novel, War | 2 Comments

THE DEVIL’S BRIGADE (1968)

Posted on July 23, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Andrew V. McLaglen

SCREENWRITER: William Roberts

FILM STARS: William Holden, Cliff Robertson, Vince Edwards, Andrew Prine, Jeremy Slate, Claude Akins, Jack Watson, Richard Jaeckel, Bill Fletcher, Richard Dawson, Tom Troupe, Luke Askew, Jean-Paul Vignon, Tom Stern, Harry Carey Jr., Michael Rennie, Carroll O’Connor, Dana Andrews, Gretchen Wyler, Patric Knowles, Wilhelm Von Homburg, Maggie Thrett, James Craig, Richard Simmons, Norman Alden.

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Robert H. Adleman and Col. George Walton

TYPE: Non Fiction

PUBLISHER: Bantam

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1968

COUNTRY: USA

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1966

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: War

WORDS: Hello Dirty Dozen.

Unfair but this comparison is often made between this film and The Dirty Dozen (1967).

E. M. Nathanson wrote the Novel The Dirty Dozen in 1965.

The Devil’s Brigade was based on a 1966 novel by (ex soldier) American novelist and historian Robert H. Adleman and (ex soldier) Col. George Walton, a member of the title brigade.

Both novels try to throw in authenticity though The Dirty Dozen’s mission is fictional and is clearly aimed more at escapism.

Both books were overshadowed by the film versions.

The Dirty Dozen directed by Robert Aldrich has become a classic whilst The Devil’s Brigade is largely forgotten by the mainstream though loved by war movie biffs.

It is often thought that The Devil’s Brigade (film) rips off The Dirty Dozen, and that may be the case though if it does it is the result of late re-writes. Brigade producer David L. Wolper bought the rights to The Devil’s Brigade in 1965, well before filming began on The Dirty Dozen. The Dirty Dozen was released in United States on June 15, 1967 having been filmed in England filmed Apr 25, 1966 – Oct 13, 1966 whilst The Devil’s Brigade was filmed in Utah and Santa Elia Fiume Rapido, Italy Apr 10, 1967 – Jul 3, 1967. The Dirty Dozen was an instant success so if the story of its rag tag misfits on mission was copied (or highlighted) for Devil’s Brigade it would have involved some frantic rewrites as Dirty Dozen was release only a month before shooting finished on Devil’s Brigade. Nothing is impossible in Hollywood though admittedly both original books deal with rag tag but violent soldiers trained for special forces or commando operations.

Either way Dirty came out first, is a better film, and has the cavalcade of future stars. It got the public’s attention.

Producer Wolper later wrote “The Devil’s Brigade turned out to be a terrific film. It was a wonderful story, the acting was excellent, and the preview audiences and critics loved it. Unfortunately it came out just a few months after the release of The Dirty Dozen, which was the same kind of story. It was a big hit and it killed us. We got lost in the wind.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil%27s_Brigade_(film)

Coming out so soon after Dozen, Devil’s Brigade loses out though it’s not a bad film and the comparison isn’t wholly fair. The Devil’s Brigade has similarities to Dirty Dozen but it more serious and historically accurate, at least in its second half, making it a cross between Dirty Dozen and another mid 60s spectacular, The Battle of the Bulge (1965).

BIG war films were all the rage in the mid to late 60s

Here (the always wonderful) William Holden is put in charge of a unit called the 1st Special Service Force, composed of elite Canadian commandos (led by Cliff Robertson) and undisciplined American soldiers (led by Vince Edwards). The usual tensions in training are resolved as the men learn to become a fighting unit and do battle with the Germans in Italy (specifically an attack on the impregnable German mountain stronghold, Monte la Difensa).

The 1st Special Service Force (“The Devil’s Brigade”) existed and was highly decorated. The force was an elite American–Canadian commando unit in World War II, under the command of the United States Fifth Army. The unit was organized in 1942 and trained at Fort William Henry Harrison near Helena, Montana, in the United States (near the Canadian border). The Force served in the Aleutian Islands, and fought in Italy, and southern France before being disbanded in December 1944. However, to the veterans of the Force, the film was historically inaccurate suggesting there was never an aspect of The Dirty Dozen.

The non-fiction book reads a little like fiction, fictional non-fiction or non-fictional fiction? Real characters are given dramas drawn against real events. I’m not sure if it is engrossing though but there is detail.

The film, heightening the books themes, is a war film with all the usual men on a mission war movie tropes: a group of no-good Army hardcases and criminals “volunteer” for a suicidal assignment as an alternative to stiff sentences; a tough commanding officer oversees a semi-comic training period during where the men settle their difference and learn to work together as a unit; as preparation the group completes a smaller mission of skill to show their ability; the final is the blood-soaked mission which costs lots of lives (with many of the second leads dying heroically) before victory; the enemy, the Germans, are faceless and disposed off quickly.

It is what it is, and it’s fun, moving between the action adventure and “war is hell” themes.

Andrew V McLaglen, son of John Ford regular Victor McLaglen, had worked himself up from assistant director (on John Wayne produced films in the 50s) to a good action director. He is actually much underrated. Some of his gentler films are dabbed with John Ford themes (including the occasionally clumsy but still wonderful Shenandoah (1965)) but the big action films, including this one, show he can handle big casts and big action sequences (it’s harder than it looks) – The Wild Geese (1978), North Sea Hijack (1979), Breakthrough (1979), The Sea Wolves (1980) … and he did the same in many westerns The Way West (1967), Bandolero (1968), John Wayne’s The Undefeated (1969) and Chisum (1970), The Last Hard Men (1976) and many others. Interestingly he directed The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission (1985) a televison sequesl to the 1967 film.

The screenplay was written by William Roberts who co-wrote men on a mission westerns The Magnificent Seven (1960) and Red Sun (1971) as well as take the objective war film The Bridge at Remagen (1969). All classics in their own ways.

Holden is perfect – he seems to be aged beyond his years (he seems much older than 49 though the age is about right) and his usual casual cynicism movie persona he had been using since the early 1950s is in keeping with 1968 moods. Second leads, Cliff Robertson and Vince Edwards (always underrated and coming out of the successful TV series Ben Casey (1961-1966) are both sturdy and with Andrew Prine, Jeremy Slate (always snarky, always good), Claude Akins, Richard Jaeckel (who was also in Dirty Dozen, and should have been a star), Luke Askew, and Harry Carey Jr. in supports how can you go wrong? And, just like Dirty Dozen where there are officer big wigs who drop in and out of the plot providing cameos for well known actors (Robert Ryan, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Webber, and a less famous at the time George Kennedy), here Michael Rennie, Dana Andrews, Patric Knowles, and James Craig do similar cameos of authority.

Trivia:

The cast of The Devil’s Brigade included NFL running back Paul Hornung and World Middleweight Champion boxer Gene Fullmer in minor roles. They can be seen in the barroom brawl sequence, Hornung as a belligerent lumberjack and Fullmer as the bartender. Legendary NFL American football fullback, Jim Brown was in Dirty Dozen (in a largish role) – must have been a thing to drop sports stars into films (even if Jim did go o to have a reasonable film career).

Interestingly producer Wolper had the Brigade wear striking but fictional red berets that appeared as well as on the film’s posters and on the tie-in paperback cover of Adelman and Walton’s book.

Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds (2009) features a character named Lt. Aldo Raine aka “Aldo the Apache” (in tribute to Aldo Ray) played by Brad Pitt who wears the Devil’s Brigade unit’s crossed arrows collar insignia and red arrowhead shoulder patch.

Watch the film … and perhaps, read the book if you want more back story.

LINKS

on set

TRAILER

The trailer seems to suggest that the action and adventure of peacetime are no comparison to war …

Posted in Non Fiction, War | Tagged | 2 Comments

THE BIG SHORT (2015)

Posted on July 16, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Adam McKay

SCREENWRITER: Charles Randolph, Adam McKay

FILM STARS: Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt, Marisa Tomei, Rafe Spall, Melissa Leo.

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Michael Lewis

TYPE: Non Fiction

PUBLISHER: Penguin

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 2015

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 2010

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The Big Short : Inside the Doomsday Machine

NOTES

GENRE: Drama

WORDS:

I haven’t read the book.

I have seen the film.

I should read the book.

The film was excellent. A great example about how to make interesting the potentially boring behind the scenes nuts and bolts that lead up to a non-violent historical event. The historical event here being financial crisis of 2007–08 which rocked the USA and reverberated around the world.

The Big Short describes several of the main players (names changed), who believed (against the grain and against prevailing wisdom) the housing (loans and mortgages) bubble in the USA was going to burst and became involved in the creation of a credit default swap market that sought to bet against the collateralized debt obligation bubble and thus ended up profiting from the financial crisis of 2007–08.

A crisis it was. Described in Wikipedia as a:

“severe worldwide economic crisis that occurred in the early 21st century. It was the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression (1929). Predatory lending targeting low-income homebuyers, excessive risk-taking by global financial institutions,[2] and the bursting of the United States housing bubble culminated in a “perfect storm”.

Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) tied to American real estate, as well as a vast web of derivatives linked to those MBS, collapsed in value. Financial institutions worldwide suffered severe damage, reaching a climax with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, and a subsequent international banking crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_financial_crisis

The book is accurately subtitled “Inside the Doomsday Machine”

I’m no financial genius and still use the old school jars method of running my finances – a jar for bills, a jar for loan repayments, a jar for living expenses, a jar for holidays etc (don’t come looking for jars … they are metaphorical for bank accounts) and I don’t move money around much or bet on outcomes but I could follow what was going on even with all the financial detail and jargon that need to be understood to know where the film is going. Purposefully, the film dumbed down the high (and low) finance for people like me with on-screen visuals and on-screen celebrity non-sequitur explanations to accompany the narrative which was great, and compelling, giving it a docudrama feel at times.

I expect that was part of its success, telling a true story, reasonably accurately (one of my big finance mates with 40 years under his belt who lived through the crisis, ta Greg, says the film was spot on). Who am I to argue?

Its skill, and there were three separate but concurrent stories, loosely connected by their actions that were followed in the years leading up to the 2007 housing market crash, is in keeping all the stories on track and having them build up and feed off each other to the cataclysmic event. And it’s quirky funny as you would expect from the director writer of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004), Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie (2004), Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006), Step Brothers (2008), The Other Guys (2010), Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013). With four big stars, Pitt, Bale, Carell and Gosling it was guaranteed good box office (and the book had been a best seller also – 28 weeks on The New York Times’ non-fiction bestseller list in 2010).

Modern films with their talky-ness (and appreciation that modern audiences are, perhaps more in tune) have captured the business and finance world more accurately that golden age cinema ever could and, perhaps, that’s why they didn’t deal with the micronomics but the people and the big picture … I also miss the emotion and moving pictures to tell a story (the “cinema”) of the old films (American Madness (1932), The Conquerors (1932), The Grapes of Wrath (1940), Executive Suite (1954), From the Terrace (1960) etc)

My only minor criticism with this film is that the central punter characters who gained wealth from the crisis are portrayed as white knight eccentrics who can see the system about to topple. This is the system they work in and had profited by and now stood to profit more (which they did) because they were particularly astute.  They aren’t saints, they just saw an opportunity. The film needs us to identify with them, hence their occasional put downs of big business. Maybe they were like that (maybe it’s in the book), but ultimately I thought it a little unnecessary. They saw an opportunity and took it … vulture like maybe but the real vultures were the big banks and finance houses, the corporate heads and the system itself which clearly lacked regulation.

The books author, Michael Lewis, is a well published financial journalist (with a degree in art history as well as economics). He seems to have the knack to dumb down complex financial money shenanigans and their human motivations into a fiction-like narrative. He did the same with in his book on American baseball finances, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game (2003), which was also made into a film, Moneyball (2011). Another worthwhile film to watch even if you have no interest in baseball, just like this film about banking and finance.

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Book Type, Drama, Non Fiction | Tagged | Leave a comment

BOBBY DEERFIELD (1977)

Posted on July 9, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Sydney Pollack

SCREENWRITER: Alvin Sargent

FILM STARS: Al Pacino, Marthe Keller, Anny Duperey, Walter McGinn, Romolo Valli, Stephan Meldegg, Jaime Sánchez, Norm Nielsen, Mickey Knox, Dorothy James, Guido Alberti

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Erich Maria Remarque

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Star

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1977

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1961

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: Heaven Has No Favourites (serialised as “Borrowed Life” in 1959 before appearing as a novel in 1961).

NOTES

GENRE: Drama

WORDS: I watched this many moons ago, back in the 80s. I was getting into Pacino films on television (and video) and convinced he couldn’t make a bad film. He went on to prove me wrong, a lot. But, Booby Deerfield, was the first piece of evidence. It was a nicely photographed awful film. Though, as has occasionally occurred, maybe I was too young ta appreciate it and I should watch I again. Naaahhhh.

Bobby Deerfield with Al Pacino is a hangover .. a contemplative late 60s film in flares and wide lapels. Pacino’s character is all brooding determination and alienation until he meets a girl …. who is dying. The film manages to combine two seminal, in their own way, 70s films … the racing film Le Mans (1971) and the romantic drama  Love Story (1970).

Like clockwork every generation will throw up a romantic drama with a race car race track backdrop with mood reflecting whatever is the zeitgeist of the time

For extra gravitas the films should be Formula One cars on the European circuit but they are not limited to that. Films like, The Crowd Roars (1932) with James Cagney and the depression era optimism power to overcome obstacles, The Racers (1955) with Kirk Douglas and the mid 50s you can’t have it all career, Grand Prix (1966) with James Garner, Winning (1969) with Paul Newman and Robert Wagner and Le Mans (1971) with Steve McQueen and their contemplative 60s heroes, Days of Thunder (1990) with Tom Cruise and its 1980s like gung ho optimism, Driven (2001) with Sylvester Stallone and its action for action sake with snips of faux emotion, and Rush (2013) with Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl and the need for realism amongst the racism.

Love Story is the (money making) peak of the doomed love (“terminal love”) films but it is not an uncommon romantic drama trope – Dark Victory (1939), Love Story (retitled “A Lady Surrenders”) (1944), Slow Dancing in the Big City (1978), Dying Young (1991), Griffin & Phoenix (2006).

Some Bobby Deerfield was clumsy and little hokey which is odd because both director Pollack and screenwriter Sargent specialised in “people’ stories (albeit slick American people stories). I don’t think they could get around the European-ess of the book. it may have been filmed in Europe but making Pacino’s character American was probably a mistake. But despite all this it made money … though I suspect that was on the back of Pacino whose career and popularity were riding a high.  Even if the mix of the racing and romance genres is popular the film is neither here nor there. You have to have a boot firmly placed in one of the other. And here, for a film about a Formula One champion race car driver there is relatively little racing whilst the the smell of the oil and screech of the tires get in the way of the romantic drama.

The bigger surprise is it was based on a book.

Based on Erich Maria Remarque’s 1961 novel “Heaven Has No Favorites” which is a much better title than the film title … there is no Bobby Deerfield in the book and he isn’t American. The racer is French (if I recall correctly) and he is simply known as Clerfayt. He meets a Belgian girl dying of tuberculosis at a Swiss sanatorium, and they fall in love.

Oddly, the novel bares a resemblance to a 1947 Barbara Stanwyck film The Other Love where she plays a seriously ill concert pianist Karen Duncan is admitted to a Swiss sanatorium (although it is never stated in the film it is hinted that she is suffering from tuberculosis). Despite being attracted to Dr Tony Stanton, she ignores his warnings of possibly fatal consequences unless she rests completely and opts for a livelier time in Monte Carlo with dashing racing car driver Paul Clermont.

I got this book because I like the author Remarque, though to be honest I have only read two of his other novels. His most well known “All Quiet on the Western Front” which is still powerful and still suitable subject matter for films, now three (the first is still the best). He was a contemplative writer and though most of his books dealt with war, or characters touched by war (perhaps not surprising for a German writer writing between the 1920s and 1970s) most are not action oriented but people oriented. Here the characters are living lives for the moment and a post war melancholia hangs over them (another problem with the film was updating it to 1976 you lose that mood). Racing is just a backdrop. Remarque reminds us that it is not only war that kills. Both the healthy and the ill fall in this novel and inevitably life takes us all. Hence, heaven has no favorites.

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Drama, Novel | Tagged | 2 Comments

TOM JONES (1963)

Posted on June 25, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Tony Richardson

SCREENWRITER: John Osborne

FILM STARS: Albert Finney, Susannah York, Hugh Griffith, Edith Evans, Joan Greenwood, Diane Cilento, George Devine, David Tomlinson, Rosalind Atkinson, Wilfrid Lawson, Jack MacGowran, David Warner, Lynn Redgrave, Julian Glover

COUNTRY: England

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Henry Fielding

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Signet

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1964

COUNTRY: USA

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Henry

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1749

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling

NOTES

GENRE: Adventure

WORDS: Henry Fielding’s novel may be a classic but I doubt if I’m going to read this. Pre 20th century fiction I read very selectively … Charles Dickens, Herman Melville, James Fenimore Cooper, H.G. Wells, Shakespeare (well, we were all forced to read Shakespeare at school, weren’t we?), Edgar Allen Poe, and a handful of others. And even then I came late to appreciate them. I was in Croatia for the better part of a year back in the 1990s. The place, at least along the coast where I was, lives for summer. The autumn and winter, have their vitality but the atmosphere of an abandoned  fairground permeates. And it was cold. I was stuck indoors. The television shows did not have enough variety and movies where infrequent (no cable back then). My spoken Croatian was fine, but my reading was too slow. What to do in the down time stuck indoors (no internet back then either) waiting for the winter drinking festivals and the eventual warmth of Spring? For the most part I was staying with an elderly Aunt who was wonderful. The oral history, stories and family anecdotes were as good as anything I could read but I couldn’t badger her all the time.  She was elderly. That leaves a lot of day to fill, even with walks, coffee shops, and general wandering. I had to read. And to avoid the struggle it had to be in English.  And, in any event reading a novel in English at some coffee shop in off season Croatian is nothing if not a conversation starter. Now, to find literature in English. Luckily, there was English literature to be found … all Penguin classics, and all pre 20th century. So, without choice (sometimes lack of choice is a blessing), I dove in, and never looked back … I read a good chunk of Dickens and James Fenimore Cooper, and loved them. This is the long way of saying I like pre 20th century literature, but, Fielding and his 18th century social satire may be a bridge too far.

The film I have seen and I’m surprised, given its Englishness,  that it was a success world wide, even in the US (where it also won Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay). I assume its satirical bawdiness (which the novel has as well (apparently)) is what made it popular … and one reason I watched the film and one reason I would think about reading the novel. One reason.

Tom Jones, the central character is slightly rakish or a rake with good intentions (a noble rake?) and the English did rakes well, and did many in the 60s … James Bond, Michael Caine’s Alfie (1966), Alan Bates’ Jimmy Brewster in Nothing But the Best (1964), Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty in Lolita (1962), Laurence Harvey’s Miles Brand in Darling (1965 ) and any number of Terry-Thomas and Leslie Phillips characters. But they are all contemporary characters and that is perhaps the appeal of Finney’s Tom Jones, his carrying on (it may as well be a Carry On film … oh, the sacrilege) like a likely lad in the 60s.

Albert Finney is perfect here. He has fun on his adventures, trying to clear his name, get ahead in life, and marry the right woman and there is a a certain nobility is his desire to succeed with his true love. The film I recall  was fun though long. Most noticeable I recall was the film broke the fourth wall, with characters addressing or looking at the camera which I hadn’t seen before, well not in period films.

The novel has been filmed  a number of times (films Tom Jones Rides Again (1971), The Bawdy Adventures of Tom Jones (1976), mini series The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (1997 ), and most recently as a TV series in 2023 with some of the lead characters blackwashed (totally ridiculous in a period piece in this social setting but that’s the world we live in …. I’m waiting for that social satire to be made).

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Adventure, Comedy / Satire, Novel | Tagged | Leave a comment

ZORBA THE GREEK (1964)

Posted on June 11, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Michael Cacoyannis

SCREENWRITER: Michael Cacoyannis

FILM STARS: Anthony Quinn, Alan Bates, Irene Papas, Lila Kedrova, Giorgos Foundas, Sotiris Moustakas, Anna Kyriakou, Eleni Anousaki, Yorgo Voyagis, Takis Emmanuel, George P. Cosmatos, Nikos Papadakis

COUNTRY: Greece

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Nikos Kazantzakis (Translated by Carl Wildman)

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Faber

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1969

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1946

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Drama

WORDS:  I have seen the film, many times, as a kid and as a teen, and I have read the book, only once, many years ago.

Despite the Greek setting, being the son of (coastal) Croatian parents, I thought, there was something I could relate to in the film.

Here in Australia, as a mid-teen I embarked on a mad scramble for to reaffirm the ethnicity of my childhood and do away with the “trying to fit in” awkward years.

It was a job easier said than done. Apart from the emotional hurdles and occasional jeers I knew I would get Croatians in popular culture were thin on the ground, even if there was a sizeable minority here in Australia.

Sure, there are famous Croats, but try finding film and literature from the “new world” that has any mention of Croatians. Talk about being marginalised and invisible. Where are our TV shows, movies, books, magazines and acknowledgement?  Sure, some will say well, you are white European. Yes, but saying that southern Europeans from the Mediterranean are the same as Swedes or Norwegians is a whole different form of racism (perhaps). We are all white but some are whiter than others. Olive lives matter as well. Right? Okay, I get it, the Slovakians, Czechs, Lithuanians or inhabitants of any small nations (especially the Slavic ones) could say the same, but you know … where was our time in the sun? Well, the Croats certainly have more exposure now but as a kid in the 70s and 80s that wasn’t the case. I know it’s a small country and race – about four million of them and about two to three million left over the last century but that is comparable to the Irish, and they are well represented in popular culture. History and time and place have (had) conspired against the Croats I suspect. The race was always part of another empire – we have been called Italians, Austrians, Hungarians and Yugoslavs, and our achievements have been labelled Italian, Austrian, Hungarian or Yugoslav … at least in the English speaking world.

End of rant.

I still needed something to relate to, so I had to look to the Italians and Italian film (especially), and then I found Zorba the Greek. Why?

It’s all the Mediterranean, right?

And, what’s more, people had mistaken me for Italian and Greek before and I was always lumped in with them when it came to racist remarks, whether they be good natured, casual or otherwise.

Close enough was good enough I thought.

I love Anthony Quinn, and did as a kid, and some of that love was because of this film. He is perfect (and he’s not Greek either though he had played one in The Guns of Navarone (1961)  …  he went on to play more Greeks in The Magus (1968), A Dream of Kings (1969), The Greek Tycoon (1978), Only the Lonely (1991), Onassis: The Richest Man in the World (1988) and even Zeus in the TV series Hercules: The Legendary Journeys in the 1990s)). I went out and found the soundtrack in an op shop (a staple in op shops) and would play it incessantly as it had bits of dialogue from the film between the music. I then tracked down the Broadway musical of Zorba, with Quinn, and then finally this book.

The book, I recall, is a good read but it is one where the film overshadows it and you read the novel with pictures of Quinn, Bates and Papas in black and white in your head with the music of Mikis Theodorakis as background. The film you remember while the highly regarded novel fleshes out the characters. Sorry bibliophiles. The film is, perhaps, the greatest of Greek films … even if it’s not it’s the one I enjoy the most. The rest I can take or leave.

But what is it about?

Well, the blog is about how I relate to the book or the film (whilst throwing up some movie tie-in cover art) … but, the loud, lusty, drinking, profane Zorba who’s not hesitant on giving politically incorrect but astute practical advice on life and the human condition reminded me of more than one relative and old Croatian (maybe it is, after all, a Mediterranean thing). Zorba is the heart but he is not the central character, a young Greek intellectual (English in the film) is, and he wishes to escape his bookish life with the aid of the boisterous and mysterious Alexis Zorba. Adventures follow …

The film is dominated by Quinn as Zorba and it is his interpretation that probably reinforced stereotypes in my head (Zorba’s advice isn’t always the best and there is cruelty which is sometimes missed by lovers of the film, just as some lovers of La Dolce Vita (1960) miss the point there also – neither are are great advertisements for the cultures they portray (Greek village island life, Italian big city life respectively) when you think about it) but they made me happy at the time.

And, it made many other people happy … the film was a huge hit when released.

TRIVIA

  • The famous traditional dance in the film, the Sirtaki, was created specifically for the film rather than a traditional form of dance. The dance is based on a traditional Cretan dance as well as two other Greek dances. It’s not the last time that a new dance was thought to be a traditional old one: the Irish Riverdance, traditional but not.
  • The underrated film director George P. Cosmatos, the underrated film director of films inclosing Massacre in Rome (1973), Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) and Tombstone (1993) has a small role as a young man.

LINKS

MUSIC

TRAILER

Posted in Drama, Novel | Tagged | Leave a comment

AGE OF CONSENT (1969)

Posted on June 4, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Michael Powell

SCREENWRITER: Peter Yeldham

FILM STARS: James Mason, Helen Mirren, Jack MacGowran, Neva Carr Glyn, Andonia Katsaros, Michael Boddy, Harold Hopkins, Slim De Grey, Max Meldrum, Frank Thring, Tommy Hanlon Jr., Clarissa Kaye, Judith McGrath

COUNTRY: Australia – Great Britain

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Norman Lindsay

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Humourbooks

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1968

COUNTRY: Australia (printed in Hong Kong)

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1938

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Drama – Comedy

WORDS: I haven’t read the book, or I think I may have read it a long time ago.

Australian Norman Lindsay was a painter who dabbled in literature, or perhaps he was a writer who dabbled in painting. His visual art is more remembered today that his literature. He belonged to that small and select group of upper middle class Bohemians in Australia which existed between the the early 1900s and the 1960s. Like many pre war Bohemians they looked back rather than forward, and to a place not remotely in their past … the European continent pre 1900. At the time Australia was largely an Anglo-Celtic nation with a smattering of minorities, and the minorities were definitely in the minority. With little “foreign” migration and no media (social or otherwise) Australian exposure to influence outside Great Britain and Ireland was limited. It is, perhaps, their pursuit of otherness or their desire to be different that attracted the Bohemians to the continent. This love of the continent, the old, the renaissance and its nudes, the Romans and their excesses that resulted in in a Lindsay and manifested itself in his art and writing which, not surprisingly, was “shocking” at the time.

The Wikipedia entry on him begins: “Norman Alfred William Lindsay (22 February 1879 – 21 November 1969) was an Australian artist, etcher, sculptor, writer, art critic, novelist, cartoonist and amateur boxer. One of the most prolific and popular Australian artists of his generation, Lindsay attracted both acclaim and controversy for his works, many of which infused the Australian landscape with erotic pagan elements and were deemed by his critics to be “anti-Christian, anti-social and degenerate”. A vocal nationalist, he became a regular artist for The Bulletin at the height of its cultural influence, and advanced staunchly anti-modernist views as a leading writer on Australian art.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lindsay

And that says it all … a man of talent and ambition not concerned with mainstream views.

I have a vague recollection of reading this book in High School though it is very vague. Maybe I skimmed it looking for salacious passages. I have an even vaguer recollection that his writing writing seems to be akin to a more cheery and happily ribald D.H. Lawrence. Lindsay’s Australian remoteness with it’s convict descendants, lower classes, and fortune hunters probably made him happier and looser than Lawrence in his the class structured English society. Though that is just an assumption. I’m sure there are Norman Lindsay experts out there who have read all his works. I defer to any of them.

Lindsay’s twin careers as novelist and painter / illustrator puts him in a good position to write this semi autobiographical (?) novel. Here is a novel about a struggling artist written about a struggling artist, and it is novel (sic) because the writer isn’t, as in most such novels, writing about his struggle as a writer but about his struggle as a painter.

Being a Queenslander the film has appeal for me, having been filmed in Brisbane and in North Queensland. But, the reason (as an adult) to watch it is for James Mason. Mason is, perhaps, one of the greatest of all English actors (well, I love him) and he nails it as the middle aged painter about to embark on a middle age crisis of sorts. He seems like he could have been a Bohemian painter, obsessed by his art rather than the subject … a million miles away from his other obsessed “older man” in Lolita (1962).

Of course the reason I watched the film as a teen many moons ago (and the reason people, apart from Michael Powell auteurists, watch it today) was because of the nudity. Everyone at the Catholic High Boys High School I was at knew there was full body (though no full frontal) nudity in the film. Maybe that’s why the book was well read as well though Lindsay’s self illustrated line drawings with it’s voluptuous curvy object of obsession in the novel didn’t imprint on the mind like the glorious colour streamlined tanned female of the film.

The nudity was supplied by 22 year old Helen Mirren (who made a career of on screen nudity for a while) but I didn’t know who she was at the time and, of course, no one knew who she was at the time of the film as it was one of her first film roles. She plays the Lindsay-ian nymph perfectly. She seems perfectly free and at ease with herself. It’s easy to assume that the world is a better place with a Helen Mirren in it. Special mention to Frank Thring as an art dealer in a bit (another Australian out of touch with the then Australia).

The book and the film seem to skate close to the line as you would expect, being a story about a job that turns into a “love” between an older man (40) and a much younger (18) woman ( errr ….. look at the title of the book and the film). The artist enamoured by the girls beauty but not sexually interested in her (initially) persuades her to pose nude. But she, Cora, is a child of nature, carer since age eight of her demented alcoholic grandmother, her mother long gone to the bright lights of Sydney. She is an innocent, not stupid, though not educated. She is struggling to escape her poverty and circumstance but she is very much the director of the action. Hmmmm. Despite our much espoused progressive promiscuity I’m not sure the book would be written or the film made today, or if they were, they would have a different outlook.

The film has been updated from the 1938 when the book was written to contemporary times (1960s) and it works. The middle age fantasy of of escaping to a remote sunlit part of the world, with uninhibited young people seemed also to tap into the late 1960s zeitgeist. The painters scandalous-ness would more likely survive in the 60s rather than in the 30s. Though, painters always seemed to get away with a bit more when dealing with all things sexual. It was the only occupation (until photography came along which was “spoilt” by pornographers) where you could have nude people standing in front of you for hours on end and you weren’t excluded from polite society. Maybe I should take up painting. Blogging has no nudity (well, apart from “couldn’t be bothered with clothes” attitude on the part of the blogger) and very little respect.

The late 60s saw a lot of mid-life crisis films. And they were fresh. The 30s had the depression and gangsters and the 40s had the war, so there was no time for personal crisis. The (more affluent) 50s had mid-life crisis appearing though it took the shape of men (inevitably) kicking against the norms of society but remaining within it (The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit (1956), Some Came Running (1958) – both books and films). By the time the (still affluent) 60s rolled around these (inevitably, again) middle aged men were now escaping from society and its conventions by either running off to something remote, or finding someone a lot younger to hang out with, or (as in here) both. They weren’t confronting society so much as retreating from it. Mason’s painter is cousin to Kirk Douglas’ wealthy ad man Eddie Anderson in the (great) The Arrangement (1969), Tony Curtis’ man goes to California Carlo Cofield in (the magnificent) Don’t Make Waves (1967), Peter Sellers attorney Arnold Fine in (the hilarious) I Love You, Alice B. Toklas (1968), or William Holden’s real estate man Frank Harmon in (the underrated) Breezy (1973). The trend of middle age men going troppo in beautiful locations would continue, though without the philosophy, in 10 (1979), and Blame It on Rio (1984).

The book sticks to the plot closely except the artist in the film is portrayed as a very successful painter who exhibits his abstract, modernist paintings in New York (which is very 1960s). The painter in the book is a Bohemian and poor painter struggling to make a living (which is very 1930s). Also, the location was changed from New South Wales south coast to the Barrier Reef (Dunk Island) in North Queensland. Interestingly Norman Lindsay hated modernism. It’s not know what he made of the film as he died in 1969, the year the film was released.

The film was a huge success in Australia as were most films made in Australia at the time … as there were so few made.

TRIVIA: James Mason met his 22 year younger future wife, Clarissa Kaye, on this film. She played the part of Meg, Bradley’s ex-girlfriend in Australia. They remained together until his death in 1984.

This was the first film husband and wife Ron and Valerie Taylor worked on. They did the underwater moving picture photography and became minor celebrities as shark experts and underwater photographers after working on films like Jaws (1975) and Orca (1977).

The novel was first published in 1938 (in New York), It was first published in Australia in 1962.

LINKS

PAGES

 

TRAILER

 

 

Posted in Book Type, Comedy / Satire, Drama, Novel | Tagged | 2 Comments

FIGHT CLUB (1999)

Posted on May 28, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: David Fincher

SCREENWRITER: Jim Uhls

FILM STARS: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter, Meat Loaf, Jared Leto, Holt McCallany, Zach Grenier, Eion Bailey, Peter Iacangelo, Thom Gossom Jr.

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Chuck Palahniuk

TYPE: Novel

PUBLISHER: Vintage

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1997

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1996

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Drama

WORDS: A lot of people love this film and I enjoyed it though only up to a point and with reservations. The world of the fight club (as established by the narrator) is a place where men can come together and fight, bare knuckle as a way of dealing with the modern world, releasing tension , exorcizing demons, as therapy or for any other reason.

Though there has to be a better way with dealing with the modern world the first half of the film is mildly intriguing, (spoilers ahead) but it dragged on and then when the big reveal came, and the characters of Brad Pitt and Edward Norton were one in the same, I was annoyed. I get it, the character has two personalities but why get two actors to play both sides unless you are just messing with the audience … just pissing around with our time. Well, that’s the way I look at it. At that point it may as well have been a fantasy and I lost interest of the narrative. To be fair the book does the same (apparently).

What was left to like, for me, were the performances of Pitt and Norton and the direction of David Fincher.

Fincher likes the controversial, and his films are well made though they tend to be a little solemn and one note. He tackles his material with a style that is in your face, though it is also quite clean. There are no ragged edges emotionally. It’s as if he thumps you repeatedly but then tends to your wounds. His films are at times visceral but they are very slick and controlled, a bit like watching Hitchcock, but without the suspense (or fun). It sounds like I don’t like his films, but I do. They are all watchable and when really good like Seven (1995), Panic Room (2002), Zodiac (2007), Gone Girl (2014) you can watch them again.

Edward Norton is always solid and could have played either character. He plays the whiny, the smug, the smart, the emotionally secure very well (and often) but he can play toughs like in American History X (1998) and the lonely, in the much underrated Down in the Valley (2005). Here he is is in his Dustin Hoffman mode, serious but vulnerable. Brad Pitt is a movie star who can act when he wants to. Here, he is not required to act but to just look cool and fight. He does it well, though not acting can lead to overacting. Pitt is convincing and comes off as a cross between a more talkative Steve McQueen in The Cincinnati Kid (1965) and a more talkative Charles Bronson in Hard Times (1975). In fact Fight Club’s bare knuckles fisticuffs resembles Walter Hill’s Hard Times quite a bit though with homoerotic overtones. I couldn’t see (the great) Walter Hill or (the great)  Charles Bronson being too happy with the Fight Club script. Amusingly, in the film, Pitts’s character is Tyler Durden, a soap salesman, and Bronson once said to Roger Ebert in an interview (April 07, 1974 ) about his acting “I’m only a product like a cake of soap, to be sold as well as possible”. Soap aside I’d back the American Lithuanian ex coal miner , GI turned actor Bronson over Brad in a fight. But, Brad is certainly cool.

But the problem, for me is the film which a little serious and solemn despite many dark humour inserts. It’s to nihilistic for me. And if I want a struggle between the ego and the id I’ll watch Forbidden Planet (1956) again.

Will I watch it again? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, though it’s fun watching the leads. Maybe. Don’t know.

The book I have not read and I’m not sure I will. By all accounts the film is reasonably faithful to the book (in theme if not in narrative) but I cant buy into the film’s emphasis on masculinity (of this type), and rejection of self-care through fight clubs which is meant to be an attack on consumerism and materialism. Sure the modern world sucks and we want to tap into the real, the visceral, the primitive. My advice, get back to the earth, find some dirt, get a hoe, dig and plant a vegetable patch, maybe raise a few chickens. It would be much more satisfactory but a lot less cool and unlikely to be made into a movie. Well, not nowadays, though in the early 70s the back to the earth solution was the solution in book, film and life to the excesses of the modern world.

So why is this book here? Because I picked it up for .50c at an op shop … no one said this blog was about books and films I like … just about films and and their associated tie in books, seen or unseen, read or unread.

LINKS

TRAILER

 

Posted in Drama, Novel | Tagged | 3 Comments

KING SOLOMON’S MINES (1950)

Posted on May 21, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Compton Bennett and Andrew Marton

SCREENWRITER: Helen Deutsch

FILM STARS: Deborah Kerr, Stewart Granger, Richard Carlson, Hugo Haas, Lowell Gilmore, Kimursi, Siriaque, Sekaryongo, Baziga, Munto Anampio, John Banner

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Jean Francis Webb

TYPE: Novelisation

PUBLISHER: Dell

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1950

COUNTRY: USA

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: H. Rider Haggard

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1885

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Adventure

WORDS: H. Rider Haggard’s original novel may be (would be) criticized (by contemporary readers, if any) for its imperialism, colonialism, depiction of African natives and general disregard for the flora and fauna of the “unexplored” Africa where the book is set.

It was written in 1885.

Having said all that by 1885 standards the book is quite progressive. It’s protagonist, Allan Quatermain, is a private adventurer who chooses to live in Africa rather than visit and exploit it, so the colonialism and imperialism are muted. Likewise he is aware of his negative impact (as a hunter and trader) on the wild free places of Africa he loves so he is a primitive (very primitive) environmentalist. And Rider Haggard’s depiction of native African’s which vary from “barbarous” to “civilized” may not pass today’s tests but his standard for who is who isn’t the norm of the time. There are the usual “noble savages” but there are acknowledgements to their culture and, even, interracial romances.

It is one of the first English adventure novels set in Africa and is considered to be one of the first in the lost world literary genre (Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King (1888), Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World (1912), Edgar Rice Burroughs’ The Land That Time Forgot (1918), James Hilton’s Lost Horizon (1933) etc ). There were enough unexplored parts of Africa (and South America and Asia) for literature to assume there were “lost worlds” where anything could exist … civilisations, dinosaurs, exotic flora and fauna.

It is what it is and is a fun read though I tended to “Tarzan” novels to get my African excitement as a kid.

The book was very popular and was a natural to be adapted into film (and many versions have been made). This 1950 version is the best known (and the best version). It is big budget (big MGM budget which means bigger than normal), in colour, filmed on location (in Africa with real African’s in roles, though also in New Mexico and in Hollywood naturally enough), with a script that ditches most of the asides and observations on whites and blacks in Africa and sticks to the adventure narrative. It also introduces a central female character, not in the book, for the romance amongst the flora and fauna. You have to make it palpable for 1950s audiences and they did. Amongst the modernisms in characters there are always, in these sorts of films at the time, animals getting in the way and getting killed. I was never sure why they just could go around them.

It’s not all that common to novelise a film that was based on a novel but there are enough differences for someone to think a novelisation is warranted which is here described as “fictionalised” by Jean Francis Webb on title page and inside as “H. Rider Haggard’s King Solomon’s Mines – retold version by Jean Francis Webb, 1950”. This version gets rid of the 19th century English prose, focusses on the action and throws in some local colour. In reads like a short, punchy 1950s action pulp, which is what it is. And, in it’s own way it is fascinating.

The film propelled English actor Stewart Granger to American stardom (he was already a star in England) and further encouraged (well he was also in North to Alaska (1960 )and Scaramouche (1953) which I had seen and loved) my search to find and watch all of his films. Stewart Granger (yes I have to mention it … his real name was James Stewart but he had to change it for obvious reasons) was born for these roles. He is the natural heir to Errol Flynn (who apparently turned down this role) though he had some Cary Grant in him and he also made some tough westerns (The Last Hunt (1956), Gun Glory (1957)). His time in the sun lasted till about 1960 and then he headed off to Europe to make action, war, and German westerns (as Old Surehand), quite a few in Yugoslavia, before winding down, but not stopping, his career in the 70s.

As the female lead Deborah Kerr does what is required … get into danger, though she more feisty than the normal woman is distress. She was, like Granger, already a star in England but was also quite well known in the US but this film, likewise, boosted her career.

Richard Carlson, now remembered for his leads in some great 50s sci fi films seems to play the other guy or third lead a lot in bigger films and does so here.

It’s a hoot of a film. Especially if you are a kid watching it on television on a weekend in the 70s. It’s an entertainment, and perhaps, a bit more thoughtful than most (its been a while since I saw it last). Not everything has to have an agenda and any agenda would probably get in the way of the entertainment to a teenaged boy. To this end MGM turned up the interest in some characters, downplayed others and never lost site of the action and adventure. It’s not rough around the edges. It’s gloss. Even the animals look like rehearsed Hollywood bit players. MGM knew what they were doing, and accordingly the film was that big a hit. it was the second highest grossing film of the year in the US (Samson and Delilah released in very late 1949 was the highest grossing film of 1950)

Trivia notes: the film was written by Helen Deutsch. Yes female screenwriters existed in old misogynist Hollywood. And, eagle eyes will spot John Banner as an extra. Banner later achieved fame to millions of kids around the world as Sergeant Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes (1965–1971).

LINKS

TRAILER

Posted in Adventure, Novelization | Tagged | Leave a comment

BATMAN (1989)

Posted on May 7, 2023 by velebit2

THE FILM

FILM DIRECTOR: Tim Burton

SCREENWRITER: Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren

FILM STARS: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle, Billy Dee Williams, Michael Gough, Jack Palance, Jerry Hall, Tracey Walter, Lee Wallace

COUNTRY: USA

THIS BOOK

AUTHOR: Craig Shaw Gardner

TYPE: Novelisation

PUBLISHER: Futura

THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1989

COUNTRY: Great Britain

COVER: Paperback

THE ORIGINAL BOOK

ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above (based on the DC Comics character of the same name, created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger in 1939)

YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1989

ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title

NOTES

GENRE: Sci Fi

WORDS: Ever now and then I just have to load something up I don’t care about, movie or book. In this case it’s a throwaway novelisation on the first of the Batman reboot films. It’s hard to get excited about superhero films, and what little excitement I had has been dissipated by the bad taste left in my mouth after the superhero film deluge that followed.

Superman The Movie (1978) kicked off the new era of superhero movies, or at least superhero films with a budget. But, in pre CGI days, the films were hard work an intensive and so,. relatively few followed. This Batman from 1989 was one , and it was a big hit. I,  like every other person of my generation, grew up watching the 1960s TV show, with Adam West as Batman, on reruns in the 1970s. What was there not to like? It was fun, hokey and filled with great guest stars (and it was a little subversive aimed at adults as well as kids (teens) at times). The show was a hit and , inevitably, a film followed, Batman (1966). It was hokey ,tongue in cheek fun … how can’t it be with Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin all overacting on purpose as the three criminals. Not having seen the 1940s serials (with Lewis Wilson (1943) and Robert Lowery (1949) as Batman respectively), back then, this is the Batman I recall. Loud 60s colour and very tongue in cheek

But, inevitably, audiences grow up and they can’t be seen to like the simple things they did as youths. They have to make everything serious. With that mindset came this Batman (and they also ruined the simplicity of Star Wars, Tron, Battlestar Galactica,  and many other films with their updating and strained seriousness). Luckily, despite Michael Keaton being square jawed and heroic, and the film noir landscapes being dark and, errr, film noir-ish, the Joker, played by Jack Nicholson, had dark humour amongst his nastiness. The film straddled the original comic book, which wasn’t dark but was serious, and the 60s TV show which bordered on goofy respectful parody. The subsequent films in the first series with George Clooney and Val Kilmer as Batman leaned one way or the other, but only slightly, from that path laid down in this film.

Sacrilege for some coming … Christopher Nolan destroyed the rest for me. OK, the Batman (Dark Knight) reboot by Nolan with Christian Bale as Batman  was based on the dark Frank Miller graphic novels but ho hum …. FFS it’s a bloke in a cape. How serious can we get about a bloke in a cape in contemporary times? Pretty serious apparently. And it seems that’s the way it’s been travelling ever since with Ben Affleck and Robert Pattinson.

So be it. I won’t have to waste time analysing this much more. This is one little black duck who won’t try to intellectualise a story about a man in a cape who catches bad guys.

This first film is still perhaps the best. The refreshing performances (Michael Keaton cast as Batman was a bit out of left field … and he does well), lack of CGI, funny and smart asides and in joke references make it a winner. Do I have to watch it again? No, but I might. Do, I have to read the novelisation. Probably not.

Author, Craig Shaw Gardener wrote a lot of original fantasy novels and paid the bills (I suspect) with novelisations  … The Lost Boys (1987), Back to the Future Part II (1989), Back to the Future Part III (1990), Batman Returns (with Sam Hamm and Daniel Waters) (1992) and non-film novels based on licensed properties like Batman, Spider-Man, Buffy, Angel and Battlestar Galactica.

You gotta eat.

Scenes from the film in the book

LINKS

TRAILER

The Batman main title them by Danny Elfman

Posted in Novelization, Science Fiction | 2 Comments