Yearly Archives: 2009

Recently Watched: A Christmas Carol (1984)

I have a bit of a backlog of recently watched movies to blog about, but this one was about to reach its expiration date so it’s getting posted first.

“A Christmas Carol” is a story so overdone that it’s beyond my weak powers of prose to fully describe how trite and cliche it is. I counted to 35 on the IMDb’s list of films and made-for-TV versions made of Dickens’ story before I gave up. Every U.S. sitcom that lasts more than 2 seasons is apparently forced by law to do at least one “Christmas Carol” based special during its run. (“WKRP” was the best.)

But a few months ago I recalled seeing a TV version with George C Scott as a kid. When Edward Woodward died recently, I moved the film to the top of my Netflix queue and finally got it this weekend.

My memories of it from watching it 25-ish years ago are pretty vague. I recall being apprehensive because George C Scott scared the everloving hell out of me in the 1970s in the Hallmark TV version of “Beauty and the Beast”, and the character Scrooge usually scared me silly anyway, thanks to Alastair Sim’s death-like appearance in the 1951 film. But I was determined to see the Scott version because Edward Woodward was the Ghost of Christmas Present and my favorite show was “The Equalizer”. Guess that means I saw a rerun, since “Christmas Carol” was released a year before “The Equalizer” began.

Of the versions of the story I’ve seen, this one is by far the best. They didn’t take any risks with the overall presentation, sticking closely to the same visuals that previous versions had used. But Scott breathes life into a character that never seemed that real before, as do David Warner and Roger Rees and others. Some of the scenery is simple yet beautiful, and a few special effects shots are surprisingly good for 1984 television.

And, of course, Edward Woodward is absolute gold. He walks about in stilts like a pro and plays the boisterous, Bacchanalian spirit cleverly and without overacting. No one gives the side-eye like Edward:

The story is (like most Dickens) ham-handed and strained, with no sense of irony that Scrooge changed only out of mild guilt and a fear of death rather than genuine understanding. However, if you’re looking for a decent version of “Christmas Carol”, I recommend this one.

Update 12/28/09: Ivan of Thrilling Days of Yesteryear sent along this Salon article about the George C. Scott version of “A Christmas Carol”. It’s a good read, I recommend it.

5 Replies

Night Parade (1929)


You may have noticed I’m not posting many of those superlong summaries of films like “The Locked Door” or “Gosford Park”. They haven’t gone away, but they do take forever to compose and I just can’t get them done in a reasonable time, so I’m concentrating on other things. Also, I’m thinking of tagging those superlong posts as “executive summaries”, but I’m afraid I’m the only one who would find that funny.

Speaking of tags: Since I talk about fabulously appointed art deco apartments so much, I gave them their own tag and decided to start posting about them on their own and not just briefly mention them in longer posts. Note that fabulously appointed art deco apartments need not actually be apartments, they can be houses or mansions or prison cells. Fabulous interiors, that’s what I’m cooing over here.

Several months ago I recorded 3 precodes on TCM, one of which was “Night Parade” (1929). It’s not so much a precode as a very early talkie and, simply put, it stinks on toast. It tries hard to be a full entertainment experience by including song, dance, extended boxing scenes, gorgeous sets and beautiful costumes, but it falls completely flat because the acting and dialogue are so poor. “Night Parade” has all the usual traits of a poorly-produced early talkie: stiff acting, improper and sometimes hilarious diction, actors glancing off camera, over-penciled eyebrows, and a thin plot that is shamefully stretched far beyond its maximum capacity. One gets the impression that early talkies based on stage plays took out the best parts and tried to breathe life into the piecemeal remains by shouting all the dialogue. Shouting is an emotion! Scenery is delicious!

I have no idea if this is true or not, but it seems as though the really daring, outrageous art deco sets didn’t sppear in Hollywood until the talkies came in. Despite the art form officially beginning before talking pictures, I haven’t yet seen any of these intense, urban designs appear in silents, although “Metropolis” comes close.

One of the only good things about “Night Parade” is the evil, naughty, bad lady’s apartment. Paula, played by Aileen Pringle, is in with the mob and seduces a young boxer to get him to throw a bout. Much of the film takes place at a gala affair in her apartment, which of course was an excuse to get a little song and dance worked into the film. You couldn’t have an early talkie without song and dance.

The lobby of Paula’s apartment:


Love that chair! Here you can see a little more to the left:


Just to the left of that geometric flowered curtain panel is Paula’s main living area. The main room of Paula’s apartment looks like this:


Just look at that! Wild stenciled borders on the ceiling, crazy curtains, and a wacky geometric tri-circled thing on the back left. Many of the accessories like lamps, vases, and even some of the faux floral arrangements are metal.

Here are a few close-ups:


You can see the gorgeous artwork on the wall to the back left, and of course the funky patterned upholstery on the chair.

Here’s a closer look at that geometric thing on the left. By the way, that thing is a door to Paula’s bedroom. Kinky!


This is the inside of the door:


Oof. That’s a “The Yellow Wallpaper” kind of pattern, the kind that drives you mad if you look at it too long. That funky metal border is on plenty of walls in Paula’s room. This is her room:


There’s nothing much I liked about Paula’s bedroom interiors except the lamp, which I adored. The day after I got screencaps for this, I screencapped “The Rich Are Always With Us”, and look what I found in Ruth Chatterton’s fabulously appointed art deco apartment:


The same lamp! Please do not be distracted by George Brent’s large back, which was occasionally used to screen motion pictures on. The lamp is on the right. Who knew Aileen and Ruth shared lamps?

I began to pay more attention to props used in films thanks to this stunning article The Secret Life of Objects. If you get nothing else out of this blog entry, I hope you at least go read the article.

I gotta give a shout-out to fashion in this film. Check out Paula’s sporty little outfit here:

The alleged comedy relief in the film is this lady, Florence (Marie Astaire). She can’t deliver her lines worth a damn, never directly addressing anyone and instead just looking around vaguely while smirking and trying hard not to muss up her dialogue. But that dress! Yes, that does appear to be essentially a see-through dress, at least in the bodice:

Paula’s gown, which is really lovely:


Most of the song and dance in the film was tiny, sexy Ann Pennington and her skin-tight ostrich feather dress, which spent most of the time hiked up so you could see her garters and panties:

Update: As I found out years later, that guy on the right that looks like Oscar Levant? Is Oscar Levant.

Bonus fashion: Designs by Erte for Aileen Pringle and Ann Pennington, courtesy evenloversdrown on theflappers. Check out the whole post for art deco deliciousness.

Aileen in a costume from “The Mystic”:

Ann in 1925 on left, a 1927 Erte costume made for her on the right:

In a lot of ways, there is no such thing as a bad movie. I got hours of enjoyment out of “Night Parade”, even though it was so awful I eventually had to mute the sound just to get through it.

CREDITS

Photo of Aileen Pringle from “The Night Parade” courtesy the Movie Star Mystery Photo from the Daily Mirror, April 2009.

5 Replies

Bette Davis Project #6: The Rich Are Always With Us (1932)

therich1_500_305deRuth Chatterton is Caroline Grannard, the daughter of a fabulously wealthy tycoon and wife of handsome businessman Greg (John Miljan). Caroline often lunches with Julian Tierney (George Brent), a handsome journalist who is in love with her, but while she enjoys his company she makes certain he knows she’s not interested in an affair.

Tierney has been living an adventurous life traveling in China and writing articles. In 1932, China was ostensibly under the control of the Kuomintang government led by Chiang Kai-Shek, although many areas of China were ruled by warlords and some were under the rule of Mao Zedong’s Soviet forces. Chiang Kai-Shek sensed threat from Mao Zedong and began a series of Encirclement Campaigns against Zedong’s forces which lasted until the mid-1930s. It’s likely Julian was in China to cover some of these campaigns, although it’s never explicitly said.

Things at lunch are immediately complicated by pretty, flighty Malbro (Bette), who is obviously in love with Julian while he cannot stand her at all. Elsewhere in the same restaurant are Caroline’s husband Greg and young blonde Allison (Adrienne Dore), and Caroline is immediately suspicious that they’re having an affair.

therich4_500_a2f1c

Later at one of those decadent early-30s parties the rich always give in Hollywood films, a party where Caroline has hired a professional (and formerly convicted) con artist and gambler to gamble against the rich guests for sport, Caroline is confronted by Allison. Allison insists Greg divorce Caroline so she can marry Greg instead. Caroline reminds them that the money is all hers, Greg isn’t wealthy in his own right, but they allegedly don’t care. Caroline leaves for Paris to divorce, despite Julian wanting her to stay so they can have a relationship now that the pesky husband is out of the way.

therich5_500_fdf97

While waiting for Caroline to come back (although he does visit her in Paris once) Julian takes up with Malbro out of boredom, I guess. He basically leads her on but it’s all excused at the end by framing the relationship as a chance for Julian to make Malbro less flighty, silly, and jealous of Caroline.

And now we break for some fabulous art deconess, courtesy of Caroline’s apartment:

therich7_500_3de2dWacky upholstery and crazy door patterns!

therich8_500_fd878Table llama!

At a weekend get together after Caroline returns home, Julian dumps Malbro and takes up with Caroline. Allison, now married to Greg and expecting a child, discovers Julian and Caroline spent the night together, and she tries to start gossip about the love affair.

therich9_500_3ffd3Allison may be a gossipy bitch, but check out that gorgeous sporty ensemble.

 

Allison tries to gab her new gossip to everyone at breakfast starting with Malbro, but Malbro stops her by getting medieval on her ass. I thought Bette was going to smack a bitch. You have to see this movie.

In fact, because I am such a benevolent person, a person who assumes you will now go out and find a copy of this film to watch it yourself, I will warn you now: SPOILERS FOLLOW!

Greg tries to take Allison home, but he crashes the car, leaving Allison dead and injuring himself all to hell. Caroline decides to stay by his side while he recovers, but Julian figures she can do that while being Mrs Julian, so they marry in the hospital. Is that what the title of the film means, your rich ex-wife will always be with you, even if you get married to an idiot bimbo and then kill her because you can’t drive worth a damn? Okay, all snarking aside, I have no idea what the title of the film means. Interestingly, the wife staying by her no-good ex and/or estranged husband is a theme used similarly in “Dangerous” (with Davis) and “Lilly Turner” (with Brent and Chatterton). I guess it allegedly mitigates the “scandal” of divorce.

The judge who happens to be hanging around so conveniently for the pair to marry in the hospital is played by Berton Churchhill, who appears in so many 1930s films that I’m about to start an official Berton Churchhill watch.

The film is very enjoyable, and if you get a chance to see it I think you’ll love it. Ruth Chatterton is really growing on me as an actress, to the point to where I cheer when I see her in a film. Bette absolutely sparkles as Malbro, and once again I can’t get over how much more fun and lively her character is versus the main characters. You just want to watch a whole film of Malbro being Malbro instead of boring old Julian pining after perfect Caroline.

Thanks again to Louie for letting me “borrow” this movie!

2 Replies

Isle of the Dead (1945)

D for Doom and I got to talking about the film “Isle of the Dead” (1945) in the comments of my last post, plus of course today is the last day of the Boris Karloff Blogathon, so I thought I’d post a few pictures. One day I may get around to actually writing about the film.

Further Reading:

Review from Ferdy on Films

Review from Only the Cinema

Igloo of the Uncanny’s entry

 

3 Replies

The Devil Commands (1941)

Frankensteinia has been holding a Boris Karloff Blogathon all week, which I discovered a couple of days ago thanks to Ivan at Thrilling Days of Yesteryear and W.B. Kelso at Scenes from the Morgue. Now keep in mind this post isn’t part of the blogathon, I just had this post ready to go and it coincided with the blogathon.

My husband and I love watching old Karloff flicks, the ones from the mid-30s to the mid-40s especially, because they’re often short, low-budget affairs that can occasionally surprise you. “The Devil Commands” has moments, but ultimately it sucks on ice. I love the concept of this film, just absolutely adore it beyond measure, which may have been why I was so disappointed when the film failed to deliver. Yet concepts aren’t always as they seem; another Karloff film, “The Black Door”, is the basic unimaginative good twin/evil twin plot executed with a complexity and intrigue that turns it into a really great film.

Edward Dmytryk directed “The Devil Commands” but it’s early in his career and he isn’t quite at the “Murder, My Sweet” level of ability. Karloff has a really great look — think psychotic stock broker — and Anne Revere gives a tight, impressive performance. But there’s really only about 25 minutes in the middle of this film that are worth watching, and the supporting cast of dull, lifeless performers almost ruin the good parts. Amanda Duff especially stands out as awful, which is unfortunate as she’s the narrator of the film. It’s no wonder she didn’t work in Hollywood after “Devil Commands”.

Total speculation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “The Devil Commands” wasn’t officially finished and had to be pieced together through weird post-production finagling to render it suitable for release. I guess it seemed that way because of all the padding and all the juicy bits of plot we never see. Narration glosses over huge chunks of action that the audience would want to see, and the padding — usually with establishing shots of obvious miniature models of homes — is distinctly noticeable in a film that barely lasts 60 minutes.

Over half of the film is tedious exposition. The film finally gets going and suddenly entire chunks of plot that the audience would love to see is missing. Maybe “missing” isn’t the right word, as that presumes the footage was shot in the first place. Maybe there was never any intent to flesh out the plot. For example, once the sinister goings-on start we’re told in narration that the doctor has been experimenting for 2 years, yet never get to see any of what must have been awesome and gruesome work. Previously, Dr. Blair used live people in his experiment, but suddenly he’s using corpses. Why? How does he keep them fresh so they don’t stink up the place? What do these corpses do that live people don’t? I mean, we know the use of corpses is all just for the sake of sci-fi/horror, but this film is positively blatant about not giving enough of a damn to even explain huge details such as the corpses.

Oooh, it’s a corpse-powered battery that lets you talk to the dead! Terrific idea, unfortunately no plot to go with it.

Whether real or metaphorical, the devil of the title is never explained in any form. Is it one of the characters, is it science, is it grief? Nothing is explained well enough for the audience to decide. At the end of the film there is a main character who, I guess, suffers some kind of fate. We don’t know, because there was no footage included to actually show us what happened. While we see the fates of at least 3 other people, this character’s ultimate fate is at best hinted at. Just as the character (and I’m being vague on purpose) might be suffering peril, the scene cuts to other characters, then to a shot of the horrible model house and the film ends.

There are worse ways to spend an hour. There are also better ways, ways that involve Funyuns or lawn maintenance. If you must watch Karloff, go see “The Old Dark House” or “The Black Room” again and skip this one.

7 Replies