Monthly Archives: June 2010

Bette Davis Project #10: The Great Lie (1941)

Why “The Great Lie” wasn’t made in 1933 with Kay Francis is beyond me, because this is so obviously a Kay vehicle that it’s impossible to see it any other way. Well, the fact is that it never could have been a Kay movie; it’s based on a Polan Banks novel from 1936 when both Kay and her style of movies were fading out of popularity. To me, that makes it even more strange that WB would choose to go with this film in 1941 when Bette was at the peak of her career.

great1
The plot is your basic unnecessarily complicated affair: Pete (George Brent, of course) marries tempestuous pianist Sandra (Mary Astor), a glamorous and world famous diva who enjoys to party as much as he does. After a week of marriage and wild, apartment-wrecking parties, Pete finds out they’re not really married as Sandra’s divorce wasn’t yet final. He takes his own plane to Maryland to talk to Maggie (Bette), the woman he was supposed to marry but didn’t because she thought he was an alcoholic and he refused to stop drinking.

great2

Maggie caught cold when she read about Pete’s marriage and spent a day walking in the freezing rain.

Maggie quite rightly chews his ass out for showing up a week after he married to whine that he’s made a blunder, so Pete doesn’t tell Maggie that he’s not really married, he just leaves and goes back to his wife. He tells Sandra they aren’t married and demands she not go on her world tour in Australia and instead stay behind so they can get re-married.

Oh, here we go. There is no reason they can’t get married in Australia or make some kind of arrangement, but no, George Brent is once again the man telling women what they should do. To her credit, Sandra refuses and goes on tour, but the film clearly portrays her as selfish and horrible for doing such a thing. At a later concert in the U.S., Maggie meets with Sandra, hoping to find Pete — he’s apparently gone off in a sulk and neither know where he is. Maggie’s uncle in the government has a position for Pete in the Bureau of Air Commerce (later the FAA) and she wants to tell him.

Sandra is portrayed as beautiful and glamorous…

great3

…while Maggie is made to look dowdy.

great4

And it’s unfortunate, too, because Bette is really quite pretty. I know that’s shallow, but it’s something that has always bothered me. Bette in the early 40s was given this slightly strange hairdo that involved impossibly short bangs paired with long, side-parted hair that curled at the end. She has lovely hair, and she had similar hair in the early 1930s when she was blonded up for movies like “Fashions of 1934,” but this is different. When her hair is pulled back in “Great Lie”, she looks wonderful. In fact, here’s a cap of her just out of bed toward the end of the film when she is supposed to look terrible:

great5

She’s beautiful, despite my subpar screencap. It’s the best she looks in the film, but we’re told she looks horrible from lack of sleep. I don’t get it at all. Her next film, “The Bride Came C.O.D.” has similar hair but longer, and it makes her look older.

Sandra chases Maggie off, and when Maggie gets home, Pete is there waiting for her. Now he tells her his marriage to Sandra wasn’t legal, so they get married almost immediately.

great6

I see no way this could go wrong. Oh, wait. Maggie meets up with Sandra in New York and is told that Sandra is pregnant with Pete’s child, and she intends to get Pete back. That same day, Pete flies to Brazil on business for the government and his plane goes down. Presumed dead a few weeks later, Maggie decides to convince Sandra to give her the baby. Man, this is SUCH a Kay Francis movie. So Maggie and Sandra wait out the pregnancy, apparently on the set of “The Petrified Forest:”

great7

The wind, the strict diet, and the loneliness almost drive Sandra crazy, which is understandable, but it’s again portrayed as her being a diva. And smoking while pregnant was tolerated, but she was told not to eat pickles or else. OK then. When the baby finally comes, Maggie paces around the place like an expectant father, even wearing what in 1941 would be considered a very “masculine” outfit:

great8

Again, Bette looks terrific in this scene with her hair pulled back. She gets the baby, Sandra goes back to her career, and then Pete is found. Did you have any doubt? Maggie lets him think the baby is hers, but Sandra shows up and insists she will reveal everything in an attempt to get Pete back. Maggie tells Pete what happened and becomes upset. During this tense discussion, Pete says things like “Shut up!” and “Stop crying or they’ll think I beat you… and I WILL if you don’t stop crying!” to his distraught wife. So that’s fun. Sandra is basically shown as being a horrible person for giving up her baby in the first place — I’m sure unwed mothers in 1941 were treated just swell — and she backs out of taking the baby because it doesn’t come with Pete. All is well.

Oog. What a mess. Beyond the dated plot — and you will never convince me that even in 1941 this plot was not dated — there are some really weird things going on in this film. It’s such an obvious programmer I can’t imagine why Bette was even cast in the role, especially since this is about 4 years after she famously walked off the Warner lot because of the crappy roles she had been getting. The outside shots are so obviously sets that I was distracted every time I saw them. The overuse of the opening piano solo of Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No.1 in B flat minor, Op. 23 is unbelievable. In one scene, Hattie McDaniel stumbles over her lines a bit and misses her cue to walk off the porch — you can tell because the camera starts moving before she does. But then when she gestures broadly a second later, the camera swoops to the left then back to the right to catch it all. It’s atrociously amateur. They couldn’t have done another take?

Also, toward the end of the film, Maggie refers to 2 of her beagles as “Mr. and Mrs.” with the name dubbed out. The sound quite clearly goes out before she says the name, and when Sam McDaniel repeats “Mr. and Mrs.” a few seconds later, the same censoring occurs. So now I’m going to be curious forever about the names of those dogs!

I caught the movie on TCM where it was preceded by a Bette short for war bonds done a few years later, apparently called “The Present With a Future,” but there was no title on the print TCM showed.

great9

The entire short is kind of odd, as it starts out with Bette playing a mom whose 2 preteen children are given war bonds instead of gifts for Christmas. Their house is phenomenal, clearly this is an upper class family, and Bette is in a $1000 gown in front of a tree that is huge and 100% Hollywood. When the little girl says she wanted a bike, one wonders why she didn’t get $2,000 in war bonds AND a $35 bike. Bette is completely stiff with these kids, too, and after the sketch we see Bette in her dressing room being herself.

great10

What the heck with the skit in the first place if we were just going to have Bette explain that everyone should buy bonds? Just have Bette Davis say “Look, you cheap assholes, buy some damn war bonds!” She looks so tired. Dark lipstick and white pancake don’t help.

 

Midnight Warriors: Bela!

The Mike of From Midnight, With Love asks:

“What’s guaranteed to make you happy when it comes to Horror, Genre, or Cult cinema?” UPDATE: Here is the post with everyone’s links. Read it today!

My calm, reasoned answer:

BELA BELA BELA BELA

It’s not just Bela Lugosi, though he is top on my list of pretend boyfriends. The camera loves him and his charisma absolutely crackles on screen, even when he’s barely recognizable or in a small role as in “Island of Lost Souls”. But I love the entire genre of pre-code horror films, the way they look at horror as being a skewed individual reaction to universal problems, how the villains have depth because they are psychologically damaged without being psychopathic. Control, lust, and greed are the basic motivators in pre-code horror films, and “White Zombie” is one of the best examples.


From the LA Times blog The Daily Mirror. Madge Bellamy was recently the subject of the Movieland Mystery Photo, and this obviously touched-up photo is from the LA Times’ archives.


I like this one because it looks like they took a photo of Bela as Dracula and drew a hat and ring on him.


What a goofy expression. How did this get released as a promo?

Shatnerthon: The William Shatner Blogathon


It’s summertime. Kids play in the streets, a warm breeze rustles the green leaves, bugs invade your home and form powerful alliances with your pets, and it’s time for Shatnerthon: The William Shatner Blogathon.

Yes, good friends, I am doing my first blogathon. Fingers crossed and all that. I’m seriously excited about this and, I can only hope, at least one other person is as well. Don’t make me force my husband to create a blog just so I have at least one participant!

The good news is that the rules are simple: Blog about William Shatner. Doesn’t matter what you blog about; anything that bears the golden touch of the Shatman is fair game. You could blog about movies, sure, but you could also blog about TV shows, interviews, musical performances, cartoons, satire, you could even send me a link to something you have already written and submit it for the Shatnerthon! That is how generous I am, my friends. Submit your entries to me in comments or via email, preferrably during the week of July 5th through 9th, but I’m not gonna turn down earlier submissions. I’ll post daily links to every submission I get.

And. AND! Everyone who submits an entry to the Shatnerthon will be entered into a random drawing for free DVDs! Two people will win a “Twilight Zone” compilation DVDs, either Volume 9 with “Nick of Time” or Volume 2 with “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet.” These are an almost $6 value! Very exciting! Note you don’t have to tell me your name or anything unless you win, but if you do, you’ll have to give me some kind of address to send these to. You are welcome to give me a fake name if you’re concerned about privacy, though, but you can’t use the name “Italian Director Frappucino Tentacles” because I’ve taken that one already.

I know what you’re asking. Of all the blogathons you could have done, Stacia, why did you choose one about William Shatner? Well… why not? He’s been in terrible movies and terrific movies, given rotten performances and genuinely good ones, he is spoofed and praised and hated and loathed and everything in between. He’s complicated, and I like that in a cultural icon-slash-punchline.

The William Shatner Blogathon starts July 5th and runs through July 9th, giving plenty of time to those of you who can’t get anything in on the 5th, which is a U.S. federal holiday and the day after that special time of year when Americans blow shit up while drinking heavily.

And I got yer banners right here:


HTML for this banner in the box below (this may be broken if you’re reading the RSS feed; if so, you’ll have to actually click on over to SBBN to get the HTML code):


HTML below:


HTML below:


HTML below:


As you can see, they are all tasteful and solemn, just like the blogathon will be. There is something for everyone in these banners, from Trekkers to stoners to people who really really like rectangles.

Join me, won’t you?

UPDATE: Are you looking for a Shatflick to write about? IFC is showing “Kingdom of the Spiders” Monday, June 7th, at 11 PM Central. It’s a little tarantula heavy for my taste, but it’s a classic.

Duel at Diablo (1966)

The fine folks at Movies Unlimited, and their official movie blog Movie Fanfare, very kindly asked me many months ago to contribute a guest blog article for them. I think it’s a good article, one I’m re-posting below; while I’m not 100% keen on my title for the entry, I did amuse myself with the extremely accurate bio blurb. Several of my blogging friends have gone before me at Movie Fanfare: Moira, Ivan, Lolita, Kate, and many more. It’s worth it to head over there and at least click the guest-blogs tag, because that is a fine group of writers they have collected.

***

“Duel at Diablo” (1966) is an odd, unique Western, a rare collage of individual desires in a genre that routinely celebrates the successes of partnership and camaraderie.

duel1-1

One of the most talked-about aspects of “Duel at Diablo” is the music which, at first, seems wildly out of place, far too cheerful and lighthearted for the subject matter. But listen closely to Neal Hefti’s score: The theme for the Apache is a strummy guitar track laid over a driving beat that mimics stereotypical “Indian drums”. Underneath the jazzy main theme track is a sweeping, orchestral score that would be right at home during a majestic scenery shot in any VistaVision Western of a decade earlier.

The music is as anachronistic as the background of the character of Toller (Sidney Poitier), a civilian businessman who once served as a cavalryman in the same regiment as Scotty McAlister. During the so-called “Indian Wars”, black soldiers such as Toller were segregated into all-black U.S. Cavalry regiments known as Buffalo Soldiers. While historically it’s possible Toller would have served at or near Fort Concho during the Apache Wars of the 1870s when “Duel at Diablo” takes place, he would not have served in a unit with white soldiers.

Yet this anachronism is not problematic in the least, as Nelson has unabashedly made a 1960s Western movie. This is not a historical piece, a documentary, an apologetic retcon for the problems of American Westerns of earlier decades. Rather, Nelson quite purposefully embraces the culture of the 1960s while telling a story set in the 1870s. That’s why the beautiful tailored clothes of the businessmen are not in period-authentic fabric. It’s why the cast isn’t all white male Americans, and it’s why the Apache’s theme music as they travel back to their rightful land is a peppy guitar number that makes you think The Monkees are about to run on screen in wild abandon and jump off a nearby bridge.

duel1-2

Each generation reinterprets the stories of previous generations. Some try to change the past — “The Searchers” in many ways is the apologetic version of “The Big Trail” — and some add to what has been told before. And that’s the essence of what director Ralph Nelson does with “Duel at Diablo.” He does not attempt to change the Western, he preserves it, augments it, and the result is glorious.

The cast in “Duel” is strong, of course, with some of the best actors of the generation in featured roles. Poitier gives an effective, effortless performance, as does Bibi Andersson. Bill Travers was a Shakespearean stage actor and it shows. Watch for his line reading when quoting “Scots Wae Hae” while on horseback and tell me he is not channeling Shakespeare’s Richard III.

Of all the terrific performances, James Garner’s stands out. Garner in the 1960s was fighting an undeserved reputation as being just a television star without the necessary dramatic range for film. By 1966 and “Duel at Diablo”, Garner had avoided the Western genre for several years, deliberately distancing himself from the television show that made him a household name. Surprisingly, his return to the Western in “Duel” removed him even further from the Bret Maverick stereotype. Jess Remsberg is tough, he is not afraid of guns, his emotions are raw and frayed. Garner’s portrayal of a troubled man on the verge of becoming unhinged is at turns subtle and powerful. His every movement, every expression means a million things at once. Note in particular the flash of anger that contorts his face for a sliver of a second in Clay Dean’s office.

The solid cast is also a multinational one but in an easy, unassuming way, not as a gimmick. No attention is called to Ellen being Swedish, and while Scotty’s name and accent place him as a somewhat recent immigrant, not a word about his past in another country is spoken. Although I was initially impressed with the diverse cast, I was shocked back to reality when we first saw Chatta, the Apache Chief:

duel1-3

John Hoyt: Jewish Indian. Mel Brooks didn’t make this up out of whole cloth, folks. Hoyt tries hard to sound Apache, but more than once he slips into Grandpa Munster voice. I kept expecting him to shout, “Loysem gayn!”

Speaking of “Blazing Saddles”, I also want to mention that “Duel at Diablo” features — and I swear I am not making this up — a horse being punched during a fist fight. There are several parallels between the two films, and I truly believe “Duel at Diablo” was a major influence on “Blazing Saddles.”

The title of the book this movie was based on, Apache Rising, may initially appear to be a better fit than the title ultimately used. Yet confrontation is the enzyme of this film, the method by which the plot moves forward. We are literally taken through a series of duels by the characters: Jess versus Toller, McAllister versus Grange, Toller versus McAllister, and so on. Each character has their own specific motivations that are revealed in measured manner as the film unfolds. Most Westerns utilize the convention of the lone cowboy who ultimately pairs up with a good friend, an ally, sometimes an old enemy. In “Duel”, no one bands together to fight a common enemy. Scouts go out alone, Toller takes over the cavalry without help from a wounded Scotty, and cavalrymen eschew the wisdom of safety in numbers. As the group fights to survive the attack from the Apache, people are picked off individually, and when a soldier is felled by an arrow, no buddy is there to drag him back to safety or kill an Apache in revenge.

duel1-4

The movie holds an anti-war metaphor, too, portraying a series of small conflicts that ultimately lead everyone to the devil: Diablo. Some survive the final battle in Diablo canyon; many do not. The surviving Apache are taken back to their reservation, and Jess asks why they should stay there. The Apache weren’t ignorant savages killing without good reason, he says, and he is right: The only scalp we see in the film is the result of a white man killing a Comanche woman in pointless revenge; this white man later used the scalp for a bet in a cheap poker game. The same hollow feeling of the survivors as they make their way out of the canyon is shared by the audience as the movie ends.