Torn Curtain - Rewatch

 Man, what a disappointment.  I'd hoped this  Hitchcock hit from the mid 60s would improve with one more view, but nope. I disliked it even more. 

Torn curtain a failed "Entertainment"

Grahame Greene divided his novels into serious ones and entertainments, and one could do the same thing with Hitchcock films. In the serious category you have films like: The Wrong Man, I confess, Shadow of Doubt, or Vertigo.  In the entertainment group:  The man who knew too much, 39 steps, north by northwest, sabotuer, rear window,  to catch an thief,  the lady vanishes. 

Torn Curtain was supposed to be a suspenseful spy thriller. But the failed casting and lack of fun and thrills dooms it.     

Julie Andrews and Paul Newman

These two were super-stars both are miscast.  Paul Newman as a scientist? Give me a break.  Not only that Newman is NOT a Hitchcockian leading man.  Newman was a star who could act. But he didn't possess the likablity or charisma of a Grant, McCrea, Stewart, or Fonda.  And that's what the part requires.  

The same is true of Julie Andrews. She was great singer and possessed some low key charm but she simply wasn't in the same league with Doris Day,  Grace Kelley, Ingrid Bergman,  or Tulluah Bankhead.  Needless to say, she isn't sexy and she has zero chemistry with Newman. 

Andrews and Newman  seem to be sleepwalking through their roles. Is this is due to their innate lack of warmth? Or because the script/direction doen't prop them up as they do in other movies.  Of course, neither was known for their wit/comedic acting 

Script Problems

Another problem with Torn Curtain is the complete lack of warmth or humor. . The rest of the dialogue is just blah.  There's a complete lack of fun and excitement. 

Direction Problems

Its hard to think of Hitchock film that has so many slack, tensionless chase scenes. Whereas Man who knew too much and North by Northwest had you on the edge of your seat,  Torn curtain's suspense scenes seem mechanical and overly familiar.  The amount of cheap, projection shots further decrease the enjoyment.

On the Plus Side

The villians of the piece - Kedrova, Wolfgang Kieling and Tamara Toumanova are excellent , and the death of the policeman, "Grommek" is the highlight of the movie.

Summary:  Other then the killing of the policeman scene,  Torn curtain isn't worth a 3rd watch. There's a complete lack of fun and excitement. Incredibly I'd rather watch Marnie,  since I find Connery and Hedrin a more attractive and interesting.   

Brando In Roots (1979)

Just watched Brando in the TV miniseries Root's The Next Generation playing  George Lincoln Rockwell, the 1960s neo-Nazi leader.  Brando's biographers barely mention it, primarily because he did only one scene and its so brief.  

How does G.L. Rockwell get in Roots?  Well, Alex Haley interviewed Rockwell for Playboy magazine in 1965.  So, the TV miniseries duplicates that interview, with James Earl Jones playing Alex Haley.   Its about 7 minutes long, and has the usual 1970s Brando touches:

1)  To hide with obesity, Brando sits behind a desk, is shown in shadow and low light, and wears a deep black Nazi uniform. Per the Cameraman, Brando was over 300 lbs. and worried about his looks.   Brando is never shown below the Chest. 

2) Brando constantly looks around, and up and down.  He's always fidgeting with the phone, an air freshner, or a pipe.  This isn't Brando acting, he's looking for the lines that he's written down. And when Brando airly looks past James Earl Jones with a look of contempt - its Brando reading the cue cards.

3) Much of the scene is done with tight close-ups of Brando suspposedly speaking to James Earl Jones. The close-ups allowed Brando's cue cards to be placed directly in front of him - and off camera.

4) Brando didn't have time to change his lines or have input into the script.

5) The Producers paid another actor $5,000 to standby in case Brando didn't show up. 

As for the scene itself, Brando is good as the Nazi leader.  But there's not much acting involved.  Its just Brando - as Rockwell - verbally jousting with Alex Haley over  race and the "Negro's" place in American society.  Its a filmed interview, not Hamlet.   

 Summary:  Did Brando deserve an Emmy? Probably not. But this is Brando only acting performance on TV.  Why did Brando do?  It was only one day's work,  and he thought  Roots:The Next Generation would be good civil rights propaganda.  Brando certainly didn't do it for the $25,000. 

   

No Orchids for Miss Blandish (1948)

Plot: British Gangster movie based on the 1939 Best selling novel.  

The film is unusual since its set in the USA with American characters played by mostly English actors.  Denounced at the time for its excessive violence,  British critics were angered when it passed the Censor.  One critic called it "the most sickening exhibition of brutality, perversion,  sex and sadism ever shown on the cinema screen..." 

Needless to say, in 2021 it appears positively wholesome compared to No Country Old for Old men or  Game of Thrones.  That aside, its a rather odd movie - too talky with too little plot.  The two leads Lindin Travers and Jack LaRue do well enough, but are light on charisma. 

Further, the British actors have trouble with their American Accents, and the stark set design and clunky action scenes reminded me of a 1931 Hollywood crime film. LarRue even imitates George Raft, but rolls dice instead of a flipping a coin. In between the killings, we get some forgettable songs and comedy.  Whats funnier then the film's nightclub comedy is the supposed country folk.  A  couple hours drive from NYC - yet dressed like Hillbillies. 

Summary:  Unless you're a film buff searching for novelty, I'd skip it.  Rating **

No Country for Old Men (2006)

A rewatch.  When watching No Country for Old Men  the first time, I was glued to my seat. "What's next?"  I wondered.  And "how will Moss get out of this?"  Similarly, every scene with Chigurh filled me with dread and hope.  On rewatch:

• All the suspense is gone and (unlike a Hitchcock film) there's not much left.
•  The acting and photography hold up and is very good. 
• The characters are unengaging/flat.
• The story is a downer.  The ending weak. 
• Tommy Lee Jones is even more annoyng.

No Country for Old Men.  Book vs. Movie 

The Coen Brothers stick closely to the novel, and include large slabs of Cormac McCarthy's dialogue.  Other than vastly cutting down on Sherriff Bell's first-person ruminations,  I noticed the following changes:

• The novel's subplot with Moss and 15 y/o Hitchhiker is cut.
• In the film, Movie Chigurh meets Welles at the  Downtown Hotel Eagle and after killing him, picks up  Movie Welles' ringing Room phone and talks to Movie Moss. In the novel, Welles has set out a transponder in a Highway motel room to ambush Chigurh, but is outsmarted and killed.  Immediately after, Chigurh intercepts Moss's call to Welles' cellphone.  The movie is an improvment,  since using a cellphone is a needless complication,  and its implausible that Welles would be taken by surprise after setting up an ambush.
• In the novel,  Moss gets the drop on Chigurh at the Hotel Room, Moss questions him but doesn't search him.  Rather than shoot him in cold blood,  Moss leaves through a window.  He's shot by Chigurh after he drops onto the street. Moss then wounds him.  Moss escapes due to a gunbattle between rival drug gangs.  The film makes the scene more suspsenseful by having Movie Moss simply exit when Movie Chigurh fires into the room. Movie Moss then wounds Movie Chicgura after the car crash.  The gunbattle between rival gangs is eliminated.
• The Coen Brothers add the murder of a Man hauling chickens (black humor i suppose).
• The film adds a dog to the action when Movie Moss flees the Drug dealers. 

Summary:  "No Country for Old Men" is a very good movie the first time round. But its excellence relies heavily on suspense and plot twists.  With a sad ending, uninteresting characters, and  disjointed story, its rather boring the 2nd time round.   Rating lowered to **1/2 

The Man who Cheated Himself (1950)

Old Time Hollywood Leading men are underrated. They're often dismissed as "wooden",  "bad actors" or "just a pretty face".  But they fufilled a key need in films that weren't top quality.   They gave the audience someone to root for, because they were likable.  They had sex appeal, so the romance was believable, and they were seemed strong enough to be cops, cowboys, soldiers, etc.

And then there were Character actors.  Usually,  guys that weren't romantic, likable, or handsome enough to play the lead.  They were usually pretty good actors, or they were tough guys who just didn't have the looks to play the lead. 

Which brings me to Lee J. Cobb and The Man Who Cheated Himself.  Cobb plays the lead. He's a head Dectective who's in love with Jane Wyman.  Not Jane Wyman average housewife,  Jane Wyman rich, devious, femme fatale. We're supposed to buy that Wyman and Cobb are an item.  That they're in love, and he's sap enough to help her out of a murder rap.  

Except, its not believable for a second.  Cobb has all the sex appeal of a block of cement.  And when he and Wyman kiss, you don't feel the sexual heat, you cringe.  In fact, there's nothing likable about Lee J. Cobb in this movie.  He's not only mismatched with Wyman, he's a dour sourpuss, and you can't even feel sorry for him, like you do at the end of 12 Angry Men.  Cobb could be a great actor, but a leading man? Nope.  A romantic figure? Nope.  A likeable guy you cared about ? Nope. 

I've concentrated on the casting, because The Man who Cheated Himself is a low budget film noir.  And  casting is key in Noir.  Noir movies weren't great dramas and they didn't have big budgets - if we remember some of them its because of the casting, maybe some fine location shots, direction, and a good script.  

Summary:  Its not all bad.  There's some interesting shots at Fort Point at the end.  And of the Golden Gate Bridge.  And there's some good one-liners.  But Cobb fails the movie.  And Wyman is also miscast. And there's no one particularly interesting in support. No wonder its been forgotten.  Rating **1/2 

\\

Book Review: Monty - A Biography

 This is an excellent straightforward biography of Montgomery Clift by Robert LaGuardia.  It neither a whitewash nor a hit piece,  LaGuardia more or less in the words of Howard Cosell "Tells it like it is (was)".  

I read the book after seeing a 1963 Youtube interview of Monty by some guy called Hy Gardner, who I assume  had a NYC talk show.  Its a fascinating interview, and Clift comes off as highly intelligent, literate, and even tempered.  But that was Monty's "public face".  Per LaGuardia, in private Clift was mostly functional alcoholic and pill-popper, who needed a small group of devoted friends  to mother him and help him out.  Other interesting things:

• I'd assumed that Clift's drug/alcohol problem occured after his May 1956 car crash.  Wrong. LaGuardia shows that Clift was abusing vodka/downers as early as 1951, and alarming his friends by passing out or being inchorent. Friends (including Brando) staged interventions and tried to get Monty help in curbing the alcoholism, but to no avail. Monty LIKED to drink.  Unfortunately, his ability to control the drug/alcohol abuse and their side effects decreased as he got older. Memory loss became a big issue, and Monty had trouble remembering lines or getting the  shakes. This, and the craziness in public, is what led to Hollywood labeling him "uninsurable". 

• Like other Hollywood stars,  Monty was taken advantage of by quack pyschitrists, grifting financial advisors, and backstabbing agents.  I wonder how Clift's life would've been like if he'd left NYC and relocated to London in 1951. 

• The cliche that Monty's problems were caused by "homophobia" are untrue.  LaGuardia shows that Monty had a healthy sex life and several live-in partners.  The Hollywood press protected him, just like all the other Gay leading men.   His various female friendships were taken as evidence he was straight.  Living in NYC,  Monty could do what he liked without any fear of exposure.  Hy Gardner, who knew the truth, hilariously asks Monty about his love affairs with various women.

• Unlike Brando, Monty really liked being an actor and had an artisitic/writers temperment. He liked the stage, and had a desire to write. In fact,  he had friendships with many writers including Wilder, Capote, Willams, and Vidal.  He was friendly toward Brando but also disliked Brando's domineering attitude. 

• Monty turned down the leading roles in the following movies:  East of Eden,  On the Waterfront, War and Peace,  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Suddenly, and Sunet Blvd.  James Dean and Paul Newman were extremely lucky that Monty wasn't a  workaholic. 

The Watchman (2009)

 A short review.  This is a faithful filming of one of the most popular Graphic Novels of all time. I give the director points for the beautiful photography/set design and a few well-done action scenes. BUT no comic book justifies a 3 hour run-time.  Its a very slow.  I was looking at my watch 2 hours in. Of course, I'm not the target audience.  Rating **1/2

Ranking the Montgomery Clift Films

Comments:  What's odd about the "Somewhat Enjoyable" movies is I didn't really enjoy them because of Clift. I thought Clift's character was the worst thing in the  Young Lions.  I enjoyed the Misfits primarily because of Monroe and Gable.  As for Raintree County  the main attractions were Liz Taylor, the Great photography and Lee Marvin.  Finally, Place in the Sun was only fun when Liz Taylor was onscreen.   While  Clift does an excellent acting job in all four movies, his characters didn't really excite me.  

Very Enjoyable

1. Red River (1948)
2. From Here to Eternity (1953)
3. Terminal Station (1953)
4. Suddenly Last Summer (1959)

Somewhat Enjoyable 

1. Place in the Sun (1951)
2. Raintree County (1957)
3. Young Lions (1958)
4. The Misfits (1961)

Well done - but don't enjoy it

1. The Search (1948)
2. The Heiress (1949)
3. The Big Lift (1950)
4. I Confess (1953)
5. Wild River (1960)  

Boring

1. Lonely Hearts (1958)
2. Freud (1962)
3. Judgement at Nuremberg (1961)
4. The Defector (1966)

 

Montgomery Clift's Filmography

 I just was reviewing Clift's filmography and noticed the following:

Clift made very few movies.  

From 1948-1966 (excluding his 12 minute role in J at N) he made only 16 films. That's in 19 years.  From 1948-1953, he appeared in 8 films,  was off the screen from 1954-1956, then released another 8 films in his remaining 10 years.  By comparison, Jimmy Stewart did 28 films from 1948-1966, and stars like Kirk Douglas or Glenn Ford were averaging almost 2 films per year.

Clift was Choosey and only did high quality films

Of the 16 films, only his last one, The Defector was low quality. In his previous 15 films (again excluding his cameo in Nuremberg)  he worked with 13 directors,  all of whom except one, had been nominated for Director Guild or Academy Awards.  We're talking 2 films with Fred Zimmerman, 2 with Dmytrk, 2 with John Huston, and 1 each with De Sica,  Hitchcock, Kazan, Stevens, and Seaton.  Its an amazing record. 

His co-stars are just as impressive.  John Wayne, Oliva De Havilland, Elizabeth Taylor (3 films),  Burt Lancaster,  Deborah Kerr, Brando,  Ann Baxter, Jennifer Jones, Clark Gable,  Marilyn Monroe, Myrna Loy,  Sussanah York and Lee Remick.  Probably the only movies where Clift had to carry the movie were  The Search, The Big Lift, and The Defector.  

Clift Loved B&W

Of the 16 films,  13 were in B&W.  The color films were:  The Defector, Raintree County, and Wild River.

Clift took a lot of time off

Precise dates are hard to pin down, but Clift spent large amounts of downtime between films.  Generally, he did one movie a year.  From 1946 to 1966 that would be 21 films but he actually only did 16.  He took 1951 off, and did two films in 1952.  After From Here to Eternity in the spring of 1953, Clift didn't return to work until early 1956.  That's a two year gap at the height of his career.  In 1960, he did two films (Misfits and Wild River). Later, after his problems on Freud in 1961, he was unemployed for 4 years,  doing no films in 1962-1965.