Devils Island (1939)

Well-made "B" movie about a French surgeon (Boris Karloff) sentenced to the infamous prison for helping a wounded escaped convict. Once on the island, we get all the prison cliches in short-hand, a callous warden (James Stephenson), his compassionate wife, a little girl saved by  Karloff's surgery, and some good character actors playing the usual "Types".  Its so short - 68 minutes - and moves at such a fast clip - you almost forgive it for being so predictable.  Side-note: The French Ambassador protested the movie, and one can sympathize, since it shows the French Prison Administrators as corrupt sadists. But in 2019, its realism is a matter for historians.  Summary: Good Karloff performance. Enjoyable  Rating 2.5 of 4

Body and Soul (1947) - The Reddest Movie Ever

Body and Soul was a favorite target for witch-hunters of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and Anti-Semites in the 1950's. Here's the cast list:

Producer: Bob Roberts - Jewish. Member CPUSA.
Director: Robert Rossen - Jewish. Member CPUSA
Screen Writer: Abe Polanksy - Jewish. Member CPUSA

Actors:

1. John Garfield - Jewish. Left-wing - denied being CPUSA member.
2. Lillie Palmer - Jewish. Left-wing - denied being CPUSA Member. 
3. Ann Revere - Member CPUSA. 
4. Canada Lee - African American. Member CPUSA
5. Lloyd Gough - Jewish. Member CPUSA.
6. Art Smith - Jewish. Member CPUSA.

Book Review - Robert Rossen - Blacklisted Idealist

Full Title: Robert Rossen. The films and Politics of a Blacklisted Idealist
Author : Alan Casty

This is an adequate, academic, biography of Robert Rossen with the main focus, as you would expect, on his politics. Casty doesn't have that much to say about the entertainment value of Rossen's films, instead he's content to discuss why and how Rossen decided to make any particular movie with a few anecdotes about casting and the mood on the set.

Rossen's story is a familiar one. He was a 27 y/o New York screenwriter who came to Hollywood in 1936 and secretly joined CPUSA in the same year.  He continued as a faithful, dues paying CPUSA member until 1949. An original member of the "Hollywood Ten" - before testifying before HUAC in 1951. His former communist friends regarded this as a "betrayal" but Rossen was careful not to name anyone not already known as a Communist.  As a result, Robert Rossen was "Grey-listed" for several years in the 1950's and moved to Europe before returning to the USA Screen with Alexander the Great in 1956.

Although never explicity stated by Casty, its obvious Rossen was helped by his fellow Communists with jobs, awards,  and Studio promotions in the 1930's and 1940's. Rossen was given a chance to direct in 1946, despite no previous experience. Later, despite his lackluster first attempt, he was selected to direct Body and Soul by Communist producer Bob Roberts.. With these few director's credits, Harry Cohen and later, Universal Studios boss Arthur Krim, (both personal friends) gave Rossen producer/director jobs beginning with All the King's Men. Other points:

• Rossen preferred to "fight fascism" from the safety of Beverly Hills. During WW II he stayed home and only fought for Communist causes - like the Second Front. We had to save the USSR in 1942, and Rossen didn't care how many American lives it took.  He was tough!
• Although a fine screenwriter Rossen had little input into the script for Body and Soul - he mostly just directed. Polonsky was very proud of his script and allowed no changes. 
• Rossen was a big friend of John Garfield.  
• In 1948, Rossen submitted the script for All the Kings Men to several CPUSA party functionaries for their approval. After a contentious discussion, they labeled the script "unacceptable" but Rossen made the movie anyway. This was the first Rossen script that wasn't approved by CPUSA prior to filming. 
• Rossen forte was "grey" films related to gangsters/corruption/gritty working class. The Hustler is his best film, and he also worked on The Roaring 20s and The Sea Wolf.
• Despite having zero experience in Big action technicolor films he was given large budgets and a free hand (mostly) in They Came to Cordura and Alexander the Great, - thereby proving that he was a good small B&W film director. In both cases, his personal friendships with Krim and Cohen were responsible for the financing. 

So what's the moral of the book?  I suppose its that no good deed goes unpunished.  Rossen tried to get out of the party and please HUAC without injuring anyone, and was never forgiven by the Left - and  got grey-listed by the Right for 6 years. The other moral?  Well,  its nice to have friends in high places, and belong to a semi-secret political group - as long as it remains secret. 

The Seventh Cross (1944)

A Short Review. The Seventh Cross* is about seven men who escape from a 1936 German Concentration Camp. Given the plot, you'd expect thrills & chills - ala Hitchcock -as our heroes escape from the evil Gestapo. And....we don't get that at all**.

Right at the start, we learn six of the seven have been executed. We then follow a grim Tracy (in a very constrained performance) as he hides out with a childhood friend and eventually connects with the German Underground. The film is less about being hunted by the Gestapo and more about  how average Germans react to Tracy's plight - and help him, or not.

It was so boring, I assumed it was a box office bomb.
 Incredibly, it made $3.4 million on a $1.4 million budget!  But even in 1944,  critics were less concerned with the films entertainment value then its politics.  Examples? Bosely Crowther, (who no doubt planned "Blood baths on the Rhine" from his  comfy chair in Manhattan) worried the film might show Germans as too human, and incline Americans to a "Soft Peace"

Summary:  Dull and dated with too many uber-American actors. There's some nice Film-noir photography, and Hugh Cronyn got an Oscar nomination*** for some reason - but its a LONG two hours unless you're a WW II  historian. Rating 2 of 4

Notes
* The film is based on the 1941 bestselling novel by German Communist Anne Seghers, whose life was more interesting than the movie. After escaping from Paris in June 1940, Seghers somehow made it to Marseilles and then Mexico City in 1941 (shades of Casablanca).  She wrote the novel in English and German. In 1947, Seghers left Mexico and returned to Communist East Berlin, where she wrote fiction for the East German Government.
** - Director Fred Zimmerman directed with the same lack of "suspense" in Julia (1977)
***  To me, Hugh Cronyn (like Burgess Meredith)  always seem to be *acting*. Despite being a character actor, I never forget for a second that I'm watching  Hugh Cronyn play someone else. Rarely does he "disappear into character".  Its even worse in the Seventh Cross - since Cronyn's no more German than Gary Cooper.  

Morning Glory (1933)

Best Quote:

Hepburn:  My! You're gaining weight. 

Duncan:   Yes. I'll soon be your size, my dear

The movie that made Katherine Hepburn a star, and got her an Academy Award nomination.  The plot is simple and now overly-familiar; a naive actress from the sticks, wrongly thinks she'll take Broadway by storm.*  Hepburn is impossibly young (age 26) and charming, and never plays a false note.  The supporting cast is mostly excellent: C. Aubrey Smith,  Mary Duncan, and Adolph Menjou **  Only 74 minutes long - and has some good lines.

Best Scene: A drunken Hepburn shows everyone she's  a good actress. 

Worst Scene:  Fairbanks declares his love.

Summary:  I liked Morning Glory  more than most***. In fact, I prefer it to several Tracy-Hepburn pairings (Desk Set and Pat And Mike) .  But then, I don't get upset at filmed plays, and like Hepburn's comic persona. Rating 3 of 4 

Notes

* =      Stage Door riffs off the same story, but does it better.

** =    But Douglas Fairbanks is very bland. Its hard to believe he was the dashing/devilish Prince Rupert in Prisoner of Zenda. 

*** =  Kael called it a  "a strange, ambivalent study of that lying-cheating kind of determination."  which indicates Kael didn't get the comedy/satire.  Like  Hepburn's planned acting career:

Of course I expect to die at my zenith. My star shall never set, I’ve sworn that too. And when that moment comes, when I feel that I’ve done my best, my very best, I should really die by my own hand some night at the end of the play. On the stage.”

The Gangster (1947)

Best Quote:  [Opening lines] That was what I was. I work the rackets... dirty rackets... ugly rackets. I was no hypocrite. I knew everything I did was low and rotten. I knew what people thought of me. What difference did it make? What did I care? I got scarred - sure! It can hurt a little when you fight your way out of the gutter.

An artsy film-noir. Don’t’ let the title fool you. This isn’t about Guys with sub-machine guns blasting way. It’s an overwritten story – with stylized sets – about a small time NYC hood getting muscled out of his two-bit, sea-side territory, by the big boys. It’s more character study than action film. The acting/cast provides most of the enjoyment:

• Barry Sullivan “the gangster” an ice-cold, man of few words (probably Alain Delon’s role model for his Le Samurai hit-man) brought down by his own pride.
• Belita - his selfish girlfriend.
• Alim Tamiroff (excellent), as the nervous store owner with the backbone a chocolate eclair.
• A who’s who of good character actors: Elisha Cook, Henry Morgan (as comic relief), Charles McGraw, Sheldon Leonard, and John Ireland (the addicted gambler).

Summary: Even at 85 minutes, this low-budget film drags in the middle and needed more action. But the excellent cast makes up for it. I liked it. Rating 3 of 4

The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming (1966)

Best Quote: Remember last time, when she called about that Peeping Tom - you know who that was, don't you? It was that Luther Grilk's horse.
Plot: Amiable, slow-moving, comedy about stranded Russian sailors trying to get off an American Island without causing World War III.  There’s also a dull “Teenage girls will enjoy this” romance between an American girl and a hunky Russian sailor.

The Best thing is the Acting
Russians are Coming is full of great comedic actors (Brian Keith, Paul Ford, Jonathan Winters, etc) doing the thing that they do. Keith is the exasperated level-headed Sheriff, surrounded by idiots, Ford is the pompous fool, and Winters is the too-tightly wound deputy.  Alan Arkin is the standout as the Russian Commander who has to deal with all these crazy Americans.  But the comedy comes from the situations/ performers, not from the dialogue.Eva Marie Saint is OK but given little to do.

But Then There's Carl Reiner 
Incredibly, Reiner is given top billing.  Carl Reiner has a lot to answer for.  And not just Rob Reiner.

But also for his constant casting of himself in movies. He's a big comedic black-hole in Russians, and he's even worse in The thrill of it all and The Art of Love. Unlike Mel Brooks, Reiner wasn't funny. He was good BEHIND the camera. Or as a straight man. But he felt different.

Like the title – Everything gets repeated Twice
Carl Reiner is captured, escapes, re-captured and then escapes again.  Keith and Ford fight, then fight again, and then fight a last time. We get three scenes of Ben Blue trying to capture the same horse, and get at least 15 minutes of Arkin and his Soviet Sailors creeping around the country side.

There’s a lot of Padding and  Its no Mad, Mad, World
As stated, the movie moves at a leisurely pace. Its 2 hours long and takes 12 minutes for the first Soviet Sailor to speak to an American.  And we get lots of shots of characters driving around or going here and there. Some have compared Russians are coming to a Mad, Mad, Mad, World – which is completely wrong.  Until the end, Mad World had 4-5 subplots that were going on simultaneously and 10 of the funniest stars ever.  Russians are Coming has one main plot, and two subplots, one romantic and one funny.  And it’s not really ‘wacky’.

Side note: The movie is completely unbelievable.  
Yeah, its supposed to be a comedy. But! No Soviet sub would “run aground” on a US island. Even in the 60’s they had sophisticated navigation equipment. No Soviet sub would send sailors ashore with machine guns - that’s an act of war!  No USSR sub would need a “Power boat” to re-float itself.  No Soviet sub ever got within 10 miles of the US Coastline without us knowing about it.  And all the town folks who abet the Soviets in getting away, are in fact committing treason – since the Soviet Sub was invading US territorial waters and its sailors were threatening to kill American citizens.  Just sayin’.

So why did it win an Academy Award Nomination?
Politics.  It’s that simple. In 1966, Russians are Coming was a subversive liberal comedy. It pushed “the narrative”.  Y’see, the Soviets aren’t evil Commies, they’re lovable incompetent lugs who want peace and love kids just like we do.  Only a bunch of dumb hicks disagree.

If you can’t see the political angle, imagine Hollywood in 1939, making “The Germans are Coming, the Germans are Coming” about a bunch of lovable U-boat sailors landing on Martha’s Vineyard – with Frank Morgan as the U-boat Kaptain and Jimmy Stewart as “Hans” his young sidekick.  Of course, that movie wasn’t made. Instead, Hollywood was giving us “Confessions of a Nazi Spy”

Summary:  Today, the cast is the only reason to watch it. If you like seeing Brian Keith, Paul Ford, Jonathan Winters, and Alan Arkin go through their paces - you’ll probably like it.Other positives? A nice score and some pretty scenery (Northern California).  Otherwise, it’s a two hour sitcom - The Cold war Russians meet the Dick Van Dyke show. So, don’t let the Academy Award Best Picture Nomination fool you. . Rating 2.5 of 4

Book Review: Pauline Kael - For keeps

Wow, this is one thick book. 1300 pages of Pauline's movie reviews from 1960-1990.  3.8 lbs. If you want one volume of Pauline Kael's reviews, this it it. I  picked it up for $2, but - sadly - will return it.  I don't have have space for 3.8 lbs. books, I don't really care for.

So, why didn't I like it?  Well, several reasons:

1)  The book includes  thirty years of film, from 1960-1990 during which Kael published six books. The first one came out in 1965 and was called "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang". the last "Movie Love" was  published in 1991.  But  Kael and the editors made the mistake of including way too many films the 1980s & far too few from the 1960s - given that decline in Film quality over the 30 year period.  Accordingly, I had little interest in the last  50% of the book.

2) I used to love Pauline Kael - she seemed so smart and knowledgeable. But re-reading her reviews, I now wonder what all the fuss was about. Kael is incredibly WORDY - and she had trouble getting to the point. And I'm not going to repeat all of Renata Alder's criticism - but Kael's quirks and verbal tricks become more irritating - the more you read her.

3) Some of her reviews are simply awful. Her hysterical paeans to Nashville and Last Tango in Paris, her obsessive love affairs with Babs Streisand, and Cary Grant,  her trashing of Eastwood and championing of  Peckinpah, Kael was wildly inconsistent - over-praising certain actors/Directors while condemning others to the gallows with no more than a nod. Even worse, that's not connected to what's up on the screen - she's just playing favorites.

4) The selection of reviews - and their verbosity - is astoundingly.  One reason Kael was so beloved by fans was her ability to write intelligently and at length about all kinds of movies. But that being said, I'm not interested in reading 7 pages on The Right Stuff or 5 pages on Yentl.  Here are some more reviews Kael thought were "Keepers":

• La Chinoise - 6 pages
• The Trojan Women - 5 pages
• Billy Jack - 5 pages
• The Long Goodbye - 6 pages
• Walking Tall - 6 pages
• Distant Thunder - 4 pages
• King Kong - 5 pages
• Shoot the Moon - 6 pages.

Yikes! Does anyone remember these movies, let alone want to read 4-6 pages on them?

5) Kael has nothing interesting to say about the great Foreign Language films. Her reviews are intelligent, but passionless and painfully "correct"  - like a Mick Jagger putting on a Tux and playing Bach at Carnegie Hall. They're the dullest reviews in the book. Even worse, most of the movie reviews prior to 1970 are foreign film.

6) Although she never admitted it, she started going through the motions in the late-1970s.  The reviews get longer and longer. We get  less movie analysis, and more and more plot description or background on the film's production. Often Kael will go off on a tangent and write about a supporting actors career. But how else could any intelligent person write four pages on Mahogany, Saturday Night Fever,  Rambo or Back to the Future? 

7) Finally,  her reviews got worse after 1975 because she'd won. During the 60's she's championed "Trashy movies", vulgarity, profanity, and wide-open sexuality and violence. She was (despite her age)  the spunky upstart cocking her snoot at the pompous Crowther's and Stanley Kauffmann's of the film world.  Her reaction against the tired old cliches of the mid-1960's resulted in some of her best writing. But after 1975, she was rebel without a cause. Hollywood was making nothing but "Trashy movies".  But to Kael, they were the wrong kind of "trash".  The "new freedom" hadn't resulted in better movies - just more sex and violence. So, by the mid-1980s she started to sound like the Grande Dame of the Cinema, which wasn't her forte. Its the old cliche, almost every young revolutionary, turns into a tired old man.

The Bribe (1949)

Well acted, well cast, film noir that's weighted down by a sluggish plot.  Its an 85 minute story crammed into a 98 minute movie. Federal Agent Robert Taylor goes to South American to stop a gang of crooks that include lovely Ava Gardner*, a crafty Charles Laughton, and untrustworthy Vincent Price**.  It has its moments, its ends with a bang, and  Laughton is marvelous - but its only moderate entertainment.  Summary: When you have a great cast and its a "forgotten movie" - its usually justified. Part of the problem is Taylor*** - he's a little too aloof - his character needed more sizzle. Rating 2.5 of 4

Notes
* - Gardner sings, but is dubbed.  Too bad, because Ava had a nice voice as shown by outtakes from Show Boat.
 ** - Usually, Vincent Price strikes me as an unconvincing villain, he's simply too good-natured and likable.  However, in The Bribe, this characteristic is used to good effect.  Here Price only *appears* to be a nice, affable chap - he's actually a snake of the highest (or lowest) order.
*** - I've always liked Robert Taylor, and his only sin was being less charismatic than the competition.  Supposedly, he hated doing "Sword and Sandal" movies and being a Knight, but he was excellent in those roles. His war movies and westerns always come up short, primarily because other leading men got the best roles.  Understandably. Its tough to think of a 40s/50s war movie or western where you'd want Robert Taylor instead of James Stewart, Burt Lancaster, John Wayne or Greg Peck.  Other stars, like Alan Ladd, Dana Andrews and Tyrone Power, had the same problem.  People forget there were only so many good parts every year in Hollywood, and everyone was explicitly (or implicitly) competing for them.  Cary Grant used to compare Stardom to a crowded streetcar. There were only so many seats, and if someone got on, someone else had to get off.