I had just completed a contract at MGM and was about to return home. The director I had worked with said, “If you would like another job here, just let me know and I will speak to the studio about a new contract.” I thanked him and came home. About six months later I wired my director friend that I would like another job. Shortly after that I received a letter from my Hollywood agent enclosing my first week's paycheck. I was surprised because I had expected first to get an official notice or recall and a contract from the studio. I thought to myself, the contract is delayed and will arrive in the next mail. Instead, a week later I got another letter from the agent, enclosing my second week's paycheck. That began in November 1932 and continued until May 1933. Then I received a telegram from the studio. It said: “William Faulkner, Oxford, Miss. Where are you? MGM Studio.”
I arrived at Mr. Browning's hotel about six p.m. and reported to him. A party was going on. He told me to get a good night's sleep and be ready for an early start in the morning. I asked him about the story. He said, “Oh, yes. Go to room so-and-so. That's the continuity writer. He'll tell you what the story is.”
I went to the room as directed. The continuity writer was sitting in there alone. I told him who I was and asked him about the story. He said, “When you have written the dialogue I'll let you see the story.” I went back to Browning's room and told him what had happened. “Go back,” he said, “and tell that so-and-so—. Never mind, you get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start in the morning.”
So the next morning in a very smart rented launch all of us except the continuity writer sailed down to Grand Isle, about a hundred miles away, where the picture was to be shot, reaching there just in time to eat lunch and have time to run the hundred miles back to New Orleans before dark.
That went on for three weeks. Now and then I would worry a little about the story, but Browning always said, “Stop worrying. Get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start tomorrow morning.”
One evening on our return I had barely entered my room when the telephone rang. It was Browning. He told me to come to his room at once. I did so. He had a telegram. It said: “Faulkner is fired. MGM Studio.” “Don't worry,” Browning said. “I'll call that so-and-so up this minute and not only make him put you back on the payroll but send you a written apology.” There was a knock on the door. It was a page with another telegram. This one said: “Browning is fired. MGM Studio.” So I came back home. I presume Browning went somewhere too. I imagine that continuity writer is still sitting in a room somewhere with his weekly salary check clutched tightly in his hand.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
The Hunger Games (2012)
Plot: Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.
Well-acted but dull action movie. Seemed like a dumbed-down version of "Battle Royale" and reminded me somewhat of the "Truman Show". The movie seems targeted to teen-age girls and not being one may explain my negative reaction.
Well-acted but dull action movie. Seemed like a dumbed-down version of "Battle Royale" and reminded me somewhat of the "Truman Show". The movie seems targeted to teen-age girls and not being one may explain my negative reaction.
Tree of Life (2011) - Malick
Plot: An impressionist history of a Texas Family in the mid 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through childhood and his complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt).
Pros: Photography, acting, heartfelt family scenes
Cons: Uneven, too long, Dinosaurs and Brahms, often pretentious
The average movie-goer hates Terry Malick movies with good reason, they're deliberately paced with minimal dialogue and plot and include long, lingering shots of nature. And pretentious movie snobs love them.
And guess what? "Tree of Life" has exactly the same attributes along with a silly 2001-esqe "Creation and Evolution^^" segment - complete with Dinosaurs and Brahms. And yet I didn't hate it, I actually liked a lot of it. Its well-acted and the family scenes (from Malick's boyhood?) ring true and are often touching and beautiful. And the characters seem real and likable (unlike those in "Days of Heaven" or "Badlands"). Plus, I appreciate that Malick is doing something different from the usual phony Hollywood drama.
People have compared it to Kubrick's "2001", which is unjust to Malick. "Tree of Life" may be pretentious but its trying to say something about real people in real life while "2001" was simply another soulless Kubrick entertainment, full of 'sound and fury' signifying nothing.
Summary: Not for the average movie-goer. If you're looking for action, excitement, or even a story, you'll hate this movie. If you want something different or liked Malick's previous movies, you'll like this one. I liked it mostly - but please Terry, no more dinosaurs. Rating ***
^^ = but no men in ape suits, thank goodness.
Pros: Photography, acting, heartfelt family scenes
Cons: Uneven, too long, Dinosaurs and Brahms, often pretentious
The average movie-goer hates Terry Malick movies with good reason, they're deliberately paced with minimal dialogue and plot and include long, lingering shots of nature. And pretentious movie snobs love them.
And guess what? "Tree of Life" has exactly the same attributes along with a silly 2001-esqe "Creation and Evolution^^" segment - complete with Dinosaurs and Brahms. And yet I didn't hate it, I actually liked a lot of it. Its well-acted and the family scenes (from Malick's boyhood?) ring true and are often touching and beautiful. And the characters seem real and likable (unlike those in "Days of Heaven" or "Badlands"). Plus, I appreciate that Malick is doing something different from the usual phony Hollywood drama.
People have compared it to Kubrick's "2001", which is unjust to Malick. "Tree of Life" may be pretentious but its trying to say something about real people in real life while "2001" was simply another soulless Kubrick entertainment, full of 'sound and fury' signifying nothing.
Summary: Not for the average movie-goer. If you're looking for action, excitement, or even a story, you'll hate this movie. If you want something different or liked Malick's previous movies, you'll like this one. I liked it mostly - but please Terry, no more dinosaurs. Rating ***
^^ = but no men in ape suits, thank goodness.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
The Hanging Tree (1959)
Plot: Gary Cooper plays a frontier doctor with a dark past in a rough Montana mining town. When Cooper treats an injured Swiss Girl (Maria Schell), he falls in love with her. Karl Malden (Frenchy) is Schell’s unscrupulous partner. George C. Scott is the town’s crazy preacher.
Forgotten after its 1959 release, "The Hanging Tree" is considered an "undiscovered Gem" by some but not by me. While labeled a "Western" its actually a costume drama, full of "dark" characters behaving in odd and often despicable ways. I not only disliked the characters, I found them - and the town - unbelievable and historically inaccurate. Nobody in the Old West behaved this way. Nor do I consider the movie well acted. Malden wears an absurd hat and overacts shamelessly, Cooper is dull and stone-faced, and Schell is a cipher. As for the "Romance", it's hard to know what was more creepy, Frenchy's lust or 60 year-old Cooper's obsessive "love".
Summary: I found the "The Hanging Tree" even darker and weirder than "Man of the West." - and that's not a recommendation. Rating **
Forgotten after its 1959 release, "The Hanging Tree" is considered an "undiscovered Gem" by some but not by me. While labeled a "Western" its actually a costume drama, full of "dark" characters behaving in odd and often despicable ways. I not only disliked the characters, I found them - and the town - unbelievable and historically inaccurate. Nobody in the Old West behaved this way. Nor do I consider the movie well acted. Malden wears an absurd hat and overacts shamelessly, Cooper is dull and stone-faced, and Schell is a cipher. As for the "Romance", it's hard to know what was more creepy, Frenchy's lust or 60 year-old Cooper's obsessive "love".
Summary: I found the "The Hanging Tree" even darker and weirder than "Man of the West." - and that's not a recommendation. Rating **
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Marnie (1964)
Hitchcock's "Marnie" is at once a fascinating study of a sexual relationship and the master's most disappointing film in years.
Certainly the material is there. In his ladylike heroine, who changes her hairdo every time she cracks a safe, Mr. Hitchcock has as provocative a character as he has ever created. When Sean Connery, playing a singularly open-minded employer, catches the angelic Tippi Hedren with a suitcase full of company funds, he is naturally surprised -- and interested.
Certainly the material is there. In his ladylike heroine, who changes her hairdo every time she cracks a safe, Mr. Hitchcock has as provocative a character as he has ever created. When Sean Connery, playing a singularly open-minded employer, catches the angelic Tippi Hedren with a suitcase full of company funds, he is naturally surprised -- and interested.
This Hitchcockian relationship, explored in sumptuous color, is reminiscent of such memorably maladjusted lovers as Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious" or James Stewart and Grace Kelly in "Rear Window." And there's the rub.
Hitchcock has taken a pair of attractive and promising young players, Miss Hedren and Mr. Connery, and forced them into roles that cry for the talents of Grace Kelly and Cary Grant. Both work commendably and well -- but their inexperience shows.
Why, one wonders, did the most reliable of the "big star" directors -- a man whose least consequential stories have always had the benefit of the most illustrious players -- choose relative newcomers for such demanding assignments? Economy, perhaps? If so, Mr. Hitchcock must plead guilty to pound foolishness, for "Marnie" is a clear miss.
Nor is the casting -- which extends to astonishingly inadequate acting in subordinate roles -- its only problem. For once, the best technician in the business has faltered where he has always been strongest -- in his style. Not only is "Marnie" burdened with the most glaringly fake cardboard backdrops since Salvador Dali designed the dream sequences for "Spellbound," but the timing of key suspense scenes is sadly askew. Mr. Hitchcock has always been a trickster, but sleight of hand is spoiled when the magician lets the trickery show.
Curiously he has also settled for an inexplicably amateurish script, which reduces this potent material to instant psychiatry -- complete with a flashback "explanation scene" harking back to vintage Joan Crawford and enough character exposition to stagger the most dedicated genealogist. Poor Diane Baker, gratuitously inserted as a mystifying "menace," does nothing more than enunciate imitation Jean Kerr witticisms ("I'm queer for liars") while swirling about in Hollywood hostess gowns. At one point, just to make sure no one misunderstands Marnie's problem, the script provides the title of her lover's bedside reading matter -- "Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female." Get it?
A strong suspicion arises that Mr. Hitchcock is taking himself too seriously -- perhaps the result of listening to too many esoteric admirers. Granted that it's still Hitchcock -- and that's a lot -- dispensing with the best in acting, writing and even technique is sheer indulgence. When a director decides he's so gifted that all he needs is himself, he'd better watch out.
Why, one wonders, did the most reliable of the "big star" directors -- a man whose least consequential stories have always had the benefit of the most illustrious players -- choose relative newcomers for such demanding assignments? Economy, perhaps? If so, Mr. Hitchcock must plead guilty to pound foolishness, for "Marnie" is a clear miss.
Nor is the casting -- which extends to astonishingly inadequate acting in subordinate roles -- its only problem. For once, the best technician in the business has faltered where he has always been strongest -- in his style. Not only is "Marnie" burdened with the most glaringly fake cardboard backdrops since Salvador Dali designed the dream sequences for "Spellbound," but the timing of key suspense scenes is sadly askew. Mr. Hitchcock has always been a trickster, but sleight of hand is spoiled when the magician lets the trickery show.
Curiously he has also settled for an inexplicably amateurish script, which reduces this potent material to instant psychiatry -- complete with a flashback "explanation scene" harking back to vintage Joan Crawford and enough character exposition to stagger the most dedicated genealogist. Poor Diane Baker, gratuitously inserted as a mystifying "menace," does nothing more than enunciate imitation Jean Kerr witticisms ("I'm queer for liars") while swirling about in Hollywood hostess gowns. At one point, just to make sure no one misunderstands Marnie's problem, the script provides the title of her lover's bedside reading matter -- "Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female." Get it?
A strong suspicion arises that Mr. Hitchcock is taking himself too seriously -- perhaps the result of listening to too many esoteric admirers. Granted that it's still Hitchcock -- and that's a lot -- dispensing with the best in acting, writing and even technique is sheer indulgence. When a director decides he's so gifted that all he needs is himself, he'd better watch out.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Hitchcock Box office 1940-1970 (millions $; adjusted for inflation)
The monster Hits:
Not bad - considering
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Psycho (1960) | $389 Million |
| Rear Window (1954) | 373 Million |
| Spellbound (1945) | 251 Million |
| Notorious (1946) | 240 Million |
| North by Northwest (1959) | 196 Million |
| Rebecca (1940) | 188 Million |
| To Catch A Thief (1955) | 133 Million |
| Dial M for Murder (1954) | 133 Million |
| The Man Who Knew (1956) | 130 Million |
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Suspicion (1941) | $119 Million |
| Torn Curtain (1966) | 104 Million |
| The Paradine Case (1948) | 104 Million |
| The Birds (1963) | 103 Million |
| Rope (1948) | 96 Million |
| Vertigo (1958) | 93 Million |
| Foreign Correspondent | 89 Million |
Not bad - considering
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Saboteur (1942) | $76 Million |
| Shadow of Doubt (1942) | 70 Million |
| Lifeboat (1944) | 65 Million |
| Strangers on a Train (1951) | 63 Million |
| Under Capicorn (1949) | 61 Million |
| I Confess (1953) | 58 Million |
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Marnie (1964) | $51 Million |
| Topaz (1969) | $47 Million |
| The Trouble with Harry (1958) | $41 Million |
| Stage Fright (1951) | $32 Million |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)