The Breaking Point (1950) -Curtiz

Plot:  Based on Hemingway's To Have and Have Not.  A struggling small boat owner gets involved in smuggling and bank robbery.
Stars:  John Garfield, Patricia Neal
Best Quote:
Harry: Where can I find Harrigan?
Leona: I don't know.
Harry: Where did you meet him?
Leona: Sunday school.

Do you love John Garfield? If so, you might like the Breaking Point, because he's in almost every second of this 97 minute crime-drama.  And maybe an overwhelming love for John Garfield explains all the over-the-top critical praise, because its  no more than an uneven, pleasant re-telling of Hemingway's worst novel.

What I liked.

•  Excellent 15 minute bank robbery/escape action 
•  Some clever banter between Neal and Garfield.
•  Good photography and set design, considering the low budget.
•  Garfield & Phyllis Thaxter do well in dramatic scenes.
•  Nice closing shot of the mate's boy on the dock.

What I didn't like.  

• Neal sports an awful blond wig and is badly photographed.  Plus Neal's obsession with Garfield is puzzling since he's broke, married, and treats her badly.
• Too much domestic drama that went nowhere.  The middle third is talky and sluggish. 
• Garfield unbelievable as a "tough guy" or a former PT Boat Captain. I kept wishing Kirk Douglas/Mitchum would show up. Garfield was an excellent actor, but 12 other stars had more charisma. 
•  Wallace Ford  was too bland as the sleazy lawyer. Where's Thomas Gomez when you need him?
• Finally, the robbers escape plan by boat was nonsense.  Coast Guard planes had radar that could easily locate Garfield's boat whether at night or "on the other side of Catalina Island". 

 Novel vs. Movie
In the book, Harry Morgan is not a nice guy. He's a poor Key West boat operator who turns to crime/smuggling to make a living.  He's also a  ruthless killer - and dies after trying to murder the Cuban Revolutionaries and steal their loot. The movie makes Harry Morgan into a good guy  - a family man and former PT Boat Captain based in Newport CA - forced to smuggle to keep his boat and killing only in self-defense.  Yeah, he gets involved in a bank robbery - but he plans to capture/kill the robbers. The movie also adds the Patricia Neal character - and of course, Hollywood stars don't die at the end.

The changes pretty much gut the point of the novel. Its hard to think about "Haves" vs "Have Not's" when Garfield has a nice Newport home and only runs a boat because he doesn't want to manage a farm.

The Unusual Ending
Like Key Largo, this film has crooks on a boat who intend to kill the Captain once they arrive at their destination.  Like Key Largo, the Captain pulls an undiscovered gun, is wounded, but kills all the criminals. At this point, the two films diverge. In KL, Bogart radios for help and we fade out - the end. Breaking Point goes on for another seven minutes. We see the boat adrift, see the Coast Guard find it and bring it to the dock.  Then Thaxter goes on board and convinces Garfield to allow his arm to amputated. After everyone's left, we see only one figure on the dock - the small son of the murdered Mate. Its a touching end, but I'm not sure its worth the extra seven minutes.

Keeper of the Flame (1943) - Cukor

Plot:  When national hero Robert Forrester dies in an unusual auto accident, his widow is secretive and reluctant to talk. A famous reporter wants to know why.
Stars:  Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Richard Whorf
Alternate Title:  "I was Married to a Fascist Monster from Outer Space."

Shot on MGM sound-stages,  a thriller with no thrills,  Keeper is the dullest of the Tracy-Hepburn collaborations, and was a disappointment to everyone involved. Director Cukor called it a "wax-work" with a "Fraudulent plot", Communist writer Donald Stewart - upset at screenplay revisions - labeled it "Tedious", and Hepburn later called it a "bore" - and one of her worst performances.  And Tracy? He never said a word about it. Surprisingly, it did OK Box-office, due to Tracy-Hepburn star power.

So What Went Wrong?
Plenty.  It starts slow, has a boring talky middle, and a rushed ending. The score is mediocre, and Cukor is no Alfred Hitchcock. The long, dull, set-up takes Tracy 30 minutes to meet Hepburn. After that, we get 60 minutes of blah, blah between Tracy, a wooden Hepburn, and some  less relevant characters.  Slowly, too slowly, Tracy discovers Hepburn is responsible for her husband's auto accident and confronts her.

A Nosy Wife Saves America
Hepburn then gives us 8 minutes of exposition- telling us why she killed him. Y'see Forrester had a locked "Secret Cabinet" - and like any good wife - Hepburn had to know what's in it. So she stole his keys - and to her horror - discovered his monstrous plan for FASCISM in AMERICA!  As described by Hepburn, the not-too-believable secret plan seems to have been:

1. Get Money and Create Lists of People
2. ????
3. Fascist Dictatorship

Of course, having discovered this, Hepburn had only one choice - murder. Tracy agrees - after all Communism he could understand, but Fascism? That's beyond the pale.

The Rushed Ending
We than get about 7 minutes of action - wrapping up all the loose ends.  Forrester's henchman has been eavesdropping - angered - he shoots/kills Hepburn, fails to kill Tracy, and then is run over by a carload of speeding reporters. Really.  Tracy then writes the story - portraying Mrs Forrester as a "Great American Heroine". The End.

Is it all Bad?
No.  The B&W cinematography is very good, plus Tracy gives his usual solid performance.  And special shout-out to two minor supporting characters.  Forrest Tucker, is quite good as the menacing cousin who tells Tracy to "leave the widow alone."  And then there's Margaret Wycherly - better known as "Ma Jarrett" - who's fantastic as Forrester's crazy mother.

Summary:  One of the dullest Hepburn movies, with one of her worst performances - its more interesting to write about then watch. But Hepburn/Tracy completists may enjoy it.

Missouri Breaks (1976) - Penn

Plot: A wealthy  rancher hires an infamous "regulator" (Brando) to kill a gang of horse thieves, including the leader (Jack Nicholson) who's involved with his daughter.
Stars:  Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson

Why Brando Took the Role
Money - Brando took almost every role in the 1970's for money. $1.5 million plus 10 percent of the gross - for five weeks work.  Brando made more than Nicholson and did less work.  Which pleased him to no end.  The Producers were able to get Jack and Arthur Penn by falsely claiming they'd already signed Brando.

Brando's Performance
Although Co-billed with Nicholson, Brando plays the supporting role - he doesn't appear till the 30 minute mark.  Finding his character dull - Brando improvised and made him an eccentric Irish dandy, who wears disguises (including a dress), kisses his horse, and kills from long-range.  In 1976, critics hated it - adjectives like "Camp"and "Out-of Control." were used. Stanley Kaufman thundered:  "If Brando hates acting so much, why doesn't he quit?" while another described Brando's performance as "part Irish Rod Stieger, part Tallulah Bankhead." (actually, me).

I find Brando's acting weird but interesting. He spices up a dull movie. However, the Nicholson vs. Brando clash is disappointing.  They have only 4 scenes together, and only one good one. In the movie's best scene, Brando threatens Nicholson in his garden in an extremely menacing, yet subtle way. Too bad there weren't more like it. Rating *** stars

The Movie
A critical and Box office failure, the only reason to see The Missouri Breaks is Brando's bizarre performance. Otherwise, its a mediocre, mean-spirited, revisionist Western. Our "Hero" is a train robber and horse thief, the plot is all over the place, and its completely unrealistic. Shooting began with an unfinished script - and it shows. Everyone behaves like its 1975, not 1875, including our Vassar College heroine.

As for the love affair, Nicholson couldn't stand the lead actress. He supposedly said  "How, the hell can I have sex with her? I don't even like her!" - and they have zero chemistry. But least you think its "stuffy" - we get lots of:  cowboys trudging through the mud, outhouses, fat whores, and men killed while urinating and fornicating. On the plus side, Nicholson gives a nice, subdued performance. Rating **

The Conformist (1970) - Bertolucci

Plot: Story of a weak willed man, an Italian fascist spy/assassin sent to Paris to kill his former professor.

What I liked: Great cinematography and production design. Well cast actors who looked the part. An interesting situation and thoughtful comment on the nature of political conformism. Except for a few scenes, the movie held my interest.

What I didn't Like:  Many scenes have a fantasy or cartoonish quality to them. The killing of the professor in particular was surreal. Further, "the conformists" motivation is sensationalist and simplistic. His mother is a drug addict, his father was mentally ill, and he's a repressed homosexual traumatized by a childhood assault! The story is too literal and substitutes "eye-candy" for psychological realism. Finally, the cat-and-mouse game with the professor was nonsensical and lacked tension. Why would the Left-wing professor be so chummy with a Fascist spy?

Note: Surprisingly, the film is still highly rated by critics, despite its demeaning view of Homosexuality and portraying every woman as a shrew, slut, or stupid!

Lord of Flies (1963)

Plot:  Based on the Golding novel.  A group of English school boys are shipwrecked on a Desert island and things go badly.
Stars:  None - just obscure child actors.

Another mediocre movie based on a great novel. It hits all the plot points -but has undeveloped characters. Unlike the novel, the film can't describe the boys unspoken emotions/motivations - so everything is external/distant. And the direction/beautiful island photography makes it seem - at times - more like a jolly survival tale than a descent into barbarism.

Summary:  Its not bad, but there's no reason to see it.  Just read the book.  

Blast of Silence (1961)

Plot: A hardboiled hit-man comes to New York City on business.
Pros: Swift, short (76 minutes), poetic narration, stylish, shots of 60s NYC.
Cons: Low budget, standard film-noir story,. underdeveloped characters

An effective little film noir with a great feel for 1960 NYC. Baron does a “Breeson” -i.e. the lead character (Baron himself) narrates the whole story and is every scene. Also good is an oddball character called “Ralph the Rat”. The movie is fast paced and has some stunning shots of NYC. One highlight is the ending 5 minutes – no dialogue just action. Flaws, the movie is extremely low budget and only has 2-3 significant supporting actors. The bleak story is predictable but well done.

Summary - A neat little film noir thriller. Rating ***

Alfie (1966)

Plot:  Michael Caine stars as the a Cockney Cad who loves them and leaves them.

Pros: Michael Cain, supporting actors, inventive direction, well written script, Shelly Winters well cast with small role 

Cons: Somewhat dated, Not for kids 

A pleasant surprise. Caine deserved an Oscar for his likable, amoral, cockney ladies man. He dominates the film from start to finish -charming the women on screen - and the audience - with his witty confessions. Surprisingly, he got the role only after Laurence Harvey (!) and Richard Harris turned it down. The supporting actors are also good - but Caine is always center front. Direction is excellent. The only flaw?  The story is dated, given legalized abortion, AIDS, and the changed role of women. Note: for a comedy there’s a surprising amount of pathos beneath the laughter.

Summary: Enjoyable from start to finish, Caine’s best performance.. Rating ***1/2

School for Scoundrels (1960)

School for Scoundrels (1960) Hamer. Based on Stephen Potter books ("One- Upmanship, Gamesmanship) Like the books, no real plot just a series of vignettes on the same theme. Lead Ian Carmichael learns "One-Upmanship" from Alistair Sim and goes from doormat to cad. The script is good but relies too much on the physical comedy of the tennis games. Besides the funny used car dealers, acting honors belong to supporting Terry-Thomas as the ultimate English cad - stealing girls, speeding in his sports car, cheating at Tennis and uttering "'hard cheese old boy." 

Summary - A well done, understated, very English comedy - Terry-Thomas at his best. Rating ***

Various Foreign Films

118. Au Revoir Les L'Enfant s (1987) Malle. Story of the friendship between two boys in WW II France. Several Jewish boys are hidden in a provincial Catholic boarding school. Well directed and acted - but downbeat and predictable. The relatively low rating reflects my boredom at "Kids at School" stories. Rating **1/2

Forbidden Games (1952) - Clement. Probably the best performance by a child actor I've ever seen. Story of a young girl whose parents are killed. She's taken in by a peasant family and forms a relationship with the youngest son. A masterpiece of subtle emotion that is both a meditation on childhood innocence and an anti-war movie. A Masterpiece. Rating ****

Crazed Fruit (1956) Nakahira. Interesting story of 2 Japanese brothers and a mysteriousness young girl. A Japanese equivalent of the JD (Rebellious film) of the 50s. An interesting view of late 50s Japan and contrast to its western equivalents. Some slow spots - but overall quite enjoyable The lead actress is quite pretty. Rating ***

Double Suicide (1969) - Shinoda. Co-stars K. Nakamura and S. Iwashita. B&W 104 minutes. In this adaption of a 1720 Bunraku puppet play, a Japanese paper merchant is obsessed with a prostitute, and sacrifices everything for her. Well written and superbly acted. A riveting movie that distances the viewer by having the actors assume the role of puppets and showing the puppeteers wordlessly rearranging the sets. An original movie, that reminded me of a Greek Tragedy. Rating ***

Germany Year Zero (1948) - Rossellini. Stars Edmund Moeschke. B&W 73 minutes. A portrait of war torn Berlin through the eyes of a 12 year old boy. Living in poverty with his sick father and older siblings the boy is ensnared in the black market and a former Nazi School teacher. The concluding part of Rossellini’s war trilogy. Filmed on location with unknown actors in the Neo-realism style. Fascinating views of bombed out Berlin circa 1948. And a well done, well- directed, moving, story. Like "Double Suicide" enjoyable if you’re in the right mood. Rating ***

253. Ashes and Diamonds (1970) - Wadja. The last in Wadja's "War Trilogy" and is the follow-on movie to"Kanal". While "Kanal" concerned the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, Diamonds follows a group of Polish Patriots who are attempting to assassinate a mid-level Communist official in May 1945. As with "Kanal" the acting and directing are first rate. The movie deals (on a small scale) not only with Poland's sad fate of going from German occupation to a Communist dictatorship but with the problem men had in adjusting to a life of peace. Compared to "Kanal" - the movie is slower paced, more contemplative and has very little "action". Still quite good. Rating ***

87. La Belle Noiseuse (1991) Rivettte Stars Michael Piccoli and Jane Birkin A once famous artist tries to finish his masterpiece using a intelligent, strong-willed, model. About the creation of art and the conflicts between model and artists. Nice to look at and the leads are excellent actors. However, neither the characters - nor the story - justifies the 3 1/2 hour run time. Rating **1/2


Era Notte a Roma (1960) - 3 Allied are hidden by Italian civilians in Rome circa 1944. Good acting and well directed but the male leads aren't charismatic enough and the story meanders and drags. Definitely a minor work. Rating **1/2


L'atalante (1934) Funny, romantic, and realistic story of Jean, the captain of L’Atalante and new bride Jean, as they begin their life together on-board the barge, sailing through the canals of France. I really enjoyed it - one of the best. However, it *is* a B&W 1930s French Film - so its not for everyoneRating ****

Donovan's Reef (1963)

Plot:  A Sentimental Comedy.  A  snooty New England girl goes to the South Pacific to deprive her estranged father of his inheritance - but is sidetracked by Ex-Sailor Mike Donovan.
Stars: John Wayne, Lee Marvin, Elizabeth Allen, Dorothy Lamour, Jack Warren
Best Quote: Well, there is our Mike Donovan. Three children and not one marriage. Oh, I do not say that he's the first man to put the cart before the horse, but three carts and no horse? 

Donovan's Reef is one of my 100 most enjoyable movies - but is it a great movie? Hell, no. Is it good movie?  Even that's debatable. But I like it.  I like the cast, its full of my favorite actors.  And I like Hawaii, AND John Ford's 'knock about humor", AND the corny music, AND the entire sensibility of the movie.  So, shoot me.

So, What's Wrong With It?

• John Wayne's too old - and "Duke" was the first to point it out. James Garner would've been perfect, but Garner (in real life) was a greedy, kill-joy leftist and would've been a bad fit. Maybe Rock Hudson? 
• There's not enough Lee Marvin. But he was drunk mostly, so Ford was glad to get what he got. 
• Plot. What Plot? 
• Its too long at 109 minutes. But if you have a DVD - problem solved.  

Anyway,  Ford knew all this before he started filming.  He wasn't trying to film a masterpiece - just an enjoyable movie in Hawaii, with his old Buddies. And he succeeded - to me.

Favorite Scenes:

• Lee Marvin coming through the surf to be welcomed by the Islanders.
• Elizabeth Allen getting thrown off the jeep on her rear Allen.
• The Christmas Pageant
• Anything with Dorothy Lamour or Caesar Romero.
• The Ending.

Liberals Hate It

Or at least, the liberal critics do.  I wondered why, since the whole movie is an attack on racism.  But then I realized it supported Religion in general and Christianity in particular - which they hate. Furthermore, everyone, no matter what their color, gets along without hostility - and Leftists hate that too. Just one more reason to enjoy it.

Conclusion: One of my family's favorites, we watch it every Christmas. But its an acquired taste - others should view it with low expectations. 

The Art of Love (1965)

Plot: In  1960s Paris, a Struggling artist fakes his own death so his works will increase in value.
Stars: Dick Van Dyke, James Garner, Angie Dickinson,  Ethel Merman. Elke Sommers

I first saw this movie on TV when I was 12, and thought it the wittiest, funniest thing ever.  But as they say, "You Can't Go Home Again" and on re-watch....oy vey!

So, how do you make a mediocre movie with such a great cast?  Easy, give them a bland, unfunny script. There's nothing wrong with the plot or the cast - it just isn't funny. Sommers and Dickinson don't do much - while Garner and Van Dyke overact frantically, trying to make their dull lines work.  Meanwhile, Irving Jacobson, Ethel Merman and Naomi Stevens seem to have wandered in from a Brooklyn Deli - who could believe they were French?  Making it worse, Burbank stands in for Paris, and the sets are over lit.

Summary:  Too bad, so sad. Another mediocre Carl Reiner comedy, proving he was too small for film.

Julia (1977)

Plot:  At the behest of childhood friend "Julia" - Lillian Hellman smuggles money into 1937 Nazi Germany to help the Resistance.
Stars: Jason Robards, Jane Fonda (Hellman), Vanessa Redgrave (Julia)
Best Quote: Oh, did you know about the McPhee boy? The little one? He was killed in Spain. Imagine having your brother die a Communist. I'm sorry he lost his life, but, I wonder why they rush over there!

The problem with Julia is quite simple. As a movie its a bore - as history a lie.  Its a Hollywood first, a boring Biopic about a non-existent person! Of course in 1977. the film-makers thought it was true - and they wanted to Jazz it up - but were vetoed by Hellman -"You can't change the truth" she lied.

And because the "True (Fictional) story" can't fill two hours of screen-time, we get lots of padding. The first hour is incredibly stretched out. Numerous walks on the beach, Lillian smoking/writing, gruff  ol' Dash telling Hellman to "buck up", flash-backs to her childhood, and elegant, picture postcard views of Paris and Oxford. But nothing exciting  happens, except Julia is injured and Lillian visits her in a Viennese Hospital.

"Julia" is a Minor Figure - The Movie Should be Called "Lillian" 
All the comments about Julia being about a "great friendship between two women" are bunk. Who is "Julia"? We're told *of* her, but we see little of Julia - and hear even less. Redgrave is only on-screen for 15 minutes, and speaks only to Fonda. Meanwhile, Fonda is in 90% of the movie. BTW, why did Redgrave/Robards win Oscars? They have little dialogue and do nothing extraordinary. I guess it was a slow year.

The  Boring 50 minute Train Ride/Smuggling Mission
The dull first hour is followed by Hellman's "dangerous" smuggling of $50,000 into Germany. Here again, the movie makers were forced follow Hellman's dull "true story."  Even worse, Zimmerman is no Alfred Hitchcock, and the whole thing is sluggish. It takes 15 minutes for Hellman (in Paris) to get on the train. And once on, we get endless shots of the train and Fonda looking worried.  But nothing actually happens - and Fonda never seems to be in danger.  And for no reason, we spend 10 minutes following Hellman to Moscow AFTER she delivers the $50,000.

How Dangerous Was Smuggling the $50,000?
Of course, even if Hellman had REALLY smuggled $50,000 into Nazi Germany she was in no real danger. Why would the Germans harm an American Citizen carrying American Dollars while travelling THROUGH Germany on a one-day visa?  What law would Hellman be breaking? Further, had the Gestapo found the money, they would've questioned her - maybe kept the money - and kicked her out of Germany. And that's it. Finally, Hellman's being Jewish, had nothing to do with it. In 1937, Hitler wanted to maintain good relations with the USA - so why harm a famous US writer?

The Silliness of the the Smuggling mission
For example:

• why does the "Anti-Nazi Underground" use eight people to get Hellman from Paris to Berlin? For example, they only  needed one person to give Hellman the money/hat and directions - but they use four (!)
• why is Hellman constantly escorted?  What protection do these escorts provide? And after she's delivers the $$$ in Berlin, she's in no danger. So why is she escorted back to the Train, and then to Warsaw?
• why isn't Hellman given a cover story for the $50,000. Had she been caught, what was she to say?
• why after all the hush-hush secrecy, do they openly talk about the $$$ in a Berlin Cafe?
• why is Julia, a beautiful American with one leg, and the most easily recognizable Underground agent ever, used as the drop point?
• and since there were American Banks in Nazi Germany in 1937 - why did they need to smuggle money?

There is no Controversy -Julia is Fiction
Don't believe those who write about "the controversy" regarding "Julia" or express doubts about whether we will ever know the real truth.  There is no Julia and the story is a lie.  No biographer has found evidence for a real-life "Julia" in Hellman's contemporaneous letters or papers, and she never told anyone Julia's real name. Nor is there any proof that Hellman smuggled dollars into Germany.

Also, Hellman recycled things from her previous work. The "they gave their leg to fight fascism" was used in The Searching Wind while "Smuggling dollars for the Resistance" is from Watch on the Rhine.

Summary Other than some lavish sets, pretty pictures, and a good performance by Jane Fonda, there's no reason to see Julia.  However, Lillian Hellman fans might be interested.

Watch on the Rhine (1943)

Plot:   Based on the Lillian Hellman Play. In April 1940, an anti-fascist Refugee and his family go to his Mother-in-Laws DC Mansion for rest - but a Romanian Count complicates matters.
Stars:  Paul Lukas, Bette Davis, Emily Watson

This movie surprised me. I thought it would be a total dud, full of windy anti-fascist speeches, but its well-acted and -at times - interesting and well-written. Unfortunately, the best part, the conflict between the villain (Count "Tek") and Kurt  Mueller doesn't start till the 45 minute mark. Before then, we get a long, somewhat dull, set-up of the situation/players and some drawing room comedy. Even worse, after Kurt leaves,  we suffer through an unnecessary 15 minute epilogue.  But for about an hour, its pretty good. Other comments:

Paul Lukas  certainly deserved an Oscar Nomination, if not an Oscar win. Lukas takes some terrible dialogue, like: "I fight against fascism. That is my trade." or "We sang this as we marched to fight those German Swine" and makes it half-way believable.  I guess playing the part on Broadway, 300 times, helped.

Bette Davis  does well enough, but she's stuck with being the boring, supportive wife.  Ninety percent of her dialogue consists of variations on: "Kurt is great, I love him" - "Fascism is awful" and "Kurt, you're absolutely right".  Of course, Bette Davis can't truly support anyone. She's too charismatic. Whenever she casts warm, supportive glances at Kurt, she's so intense you expect Lukas to melt under the heat.

The Robo-kids of Mueller's are the worst part of the play. Who's to blame, the actors or the dialogue? In any case, they're the least believable kids ever. One is pedantic, and *tries* to be funny and the eldest comes off as a rigid, anti-fascist robot.  Sample kid -Parent dialogue:  "We have had a most enjoyable life, Papa" and "You are a fine investment in our work...".  Hellman was childless and Hammett left his kids when they were six, which no doubt accounts for it.

Direction and Music are mediocre.  The score is intrusive and heavily underlines every emotion/scene with "God Bless America",  "We must fight Fascism", "This is funny" or "This is dramatic" music. It gets annoying. OTOH, the direction is more or less non-existent.  There's almost no camera movement and very few reaction shots.  They open up the play - but I'm not surprised that Harold Shumlin only directed two movies.

 The Unreal Anti-Fascists - once again Hellman shows her inability to create realistic "good guys". Despite Lukas' best efforts, Kurt comes off as a fanatic.  He actually starves his kids, so that EVERY penny of the $23,000 can go to fight Fascism (In 1940, you could buy a full steak dinner for $1).  People try to reason with him:  Hey Kurt, don't you deserve a rest? No, must fight fascism.  Hey Kurt, what about your Kids? No, Kids are expendable. Must fight fascism. Kurt's the kinda guy who supported firebombing Dresden and giving Stalin half of Europe because "We must fight fascism" 

The Queasy Morality of Killing Tek -  The oddest thing in the movie is how everyone accepts - or even celebrates - Kurt killing Tek.  Yes, Tek is blackmailer, and could identify Kurt to the German Embassy. But Kurt is in no danger (they won't touch him on US Soil) and Tek has promised to keep his mouth shut.  But Kurt kills him in cold blood anyway because he doesn't "gamble" (!) And I love how Liberal "Mama" (Emily Watson) not only accepts this, but gives Kurt $$ and helps him cover up the murder. I mean Tek had been under her roof for weeks, and she just met Kurt yesterday.  Talk about fickle. Well, that's liberals for you.

"Trumbo" Lies about John Wayne

For some reason, the movie makes John Wayne (who was just an actor) into some sort of Godfather figure who could blacklist or grant absolution at will. Of course, it was the Producers and Studio Execs who enforced the blacklist.

A False Trumbo vs. Wayne Exchange
We even get a ridiculous snarky attack on John Wayne for "Dodging the Draft". The conversation between make-believe Wayne and Trumbo reads like a liberal nerd's wet dream. Trumbo says to Wayne:

"You [Wayne] talk a lot about the war.  I [Trumbo] was a War Corespondent on Okinawa...Eddie Robinson was in Europe with the Office of War Information. Where did you serve?  If you're going to act like you - John Wayne -won WW II personally, where were you stationed? On a movie set, wearing make-up and shooting blanks? And if you're going to hit me, let me take my glasses off. "

In reality, John Wayne "served" four months in the South Pacific in 1944, touring military bases, visiting hospitals, and entertaining the troops.

Which was more then Trumbo did.

Trumbo spent almost all of WW2 in Hollywood making money - as did Eddie Robinson. Neither was in the military. Trumbo spent 8 weeks in June/July 1945, touring military bases/ hospitals and viewing a landing in Borneo.  He only spent four days on Okinawa  - after the fighting was over!  He was no Ernie Pyle. As for E.G. Robinson, from 1942-1945, he made more movies than John Wayne.  In  1944, he did some broadcasts from London (not Europe) and then entertained the troops in France.

Trumbo

Plot: Communist screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, gets jailed for Contempt of Congress and blacklisted, but eventually triumphs.
Stars: Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Helen Miren
Best Quote: Wilder on the "Hollywood Ten":  Only two of them had talent, the rest are just unfriendly. 

I was looking forward to this movie because I'm a big Bryan Cranston fan.  I was perfectly willing to overlook the usual "Oy vey, the blacklist..it was Amerika's darkest hour" nonsense - just to be entertained.  And...I was shocked at how bad this movie is.  It looks like a TV movie of the week, has flat characters, and a boring script. The acting is OK, with Goodman and Mirren as standouts.  We get lots of celebrity impersonations. Dean O'Gorman gets Kirk Douglas right,  David Elliot gets John Wayne, way wrong.

The first half isn't that bad, as Trumbo fights with HUAC. But after Trumbo gets out of jail, its damn dull. Its all: Trumbo has to work hard - and gets testy! Trumbo's daughter is unhappy! Trumbo has to sell his scripts at below-market value! And finally, Trumbo gets screen credit for Spartacus  - Hallelujah! - the end. And we get endless filler scenes of Trumbo writing or looking at TV - Yawn.

The Movie Vs. Reality
The movie more or less follows Trumbo's biography except for the following:

• Trumbo moved to Mexico City for two years during the 1950's. This is skipped entirely.
• Trumbo averaged $50,000/year ($2 million in 2018 dollars) during the blacklist.
• E.G. Robinson was neither a communist nor a big friend of Trumbo's.

Incredibly, the movie lies about Trumbo's communism. 
The Cold War has been over for almost 30 years and we know all about Stalin's crimes, the internal workings of Communist Party USA, and who was a Communist spy - yet this movie still can't tell the truth!

Y'see - as Cranston explains to his daughter - "communism is just making sure everyone gets equal shares of cake"!  Good grief, give Trumbo his due. He was a dedicated, hard-core Stalinist with sophisticated  principles/beliefs.  He followed the party line, praising the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and opposing aid to England prior to June 22, 1941.

He never said a bad word about Joe Stalin. And like all communists, he was OK with censorship & blacklisting - as long as the Left was doing it. Or as Susan Sontag put it: "They don't need free speech in the USSR, they have socialism". 

Later Cranston says "I [Trumbo] love this country" and "We have a good government" - which of course the real Trumbo would've laughed at.  The Communists thought patriotism "petite bourgeois nonsense"  and believed Democracy should be replaced by the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."  

If the Movie is Correct - why was Trumbo a Communist?
The movie gives Trumbo an Ozzie and Harriet family, and a Leave it to Beaver house,  and pretends he was just a "Free Speech advocate" and Union supporter. If that's so, why was Trumbo a Communist?  Ninety percent of Hollywood wasn't Communist yet still opposed fascism, supported the  New Deal, and  favored unions.  Ronald  Reagan managed to do all three - and was an anti-Communist!  And how - exactly - did Trumbo "Fight Hitler" by joining the Communist Party in Beverly Hills?

Another Part of the Forest (1948)

Plot: A "prequel" to The Little Foxes.  In 1885 small-town Alabama, a Rich man's children scheme for  his favor and money.
Stars:  Fred March, Ann Blyth, Edmund O'Brien, Dan Duryea
Best Quote: Try to remember that though ignorance becomes a Southern gentleman, cowardice does not.

Based on the Lillian Hellman play, this is one of March's better roles as he plays a sarcastic, unlikable Patriarch, with a dark secret, and a passion for only one person - his daughter.  Other standouts: Blyth as beautiful, manipulative "Regina", and O'Brien as the charming but avaricious "Ben".

However, despite some good acting and direction - the movie soon becomes tiresome - as this family of vipers spit venom at each other for 107 minutes. There are only two kinds of characters, ruthless manipulators and the stupid/weak.  We also get some stuff about the KKK and the Confederacy but it rings false. Note:  Hellman seemed unable to create strong/good, realistic characters. All her "good guys" are either absurdly noble "anti-fascists" (Julia, Watch on the Rhine) or losers of some kind.

Summary:  Not really my kind of movie, Another Part of the Forest, its a cut below Little Foxes, covering the same ground, but less well. Fred March or Ann Blyth fans might enjoy it.

Sunday in New York (1963)

Plot: Depressed over a broken engagement, a virginal young lady visits her swinging brother in NYC and meets a handsome stranger.  
Stars:  Jane Fonda, Cliff Robertson, Rod Taylor, Robert Culp

Another 1960's sex comedy that hasn't worn well.  Jane Fonda improves on her Barefoot in the Park performance (she's charming here, not kooky) and she and Taylor make an attractive pair  - but the script/story are dated, and Robertson charmless. Smarmy Robert Culp is, as always, smarmy. Forgotten today, it needed better Rom-Com stars and been 10 minutes shorter.  However, 1963 Manhattan looks glamorous, everyone is good looking, and its pleasant enough.  Its certainly a cut above the smirky 60's Tony Curtis/Dean Martin stuff. A tolerable time-waster.