Movies at the Start of the 40s – 1944

Meet me in St. Louis

At first glance Vincent Minnelli’s “Meet me In St. Louis” looks like a forgettable and hokey Hollywood musical, once again showing a perfectly nice and white American Family going through simple and uncomplicated issues such as moving to a new City.    The family is situated in an upper middle class neighborhood of St. Louis, through one year between 1903 and 1904.    That was the same year as the World’s Fair was held in St. Louis and the fair becomes an event that helps bring the film to its required happy end.    Of course, the young daughters finally succeed in getting their nice young men to marry them with nary a problem to worry about.     What surprised me was that I found myself liking this movie.     Thinking about it, I came to the realization that my affinity to it was not due to the popular songs that populates the film.   Nice songs, sure, but a bit dated for me to properly enjoy.    It was not even the appearance of the wonderful singing actress Judy Garland that held my attention.   Again, her singing voice is really wonderful as usual, but the period songs sort of left me indifferent.    One of the aspects to the film that held my interest was its ability to give us certain scenes stark realism.   I always loved it when movies make me feel like I am looking into a time machine and viewing a period long past, seeing it as it really looked.     Some scenes in this film gave me that feeling.    An example is when Ms. Garland is escorted by her young beau at the end of a wholesome evening and they go around her large house, extinguishing all the candles needed to light up the house during the non-electricity days of 1903.    Many of the scenes in the movie are filmed at night and Minnelli does a great job in illuminating those scenes with what feels like real candle light.   This is something that the great Kubrick would perfect years later in his “Barry Lyndon” masterpiece.    There is also a musical scene riding a public trolley (state of the art electric for the time).   While the singing is all fantasy, the movie follows the ride with the trolley through a colorful city that again gave me the feeling of peeking into the past.    It is the best musical scene in the movie.       I also appreciated the scenes with the child actress, Margaret O’Brien.   She plays a 10 year old and her scenes are the best thing about the movie.  Particularly the Halloween scene, that has her playing a trick on what we are told is an evil neighbor who will not give the kids candy.    We all know he is not evil, but this scene is seen through the eyes of children and is given a very spooky feel that is worthy of Halloween.   It also comes unexpectedly in the middle of the film and adds deep texture and reality to what is in general a very banal story.   O’Brian is that rare child actor who not only acts well but does so with conviction and charisma.   She steals every scene she is in.    Minnelli proved to me with this movie that he is a quality director who is able to overcome weak material by bringing to life a time long past.    For that, this movie is worth a look.

 

To Have and Have not

Legend has it that Ernest Hemingway, the great Pulitzer Prize winning author, thought that his worst novel, by far was, “To Have and Have Not”, based on alcohol and refugee smuggling from Cuba to the USA.    He then went on to bet his good friend, director Howard Hawks, that it would be impossible to make a good movie out of this book.    Hawks then took him up on the offer, going on to make one of the most financially successful movies from the 1940s.   The thing is, he sort of changed the story, moving it from CUBA to the French Vichy run island of Martinique during WW2.     His idea of making the novel into a good film was in trying to imitate the great film, “Casablanca”, while keeping some of the trashy elements of the book intact.    Everybody seems to think Hawks won the bet, but I am in the minority in believing that he actually lost it.    Sure he has Humphry Bogart playing a character similar to Rick from, Casablanca and we have the fascist Nazis and Vichy French running the Island like a dictatorship.    The movie however is pretty much a by the numbers adventure movie with very little scenes that stand out.    We have Bogey as an American ex pat running a fishing boat business for tourists.    Not quite as romantic as running a bar, but still Bogey does an admiral job in being tough and likeable.     He then, through the act of falling in love, is convinced in aiding the French resistance to escape the Island into America.   This replaces the refugees from Hemingway’s book.    Their plan goes bad and Bogey needs to show bravery that will allow him to save everyone.      The one aspect that raises the movie above the average is the fact that Bogey’s love interest here is played by a very young Lauren Bacall, in her first starring role.   The chemistry the two shows in the movie is electric and while watching the film, all we want to do is watch both of them on the screen together.    Their glances of love and admiration are very believable with quite a bit of sexual innuendo thrown in that is subtle and clear at the same time.    Sparks fly when they are together in the screen.    It actually looks like they are falling in love before our eyes.     In actual fact, they did fall in love while making the movie, and even went on to get married.    This to me shows that the sparks we see of them together is more than just good acting, but actual feelings.    It is a delight to watch.    Maybe this hot and exciting chemistry they had is what makes all the rest of the characters in this movie seem so boring.    Seeing them together however, makes this film worth watching.

 

Laura

Otto Preminger’s “Laura” is one strange movie.     It is a film noire that deals for two thirds of the movie with the mystery of the murder of a live person. Within that murder, it’s so called hero fall in love with its victim during the whole period that the hero believes the victim is dead.      It has an obvious gay character being obsessively in love with its supposedly murdered heroin and there is noire style flashbacks told from the perspective of the murderer through his thoughts, after he is already dead.  If you have never seen this movie before, then I just ruined the ending for you but I would not fret, because the ending is not the point of this movie.     The basic story revolves around the murder of a popular high society beauty that is apparently loved by everyone.   There is one detective who is assigned to the murder and he basically centers his investigation on her fiancé and   her best friend and confidant.    Those two characters are the best parts of the movie.   The Fiancée is played by the tall and untrustworthy presence of Vincent Price who would later make a career of evilness in countless horror movies.     Here he plays a dislikeable lout who sleeps with the victims Aunt for money and shows little remorse for his loss.     The confidant is an effeminate, smart, fast talking slime ball who plays a newspaper gossip columnist.    This character is played by Clifton Webb who was a theatre actor at the time.   He plays his part with such power, that each time he enters the screen, you can’t stop staring.  He plays the part as an obvious gay character with a possessive character that causes him to do anything to stop the title character from being loved by someone else.   His gay persona, as a psychotic, would be the start of Hollywood’s use of gay characters being crazy murderers that would continue throughout the years with such films as “looking for Mr, Goodbar” and “Silence of the Lambs”.    It is another example of how Hollywood always helped to perpetuate bigotry within various minorities.   Webb’s portrayal here borders on campy but served as your typical gay characterization for years after this film was made.      The movie itself shifts form weirdness to strangeness throughout.   The detective is played by the always stoic Dana Andrews who plays the role in a very unemotional almost cardboard like manner.    He also seems a bit disturbed.   One scene that I could not believe was allowed in 1944 shows our detective barging into Webb’s character’s bathroom while he was taking a bath. We see the very macho detective obviously googles the gay man’s nakedness while asking him questions.    What was that all about?   Later on the detective sleeps in the empty house of the murder victim and is shown to have somehow fallen in love with her, even though he thinks she is dead.    For some odd reason the detective also allows the Webb character to follow him during the entire investigation.     My thoughts is he does so because he is interested in him sexually.    This is never explained but it seems like the only explanation.    Later in the film and from out of nowhere, the victim turns up alive meaning that the dead body we thought was hers at the beginning of the movie is the face blown off body of someone else.    At that point the film turns from strange necrophilic love and gay lust to a tension filled crime thriller.    The many twists in this movie if looked at as a straight plot make so little sense.  The many twists in this film should be seen through the psychological context of a heterosexual hero struggling with his own sexuality and through the investigation of a sleazy affair reaping with jealous violence. Seen through this context makes it possible to see the true power of this marvelous movie.    It may take more than one viewing but “Laura” is about much more than a noire thriller.   It is in fact a psychological horror story told through the style of Film Noire.

 

Gaslight

The movie “Gaslight”, and the stage play it is based on were so successful in their depiction of and evil conniving man trying to make his naïve and unknowing wife to believe she is going insane, that it created the psychological term gaslighting.     That term describes a form of psychological abuse in which the victim is gradually manipulated into doubting his or her own sanity.   It is one of the few times that art aided science and medicine in developing a term for an existing condition.      The film start Ingrid Bergman as the lost orphan from a rich artistic family that owns a priceless neckless.   The neckless causes the murder of her aunt while in her aunt’s custody and eventual target of the killer to marry and eventual destruction.    The killer is the charming Charles Boyer who after succeeding in causing our heroine to fall in love with him, slowly tries to make her believe that she has lost her sanity.    He does this so that he can continue to piecemeal search their home, which was previously owned by her murdered Aunt, in order to locate the necklace.     His methods include hiding certain objects that he accuses her of taking and medicating her.    Her hearing of footsteps at night and seeing of the eerie twinkling gas light, also at night, help to compound her feeling of going insane.  Gaslight is used due to the story based in the 19^th century.  Our villain is aided by a house maid and throughout the movie it looks like he will succeed in his evil plan.    We of course have an inquisitive and connected police detective that arrives into our heroine’s life, just in time to save the day and give us the requisite Hollywood happy ending.   It is the acting of both Bergman and Boyer that make this movie stand out.  Bergman is very unglamorous and distraught throughout.  An actress of her beauty would have a difficult time give a convincing performance that shows grim sadness and unattractive helplessness, but Bergman succeeds in making a believable victim.   Boyer is all style and dishonesty and uses his French accent as a weapon.    He is perfect in the role of the villain making this movie a well-acted and interesting melodrama.

 

Henry V

“Henry V”, is a cinematic rendition of the Shakespeare play of the same name.   To truly appreciate a Shakespeare play in the movies, one need’s to first have a basic education of Shakespeare and Old English so as not to get lost in the beauty of the dialogue spoken in this long dead language.    It is not really necessary to have read the play before watching the movie, but you need to understand what is being said.    To that end, “Henry V”, is a masterful screen rendition of the bards play.   It was adapted, produced, directed and acted in by the great Lawrence Olivier.   He is without a doubt the greatest British actor in the history of cinema.     The story is a rousing story of military and political conquest from a young and brave monarch and its production was meant to give patriotic hope and a morale boost for the English public, at the end of WW2.    The movie adapts the story to cinema in an unprecedented style that transcends the genre of screened plays.    The film begins with the camera scanning the roofs of 17^th century London, using actual, then, present day rooftops while it floats over the City until landing onto the Royal Theatre, entering its doors to reveal the beginning of a staged version of the play.  We are then shown the staged version play itself out for about 15 minutes introducing the situation and main characters until the point in the play that Falstaff, who is one of the Kings former mentors, dies.   At that point the stage dissolves into a stylized film set that has a look of an illustrated book of fiction from the middle ages.    Since the movie is filmed in Technicolor, these movie set scenes are shown in dazzling and bright colors.   We are treated to terrific acting and the Barbs poetic prose.   Standouts are Henry’s rousing speech to his troops as Harfleur, Henrys walk in disguise with his troops and his famous Saint Crispin’s Day speech.    Then without warning the movie reverts to an on location, realistic style, for the critical battle of Agincourt.    The result shows the viewer amazing and exciting scenes of battle that could never be shown on the stage.    This battle scene streams with bright color giving it a larger than life feel.    Something I think Shakespeare would have appreciated.   The story than reverts back to the stylized movie set style for the Kings wooing of the French court.   It ends with a complete political victory and changes one final time to the original stage version showing the packed crowed standing on their feet and screaming with applause.   You can picture the war weary English public applauding alongside the theatre audience.    This is a magnificent film.

 

Ivan the Terrible Parts 1 and 2

Sergei Eisenstein is a cinema god.   He created the greatest silent film masterpiece ever, while working as a propagandist for the Soviet Union (The Battleship Potemkin).    His adaption to sound cinema was less successful after forays in making Mexican movies during the 1930s.    On his return to Russia he made a few more communist approved films and was considered one of the important, artistic people in Russia, during Stalin’s regime.  That all changed, after the release of Part 2, in his Ivan the Terrible project.    Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of 16^th century Russia who ruled with an iron fist, crushing all who opposed him.   Stalin greatly admired Ivan and commissioned Eisenstein to film his story.  Eisenstein decided to produce three concurrent films for this purpose.    The first film was a rousing commercial success that Stalin loved.   The 2^nd one which came out the following year in 1945, showed Ivan going insane and acting cruel.  Stalin felt this was a subliminal criticism to his own rule, resulting in its screening being stopped and the filming of part 3 never being completed.     So what we have is the first two parts.     They are both impressive pieces of films but are an extremely difficult watch.     Eisenstein still used his highly developed silent movie styles and incorporated them with very theatrical sermonizing type dialogue.   In Part I we have Ivan cementing his rule while following the treachery of the previously ruling Boyer class.  This section is filmed entirely in Black and white but features meticulous sets, which I am told realistically, depict the architecture and look of 16^th century palaces.   Almost the entire film is set in the ruling palace.     We are shown Ivan’s great love to his non Boyer wife, Tsarina, and his building of political allies.   All the while we have the film villain, the Boyer aunt Efrosinia, plotting his downfall.   He wages war against the southern Kazan regime and leaves his home and palace for the battlefield.  Retuning triumphant he finds that his dear wife was poisoned and he has to flee in order to re-consolidate his power.   The movie ends with his powerful return to power, an army in toe.    Part 2 deals with his subsequent reign and how the now loveless ruler dwells in vengeance and loses his sanity.     Eisenstein milks each scene, slowly drawing on the great acting of his cast to achieve the anguish, fear and evil that each character represents.    While he succeeds in this, it requires great patience from the audience to truly appreciate the feel of the movie.     During the closing section of part 2 we are treated to a color section in which Ivan’s close friend Phillip tries to convince him in not reeking vengeance on the Boyers, while a theatrical play is being performed in the palace.   It is a very complex and psychological rendition of the dilemma and the decision requirements that Ivan has to make.    The movie then reverts back to Black and White when the decision is finally made to kill and destroy all the Boyers , including all who were once against him.   The color shift to Black and White serves as a transition from good to evil.    Both movies also depict many of the main characters with animal like symbolism.   Ivan is portrayed as a bird with his robes acting as his wings and physical movements of head thrusting as you would find in a bird.  Efrosinia (the villainess), is portrayed like a snake in order to emphasize her evil nature.  When we are shown her entering a shot it is always from the floor up, like a snake.  Alexei (Ivan’s friend), is portrayed as a dog to emphasize his loyalty.   His hair is long and flops like a dog’s ears.     There are many more symbolic elements to these complex films that require multiple viewing to understand fully.    The problem is that actual action is minimal, making it difficult viewing.

 

Double Indemnity

In the 1940s Hollywood put out so many good Film Noire style movies that it is extremely difficult to decide which of these films, is the best of the bunch.    My favorite would have to be Billy Wilder’s, Double Indemnity.     The film is based on a popular story from the crime author, James M. Cain.   As in Cain’s, “The Postman always rings twice”, the story follows a married women and her lover, planning to kill her husband for money.    In the case of, “Double Indemnity”, we have the advantage of the story being based on a true event.     Double indemnity is the term used in insurance policies that allow for a double pay out when a death is caused by an accident.    Fred McMurray plays a slick insurance salesman who visits the rich home of Barbara Stanwyck.    He is there to speak to her husband about renewing his car insurance, but the husband is not home.   Stanwyck appears at the top of the staircase dressed in only a short bathrobe in what is one of the most sexually charged scenes ever filmed.   She then gets dressed in a slinky dress and starts to flirt aggressively with McMurray.   The movie shows this banter as extremely arousing to say the least and the casting of Stanwyck is what makes it work.   She moves and talks like a female predator.    To his benefit, McMurray, who played mild, comedic roles before this film, is not stupid and gives off his own self confidence and intelligence that initially seems to throw off Stanwyck’s plan.   Her plan is to put out a life insurance policy with the double Indemnity clause on her husband without him knowing about it.  He would sign the documents thinking he was renewing his car insurance.    Then both of them would kill him for the double payout.     While McMurrey’s salesman rebuffs the sex goddess initially, it only takes her surprise visit to his house in a sexy gown to break down his initial barrier of self-preservation.      They then commit the crime and some added twists and characters ensue until the end.     What makes the movie so special, in addition to the two main characters playing it perfect, is the role that Edward G. Robinson plays in the movie.   Robinson had a long and illustrious film career playing mostly tough, evil heavies, in gangster films.    In 1944 when he was getting up there in age, he realized he could be a great character actor.   In, “Double Indemnity”, he plays the insurance assessor who needs to make a decision as to the legality and honesty of the Insurance claim after the murder.    In real life insurance assessors are usually vilified by us as the type of people who are always looking for a loophole in order not to pay an insurance claim.   In this film, the assessor is a brilliant character, as well as an honest detective.   One of the delights in the movie is how we watch him slowly and determinedly discover the truth to the murder, except for the culpability of McMurray.  The reason he does not suspect McMurray is because after working years with him, he has fallen in love with him.    There is no indication that we are talking about homosexual love but it is clear that Robinson does not have a wife or girlfriend.   In fact the heterosexual aspects of the movie lead to misery and destruction.  The ending of the movie has both Robinson and McMurray state their love for each other just before McMurray dies and it is very touching.    This is a remarkable film and a Noire masterpiece.

 

Murder My Sweet

 

“Murder My Sweet is a 40s, Hollywood Noire version of Raymond Chandler’s great story, “Farewell My Lovely”.    It features some of the most distinct Noire styles used in cinema.  We have the flashback, loner hero and femme fetal.    The cinematography is dark and shiny.   There are some great knockout scenes that were predicators to Hitchcock’s use of a similar style in “Spellbound”.    In addition, many hard core Chandler fans feel that Dick Powell’s role as detective Phillip Marlow is the closest rendition to the novels version of him put on film.    I could not comment on that since I have never read the novels.    However, I found that the one weakness to the film is the performances by the cast.   Dick Powel is a former hoof and dance man who only played musicals and comedies before this movie and the rest of the staff, while doing a professional job, never really stand out.   Powell, to me, tries much too hard to be silent and tough and he instead comes across a bit wooden, lacking of personality.    The story however is very good and holds your interest throughout.   We have our private dick, Marlow, being hired by a mafia hit man played by the 7 foot actor, Mike Mazurki, whose physical presence is one of the highlights of the film.   Marlow is then hired by a rich and spoiled lady to help her old husband find a certain piece of Jewelry.  The plot then revolves around a number of twists and concludes with a double murder that brings all the various characters together.   As in many other movies from this genre, the films starts at the end and then works its way back, via flashbacks.     All directed with style and with witty dialogue.   It is a shame that the acting does not do justice to the material.    If only they had hired Humphrey Bogart to pay Marlowe.