I'd like to spank the Academy

Posts tagged ‘Adapted from a play’

Cabaret (1972)

cabaretDirected by Bob Fosse

Okay, I’m back. I’m finally better enough that my writing once again makes sense. And I’m glad, because I’ve missed this. Now on to 1972!

I liked musicals when I was young. I’m not sure why. Maybe I liked believing in a place where people burst spontaneously into song and dancing with your enemy could solve problems. Maybe I didn’t notice that story and character development tend to suffer when the director has to make room for musical numbers. Maybe I liked the happy endings. But whatever it was that I liked as a child is gone now. Musicals make me very impatient. I still retain a nostalgic liking for the musicals I liked growing up, but I have a hard time with musicals that I am seeing for the first time. Since Cabaret has adult themes, it is not a musical I grew up with. Although I can see some of what people like about it, I didn’t particularly care for it.

So what’s the story? Young English author Brian Roberts moves to Germany in the 1930s. At his boardinghouse, he meets Sally Bowles, an effervescent American nightclub singer/aspiring actress. Together they experience the heady turmoil of pre-World War II Berlin.

The Good: I will give Cabaret props because even though it has musical numbers, all of the musical numbers take place in the nightclub. No one randomly breaks into song on the street or anywhere else. I did like that aspect of Cabaret as a musical. It made it realistic enough that I didn’t want to throw something at the TV.

The acting was good. Liza Minelli made a wonderful Sally, a woman who finds every experience in life worth trying, a woman who just loves life for life’s sake. I quite liked Michael York as Brian, the quiet Englishman who’s not quite sure of his sexuality or what he wants out of life. But the people who I really loved (and whose story I found more interesting than that of Sally and Brian’s) were Fritz Wepper and Marisa Berenson as a gold-digging man and a rich young woman, respectively. Both characters were extremely compelling, and being unsure if they will get a happy ending after all makes them semi-tragic.

The Bad: Even though the characters didn’t randomly burst into song, I didn’t feel like the songs added anything to the movie. The songs could have all been cut, and the only thing it would have done to the movie is make it shorter. There wasn’t even any fabulous dancing to make the musical numbers worth it. And I think some of the cabaret dancers were men in drag, but I couldn’t ever be sure, so I was distracted during the musical numbers trying to figure it out.

The Ugly: There wasn’t anything ugly about Cabaret per se, but I had a really hard time connecting to the movie at all. I can’t even blame being sick, because I was really into other movies I watched while I was sick. Anyway, I’m just going to have to risk the wrath of the internet and say I think Cabaret is overrated.

Oscars Won: Best actress in a leading role (Liza Minnelli); best actor in a supporting role (Joel Grey); best director; best cinematography; best art direction-set direction; best sound; best film editing; best music, scoring original song score and/or adaptation.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best writing, screenplay based on material from another medium.

Category:

Drama, Historical, Musicals

Tagged with:

The King and I (1956)

king and iDirected by Walter Lang

This is the second movie I’ve watched this week that I’ve seen more times than I can count, but it’s the first movie this week that was based on a play which was based on a book which was based on a true story. I loved musicals when I was young(which I think is funny considering how little patience I have with them now), and this was one of my favorite musicals. I can still sing along with all of the songs, and I think it will always have a special place in my heart.

So what’s the story? Anna Leonowens, a widowed Englishwoman, comes to Siam (now Thailand) to be the governess to the children of the king.

The Good: I love the music in this movie. I don’t love all of the songs, because I think there are one or two that slow the movie down, but most of them are enjoyable. And the score is amazing. All I have to do is see the cover of this movie and I have “The March of the Siamese Children” in my head. Not only that, but I am happy to have that song in my head. That never happens.

I like the lead actors in this movie. Yul Brynner plays a man who is trying to hold on to tradition and effect change at the same time. His inner struggle is plain on his face as he tries to make hard decisions. Deborah Kerr makes an excellent Anna. She is smart and determined and compassionate and courageous.

The costumes are gorgeous. Because of this movie, I have had a lifelong dream of polkaing in a dress with a giant hoopskirt. But Anna’s dresses are not the only beautiful ones in The King and I. The women of the court also wear lovely things. Even the king’s clothes are very sumptuous. It’s all very fun.

As impatient as I am with musical numbers that don’t help advance the plot or at least help with characterization, I love the Uncle Tom’s Cabin ballet. It’s different and beautiful and mesmerizing. I’m glad it’s in the movie.

The Bad: It bothers me a little bit that many of the “Asian” people in The King and I were played by Latinos. I can see the reasoning behind hiring Rita Moreno, because she’s amazing, and who wouldn’t pick Rita Moreno if she were a choice? But were the producers really unable to find enough children to play the king’s children who were, if not Thai, at least Asian? There weren’t ten to fifteen Asian kids living in California in 1956?

The Ugly: I have seen this movie many times, and it never bothered me before, so maybe I’m being ultra picky, but the attitude of the movie toward Siam in general and the king in particular is very condescending. There is very much an air of “everything in European culture is good because the Europeans are so enlightened, but there is nothing good about Siamese culture.” The king is only admired because he is trying to westernize his country. He makes silly mistakes (like wanting to send only male elephants to America) that are then corrected by the superior Englishwoman. At one point, Anna tells her young son, Louis, that in many ways, the king was no older than Louis. Really? This is a grown man who had ruled a country and managed to keep it independent in a time of colonization. He is very different from an eight-year-old. I think this might not bother me so much if these characters weren’t based on real people, but since they are, I feel like the characterization of the king and the attitude toward Siam in general is very disrespectful. And yes, I understand that The King and I is from a different era, which is why I can still enjoy this movie. But I can also understand why it’s banned in Thailand. Not that I advocate banning, but I can sympathize with the feelings behind the banning in this particular case.

Oscars Won: Best actor in a leading role (Yul Brynner); best art direction-set direction, color; best costume design, color; best sound, recording; best music, scoring of a musical picture.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actress in a leading role (Deborah Kerr); best director; best cinematography, color.

Category:

Historical, Musicals

Tagged with:

On Golden Pond (1981)

On_golden_pondDirected by Mark Rydell

I’ve always liked the image evoked by the title of this movie. Golden Pond always sounded like such a lovely and peaceful place. But although I love Katharine Hepburn, I had never seen this movie. It was one of those that I always vaguely felt in the back of my mind that I should watch, but I had never made the effort. It turns out that it was a little bit hard to watch. My father is aging faster than I would like, and although I’ve always had a good relationship with him, this movie poked a sad spot in my heart. If actors like Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda can get old, what’s to stop the rest of humanity? It’s not comfortable to be confronted with mortality.

So what’s the story? Norman and Ethel are opening their summer house on the lake when they get a letter from their semi-estranged daughter, Chelsea. She wants to come for Norman’s 80th birthday and bring her boyfriend Bill to meet them. With Bill and Chelsea comes Billy, Bill’s thirteen-year-old son. Chelsea asks if they can leave Billy with Norman and Ethel while Chelsea and Bill go to Europe for a month. Norman, Ethel and Billy learn lessons about growing up and growing old during their summer together on Golden Pond.

The Good: Katharine Hepburn is good as always, although it is a little strange to see the normally elegant Hepburn flipping someone off and calling Henry Fonda “Old Poop.” But she sparkles with happiness at being in her beloved place and just generally glows. Henry Fonda also does a fine job as Norman, who is getting old and unsteady and losing his memory a bit. But it’s Doug McKeon as Billy who was the real surprise. He manages to hold his own while playing opposite two screen legends. He puts on a show of bravado, but underneath he’s a kid who is feeling abandoned and unwanted. His friendship with the irascible Norman is a lovely thing to see.

The filming location is lovely. I’m not sure where it was filmed, but the natural beauty of the land led to some nice cinematography.

The Bad: While I’m pretty sure the point of this movie was the reconciliation between Chelsea and Norman, I didn’t much care for the parts with Jane Fonda at all. She made Chelsea come off as a spoiled brat, even though Chelsea is a grown woman. The reasons for Chelsea’s problems with Norman were never made very clear, either. Yes, he’s a grumpy person and tends to snipe at people, but he does that to everyone. If the estrangement was about something other than that, it’s never said. That isn’t Jane Fonda’s fault; that’s just slightly sloppy storytelling. But it made Chelsea look oversensitive and whiny.

The movie is a bit over-scored for my taste. The music is good music, but there’s just too much of it for such a quiet movie. And during the scene in Purgatory Cove, the music sounded downright jaunty, even though the scene was not. It didn’t work for me.

The Ugly: I always hate admitting this because it makes me feel whiny and immature, but I got bored. There were scenes that I loved, but some parts just dragged on. I liked it a lot better once Chelsea and Bill left and it was just Ethel, Norman, and Billy. I could have watched more of that odd fellowship. Why did Chelsea have to be in it and ruin it with her whining? (And yes, I realize that I’m whining about whining.)

Oscars Won: Best actor in a leading role (Henry Fonda); best actress in a leading role (Katharine Hepburn); best writing, screenplay based on material from another medium.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actress in a supporting role (Jane Fonda); best director; best cinematography; best sound; best film editing; best music, original score.

Category:

Comedy, Drama

Tagged with:

Of Mice and Men (1939)

1939 Of mice and men - La fuerza bruta (ing) 03Directed by Lewis Milestone

I read the book Of Mice and Men when I was a junior in high school. I didn’t care for it much; I couldn’t figure out how John Steinbeck could fit so much misery into such a short book. And I haven’t read it since, but watching this movie made me want to, because even though the movie Of Mice and Men is still sad due to the utter hopelessness of these men’s lives, the fact that someone out there understands their situation and dreams and feelings gives hope back to those who feel downtrodden by life. I’m not a Depression-era drifter, but this movie gave me some hope. It made me realize that I am not alone in what I want out of life. That’s a very powerful thing for a work of art to do.

So what’s the story? During the Depression, friends George and Lennie go from ranch to ranch looking for work. George is a small guy, but he’s smart. Lennie is hulking giant; he’s mentally slow, but he works hard and is very kind-hearted, especially towards small animals. George and Lennie have a dream of having their own small place where they can farm for themselves and do what they want to do when they want to do it. They are starting work on a new ranch. Curly, the ranch owner’s proud, jealous son, has a wife, Mae, whom he constantly suspects of cheating. Being the only woman on the ranch is lonely for her, but it’s even worse because none of the ranch hands will talk to her because Curly doesn’t like it when they do. The tensions on the ranch are about to explode and take away George and Lennie’s dreams.

The Good: This movie was exceptionally well-cast. Lon Chaney, Jr. plays Lennie and does a wonderful job of playing a kind man who truly doesn’t understand his own strength. His performance is powerful, and I’m really trying to decide why he didn’t get nominated for an Oscar for it. Burgess Meredith plays George very well. He gives a very good performance of a man torn between his love and loyalty to a friend and his frustration when that friend makes mistakes that pull them both down. Betty Field, who plays Mae, also does a good job. Mae is kind of crass and low-class, but she’s also so lonely. Her desire to really live life is just bursting out of her. I felt much sorrier for her than I remember feeling when I read the book. The rest of the cast is good, too. The hands are especially sympathetic. I don’t know how they got such perfect people for every role, but it happened.

I noticed the music from the beginning. I kept thinking it sounded more symphonic, more complex somehow than a typical 1930s movie score. I found out that Aaron Copland wrote the music, and it suddenly made sense. It was beautiful music, and it didn’t overwhelm the movie like some scores did in the 1930s. It fit the movie just perfectly.

The Bad: I can’t exactly put my finger on just why I felt this way, but I feel like it dragged a bit in some places. I can’t really think of a boring scene, but the pacing was off somehow. Maybe it’s because when I watched it, my mind wasn’t the sharpest it’s ever been. So yeah. Take that comment with a grain of salt. Or better yet, watch the movie and tell me in the comments if I was right or wrong!

The Ugly: This is not a happy story. It’s the story of men living on the fringes of society, wanting no more than the freedom to make their own decisions about life, but who can’t rise above where their circumstances have placed them. The ending is heart-wrenching, because John Steinbeck understood life, and life is not easy.

Oscars Won: None.

Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best sound, recording; best music, scoring; best music, original score.

Random Fact: This movie was adapted from the play that was based on the book. Weird, huh?

Category:

Drama

Tagged with:

Dark Victory (1939)

dark victory posterDirected by Edmund Goulding

People who care about such things may notice that I have gone out of order. Yes, I realize d comes before g in the alphabet, so yes, this should have been the first review of the week. But I don’t watch the movies in alphabetical order; I watch them as I want to watch them. And I had watched Goodbye, Mr. Chips earlier in the week, but stupid daylight savings time prevented me from getting to Dark Victory until later than I wanted. So write your congressman and say you want to put an end to daylight savings time.

So what’s the story? The reason I hadn’t watched Dark Victory was that the story just didn’t appeal to me. Judith Traherne is a young sporting socialite; she breeds and rides horses and hunts and all that kind of stuff. She’s had blinding headaches for the last six months, but when she misses a jump when riding her horse, she realizes something is seriously wrong. She is diagnosed with a brain tumor and has it removed, but the doctor knows that someday it will come back; Judith will be dead before then end of a year.

The Good: This movie had the potential to be either incredibly melodramatic or deadly dull. In order to avoid that, the viewer has to care about Judith. Bette Davis makes you care. Judith tries to pretend that she’s not really worried at the beginning, but Bette Davis lets us see beneath the strong words and actions to the scared young woman. She glows when she falls in love; she becomes tough, yet brittle when she feels like that love has betrayed her. I  found myself in complete sympathy with Judith, even though our lives are so very different. If this movie had starred a lesser actress, it would have been soapy garbage. Bette Davis saved it from that.

The supporting cast is also stellar. Geraldine Fitzgerald as Judith’s personal secretary and best friend is a standout. I hadn’t seen her in anything before, but I think I get to see her in a few more nominees, which makes me happy.

The Bad: Max Steiner wrote the soundtrack for this film, and the music is nice, but it’s  very dramatic. I realize that that was the trend of the time, but I like my soundtracks to be a little more subtle.

The Ugly: I think the fact that Bette Davis is so good kind of highlights a major weakness of this movie. The storyline is tripe. It’s silly and contrived and over dramatic. My advice for watching this movie is to allow yourself to get swept up in the fabulous acting and don’t think too hard about anything else. Also, Humphrey Bogart in a small supporting role with a bad fake Irish accent? No. Very ugly.

Oscars Won: None.

Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actress in a leading role (Bette Davis); best music, original score.

Fun fact: There’s a very attractive young playboy in Dark Victory who looked kind of familiar to me, but I couldn’t place him, so I looked him up on IMDb. Turns out the very attractive playboy would be president of the United States a little over forty years later. Weird.

Category:

Drama

Tagged with: