Moulin Rouge (1952)

"WELL, GEE, I WONDER WHAT WE CAN DO TO JOSE FERRER NEXT?"

This is a quasi-musical effort, featuring everything that defines those classic pictures, from lavish costumes to other-worldly lighting, directed by a man who's name is about as far away from the genre as you could hope for. Indeed John Huston, the man behind such pretty and frothy films such as... Annie and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, may not have been my first guess as the helmer of a film like Moulin Rouge, but to my surprise, the result isn't half bad. Of course, there are pacing issues, the montages of Toulouse-Lautrec's run on for far too long and Zsa Zsa Gabor's (dubbed) singing voice is incredibly harsh and grating.

But, I am happy to say, those few things comprise the bulk of my criticisms. So, let's move on to the good stuff. The best part of Moulin Rouge is the art that went into it. Every costume is opulently decorated, while all the sets nearly pop out of their walls with exuberance. The film uses the streets of Paris and the carefully decorated sets of Shepperton Studios to create an atmosphere that embodies the period perfectly (though with almost more reverence for the era than I have seen in quite a while). Indeed, from Ferrer's apartment to the dancing halls of the Moulin Rouge itself, every set seems carefully thought out and planned to the highest degree.

This reverence for decoration is perfectly translated towards the clothing aspect of the film's characters. From the creative dressing shirts which accompany the different male characters, to the sumptuous dresses which seemingly keep getting better and better the further into the film progresses. I normally pay no mind to this aspect of filmmaking, but the sheer quality on display here struck me more than it ever has. For a film revolving around the life of an artist, to see him surrounded by such art (albeit of a different medium) is quite the fitting tribute.

But, ah, I'm getting ahead of myself, aren't I? I haven't told you the plot yet! Okay, here we go. Moulin Rouge is the story of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, a painter in Paris around the turn of the century. As a child, he was poised to inherit his father's noble title, until an accident led to him breaking both of his legs. Misfortune follows him yet further as his legs are unable to grow, and he is left disabled. This disability has left him seemingly shunned from romance, until he meets tempestuous Marie Charlet, an impoverished woman of the streets. He protects her from the police, and then falls in love with her. Despite her seemingly loving him back, her destructive nature and alcoholism drives them apart. Will they find a way to stay together, or will Henri follow a path of addiction and heartbreak?

The standout performance in the film belongs to Colette Marchand as Charlet. Her cooing voice and mannerisms make her instantly endearing, and gives the viewer quite the whiplash when she goes on one of her mood swings. Despite some over the top moments later on in the film, her first few scenes are a masterclass in acting, and they serve to bring the (up until that point) frigid Jose Ferrer out of his shell. Ferrer is, unfortunately, bland for much of Moulin Rouge, only really coming to life in various pockets of the film. Zsa Zsa Gabor is a touch annoying, though her arc does have undeniable merit, and Suzanne Flon gives life to a mostly thankless supporting role.

Now, I'd like to take a second to talk about lighting. Every now and again, I'll be watching a film, and suddenly a streak of light, perhaps a slightly different shade of green, will flash across the screen and leave me breathless. It doesn't happen often, but when it does I really begin to get into the film, at a much higher level. It is a way of having atmosphere just roll off the screen and into my eyes, and a way for me to appreciate what I'm seeing more than I could have ever possibly otherwise. That happened to me during Moulin Rouge, and that subtle shift in lighting got me more intrigued by the film than anything else could have. I know, it's strange.

Moving on then, the cinematography is the kind of exuberant Technicolor that you really don't see anymore. It renders every frame with a kind of dreamlike (almost as if the images were coloured with pastels) air, and it makes it much easier to accept the "studio" touches. The score has fits of harmony, but is for the most part discordant with what is happening on the screen. The special effects employed to make Jose Ferrer much shorter than he is in real life are a tad rough, but they accomplish what they are tasked to.

But, and this was to both my surprise and my delight, the ending is perhaps the best part of the film. Without giving anything away, I must say that I was expecting to see a typical "studio ending" where everyone lives happily ever after, and so I was dumbstruck by how casually and slyly Huston slid in the actual ending. It's a knockout, in terms of impact and guts, as I'm sure at least a few producers grew red with anger when they saw the final print. It's also the perfect ending for the material, and I must applaud whoever wrote it for sticking with it.

And so, despite my initial reservations, Huston's direction is quite nice here. It accomplishes what must be done with enough style to keep you interested. You can really tell he was enjoying breaking his mold by making this film, and it shows. It's not perhaps his best film, but it's a very solid entry into an increasingly solid filmography.

Moulin Rouge,
1952,
Starring: Jose Ferrer, Colette Marchand and Suzanne Flon,
Directed by John Huston,
6.5/10 (B-)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean

10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City

14. Victory

15. Moulin Rouge
16. Wise Blood
17. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
18. Under The Volcano

19. The Unforgiven

20. Across the Pacific
21. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

22. The List of Adrian Messenger
23. Annie
24. Prizzi's Honor
25. The Barbarian and the Geisha
26. The MacKintosh Man
27. Sinful Davey
28. In This Our Life
29. We Were Strangers

30. The Bible: In The Beginning...

31. The Roots of Heaven
32. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror

The Roots of Heaven (1958)

THE ROOTS OF BOREDOM

This movie is boring. Yes, I know that isn't the most substantive of criticisms, but it's the truth. And it's not the good kind of boring. A movie can be boring as long as when you think back on it, you still are not bored. I can give no such good tidings towards The Roots of Heaven, a film who's noble message is drowned in an ocean of it's own failure. Harsh, surely, but what makes it even more infuriating is that in trying to spread the word on an important issue, but no one is listening because the film's just not interesting enough.

Look, protecting endangered species is a basic component of being able to maintain our current ecosystems. And I know how this sounds like I'm just regurgitating a science textbook, but it is becoming more important each and every day. And, yet, in the 1950s, the subject of preservation was not nearly as mainstream as it is today. That is why when a big budget Hollywood production intent on taking the issue head on deserved to be commended. It deserved to be appreciated, and above all it deserved to be seen. But audiences did not deserve this. Turgid melodrama, drab imagery and a one note depiction of a rather interesting story makes the idea of preservation further from my mind than ever, despite Trevor Howard mentioning how much he loves "the elephants" every five minutes.

I'm not saying that the message should have come first, but it would have been nice if they had put forth some worthwhile film making along with it. Instead this just feels flat. Even Huston's return to Africa trips over itself. In The African Queen, you could really see the difficult shoot manifesting itself on screen. The beautiful lush scenery of Africa and the film's success, however, vindicates the shooting conditions and crafts something exceptional out of the madness. And yet, when he came back, the results couldn't have been more different.

Despite having the capability to showcase the wildlife and beauteous nature of Africa more readily than through the narrow river confines of The African Queen, nothing of the sort is achieved. Instead, the majestic images of elephants fall flat, the vast emptiness and expanses of the landscape is painted in atypically bland Technicolor. This is a black and white film shot in a place that demanded more than just simple framing and shots. Indeed, even though the film was shot in Africa for nearly five months, one can see green screen effects used on a few occasions, taking one both out of the film and out of the atmosphere which had been attempted up to then.

And in fact, the irony here is almost delicious. John Huston made a movie about protecting elephants when he proved so obsessed with shooting one during the filming of his previous African set adventure. But, despite this almost hypocritical move, there was the chance he could have had a change of heart, right? I have no idea, but if this film is any indication, probably not. Message movies only work when the director, the writer and the producers actually care about the message they are trying to promote. Here, it just seems like everyone involved (save perhaps the valiant Trevor Howard, though that could also just be him, you know, acting) is not interested at all with the issue. It just seems like they wanted to finish the film and move on.

And yes, I know it was a difficult shoot. Even without knowing the history, I could read it on the actor's faces. When Juliette Greco's character falls ill, she really does look more sick than any makeup artist, no matter how accomplished, could manage. Perhaps that's because she most likely was. Speaking of Greco, she is serviceable in a role that essentially just serves as someone to keep the men in the audience entertained. The "star", Errol Flynn is in about five major scenes and is drunk in nearly all of them, which, for some reason I am assuming was not all acting.

And the leading man, Trevor Howard, basically plays one note the entire film. The spotless, selfless crusader who will do anything for his cause is a great part, but not if you ignore a little something called "depth" and portray him as just a hero, everything just becomes bland. And bland is true of much of the film. It doesn't have the courage to tackle it's subject head on, and despite Howard's conviction, we are never shown enough of the elephants to know why exactly we are supposed to care so much. And despite Orson Welles's best efforts (yes, Orson Welles is in this movie. I know, I was surprised too), the media press storm that descends around Howard never really feels realistic.

Neither does his abrupt about face when he goes from petition waving pacifist to renegade eco-terrorist who hangs out in the desert a bit and then shoots people in the rear. And, in one of the strangest sequences Huston ever directed, he crashes a party full of evil, rich elephant hunters and then proceeds to pick a woman out of the crowd and spank her. Now, I know Huston was no feminist, but even this sequence is a bit too much. It's almost as if he presents it in a comical light, and though I know it was not meant to be taken this seriously, it is just an utterly bizarre way to go about exacting your "save-the-elephants" plan.

Now I know I must sound bitter, and truth be told, I am. I go into everyone one of these films (well, except maybe Phobia, but that one really had no chance anyways) with an optimistic attitude. This has helped me be both surprised and disappointed with many of the films I've reviewed. And it's not that I don't mind watching some terrible movies for the sake of this website (ahem, Phobia), but the fact that those are just movies. This one seemed to be destined for a higher purpose. It felt to me that it wanted to educate people, and that it failed makes me feel bitter.

Yes, I know, I'll get back on track. This movie likes to be preachy, but the way it goes about spreading it's word is so lackluster and underwhelming that it's gospel just gets tuned out. And that's too bad, because this film was right.

The Roots of Heaven,
1958,
Starring: Trevor Howard, Juliette Greco and Errol Flynn,
Directed by John Huston,
5/10 (D-).

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean

10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City

14. Victory
15. Wise Blood
16. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
17. Under The Volcano

18. The Unforgiven

19. Across the Pacific
20. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

21. The List of Adrian Messenger
22. Annie
23. Prizzi's Honor
24. The Barbarian and the Geisha
25. The MacKintosh Man
26. Sinful Davey
27. In This Our Life
28. We Were Strangers
29. The Bible: In The Beginning...

30. The Roots of Heaven
31. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror  

Across the Pacific (1942)

*I apologize for my extended absence, but I'm back now. So, take that positively I hope!*

"MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS"

Yes, that may very well be a euphemism, but not one of my doing I can assure you. It comes from a scene in 1942's Across the Pacific where Humphrey Bogart is sizing up his revolver in comparison with Sydney Greenstreet's. I'll leave it to you to discover who's was bigger, but, needless to say, both men found it necessary to rely on their guns in the very near future.

This film was John Huston's second time working with Humphrey Bogart, after their highly successful prior pairing on The Maltese Falcon. It seems as if Warner Brothers wanted some more of that magic, because they brought back Mary Astor and Sydney Greenstreet along with Bogart and Huston (sadly, Peter Lorre could not make it to the reunion). In an oddly prophetic twist of fate, when the film was originally put into production it revolved around a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which Humphrey Bogart was to thwart. Unfortunately, when the Japanese actually attacked Pearl Harbor, it necessitated a move of location to the Panama Canal (though, apparently, the title had no reason to be changed and remains absurd as they never get to the Pacific Ocean).

The war also had unintended consequences as it meant that, like so many other Americans of the period, John Huston was caught in a wave of patriotic duty and joined the army. Leaving halfway through shooting the film's climactic chase, Huston's replacement Vincent Sherman asked how Bogart could possibly escape such a situation, and Huston remarked something along the lines of "I have no idea, your problem now!" But what exactly does Humphrey Bogart have to do "Across the Pacific"? Well, the plot revolves around Bogart's character Rick Blaine, ah sorry, Rick Leland, being dishonorably discharged from the army. After a failed attempt to join the Canadian forces, the bitter Leland decides to offer his services to anyone who can may, and boards a steamer headed for the Orient.

On board he meets both the enigmatic Dr. Lorenz (Greenstreet) and the alluring Alberta Marlow (you'll never guess where she comes from. Wait for it... Alberta! Who saw that one coming?), played by Mary Astor. Leland naturally becomes enamored with the seductive Marlow, and they begin a romance. But yet, the Doctor begins to appear more and more like a Japanese sympathizer, climaxing in a scene where he offers Bogart money for secret navy information. Bogart is on the fence, and just as it looks like our intrepid hero might be crossing over to the dark side, it turns out he is an American spy! Can this one dashing hero save the Panama Canal from a nefarious Japanese attack?

Well, I won't tell you that until you've seen it of course! There are two things that concerned me before watching this one. First: that it would be a simple generic patriotic action film and second: that there would be some offensive Japanese stereotypes included in the mix. On the first count, I was not wrong. In many ways, Across the Pacific is similar to Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger's Contraband. Both films feature a dashing hero, a morally grey female love interest and a group of Axis sympathizers plotting an attack. Both are undoubtedly fun features, with some excellent dialogue and suspense in both, but they're really nothing special in the end.

On the second count, I was pleasantly surprised. There were only two lines in the film when I detected any outwards racism, and neither of them detracted from my opinion of the film much, other than me having to stifle a giggle over how ridiculous they sounded in the mouth of Bogart and Astor. For the most part, the Japanese are treated just as the Germans were in Contraband. Nefarious, evil, scheming bastards they may be, but it has very little to do with the colour of their skin. Such politics are refreshing in such an otherwise generic experience.

Another positive note I took from my viewing was the chemistry between Astor and Bogart. During The Maltese Falcon, there was always an icy edge to their banter. Here, it's a lot more playful, and the film is better for it. Both Astor and Bogart get to sneak in some simply beautifully constructed barbs at each other, and despite Astor's typical turn into the helpless female by the end, her integrity and singularity from the first two scenes is impeccably preserved.

Bogart too is in fine form. He has a tendency to phone in his performances sometimes, but here he's perfectly involved in the plot and it makes watching the film much easier because his commitment shines through to the viewer. Sydney Greenstreet's wonderful voice is well suited for the many scenes he shares with Bogart, and his last scene is actually rather tragic in a heart breaking way, which had Huston not been, well, fighting in a war, the camera may have captured in a more interesting way than the format Vincent Sherman had in mind.

Sen Young is a bit annoying as a supporting passenger on the cruise only because most of his scenes involve breaking up Astor and Bogart, who are such a joy to watch on their own. Seeing Don Siegal's name in the credits is a bit of a surprise, but I suppose doing the "montage" (as he is credited for) must be as hard a job as any other. Speak of the devil, the editing is rather good in this film, and so are the "montages". Bogart's costume must have been reused for Casablanca because it looks exactly like the hat/suit/overcoat combination he wore in that film's famous climax. It also doesn't help that his character's name is Rick or that Alberta's (I seriously can't get over that) last name is Marlow. Foreshadowing Pearl Harbor is creepy enough, but foreshadowing both of Bogart's most famous future characters? That's just incredible.

The cinematography dips into the luscious world of shadows that black and white portrays so well. Many scenes, such as those at night, are fantastically photographed. And yet, even despite his departure, the film is well directed by Huston. His relaxed style is very helpful as it takes ones eye off the the filmmaking and onto the story which, although cliched and generic, is still interesting. You can tell he must have been having fun on set because, for the most part, the film flows so well. It's not his best work, but it seems like a great job in any case.

And that pretty much sums up Across the Pacific in a nutshell. It's fun, interesting and involving, but it's also generic, cliched and half baked. Take what you will from it, but at least it's a good ride.

Across the Pacific,
1942,
Starring: Humphrey Bogart Mary Astor and Sydney Greenstreet,
Directed by John Huston,
6/10 (C).

RANKED (This list has been readjusted since last seen):
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City

14. Victory
15. Wise Blood
16. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
17. Under The Volcano

18. The Unforgiven

19. Across the Pacific
20. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

21. The List of Adrian Messenger
22. Annie
23. Prizzi's Honor
24. The Barbarian and the Geisha 
25. The MacKintosh Man
26. Sinful Davey 
27. In This Our Life
28. We Were Strangers
29. The Bible: In The Beginning...
30. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror  

The Barbarian and the Geisha (1958)

*NOTE: I have not written for this site in a while, so bare with me.*


"LOCK YOUR DOORS! IT"S JOHN WAYNE, AND HE'S......A DIPLOMAT!"

 In 1957, John Huston was fresh off Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison and Moby Dick, two films both shot and filmed in extreme and exotic locations. It was also the year that his great friend and collaborator Humphrey Bogart passed away. In short, he wanted to get away. His next two films, The Barbarian and the Geisha and The Roots of Heaven would be filmed in two very far and very remote areas. The first, Japan, and the second the jungles of Africa. While Africa would prove to be the most troubling, Japan was perhaps more dangerous. The Japanese society was still in the process of rebuilding itself after it's massive defeat in World War II, and a new generation of filmmakers were slowly taking away the old guard.

Huston's idea for the film was to shoot it like an authentic Japanese film, in the style of Ozu. However, that never came to fruition after the film was taken out of his hands by the studio, while he was shooting in Africa. While shooting on location, the film suffered many challenges. For one, it was hard to find a Japanese actress who would appeal to American audiences, and the lead actor, John Wayne felt wrong in the part and was constantly at odds with Huston (they even got into a fistfight at one point, which Huston lost). Finally, while shooting a scene with fire, the flames spread and caused the town they were shooting in to almost evict them.

In short, it was chaotic at least. The Barbarian and the Geisha is the story of Townsend Harris, an American diplomat sent to Japan in the 1850s to broker a treaty between the two nations. While in Japan, he apparently fell in love with a young Geisha girl. While the film was based off of a true story, you could tell it was heavily adjusted.

And now to the movie. Well in short, it wasn't supposed to be very good. I wasn't expecting it to be very good. And it wasn't very good. But it was somehow better than I thought it would be. Sure, John Wayne is every bit as miscast as I thought he would be, and the plot is as boring as I thought it would be. But the racism isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, and the film itself isn't as boring as I thought it would be. And, surprisingly, some parts are actually quite beautiful. The small, cozy Japanese town is very picturesque, and produces some gorgeous vistas. And the story is actually somewhat interesting, and I wasn't nearly as bored as I thought I would be.

The acting, however, is pretty moronic. John Wayne is incredibly boring in his role. It seems like he's one word away from ripping on a cowboy hat, jumping on a horse and riding off into the desert. He seems so uneasy in his role, that even you feel awkward when he says something longer than a couple sentences. It's kind of embarrassing, and even more so establishes Wayne as a pretty one note actor. Eiko Ando, as Wayne's love interest looks very nice, but her chemistry with Wayne is so low that every scene they have together seems false. Her accent is inexplicably less in her voice over than in her onscreen performance. Was she dubbed or something? I need answers! Sam Jaffe, Huston's long time friend, shows up in a boring role that gives him nothing to do and even less to show. So Yamamura, as the Governor of the village gives probably the best performance in the film, even if it is overwrought.

The script reads like cliche after cliche, but the strangest thing is that there are flashes of a much superior film hidden inside of this movie. There are moments where you can almost swear that there is something worth watching within the movie, and then it vanishes as quickly as it came. Whether those are bits of Huston's original cut or just random pieces, they make the viewing experience endurable. However, the film's undeniable strength lies in it's cinematography. Simply put, it looks great. There are bits and pieces that just stick out in your mind, and some shots that just look wonderful. It saves the film from sheer awfulness, and actually makes it watchable. The score is interesting, using plenty of authentic Japanese instruments, and enhances the film slightly.

It may not be very good, but there are some parts that are really intriguing. It makes me wonder what exactly Huston's vision looked like. Perhaps he included more scenes among the Japanese, or perhaps his style was different. I guess we'll never know, but it's interesting. As it is, the direction is one of the film's stronger points. There is a scene near the end of the film that is very well directed. Shadows are cast perfectly and silence creeps up upon the scene nicely. But the whole effect is ruined when Wayne barges out of his room and begins to talk. Damn it John!

The Barbarian and the Geisha,
1958,
Starring: John Wayne, Eiko Ando and Sam Jaffe,
Directed by John Huston.
5.5/10 (D).

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The Barbarian and the Geisha
24. The MacKintosh Man
25. Sinful Davey
26. In This Our Life
27. We Were Strangers
28. The Bible: In The Beginning...
29. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror  

The Bible: In The Beginning... (1966)

 ...AND GOD SAID: "I HEREBY DECLARE THIS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST BORING FILMS IN EXISTENCE." AND SO IT WAS.

I cannot review this film without offending someone. You see, I am not a religious person, so in order to review a movie about the Bible, I really can't quite sympathize with those who, what's the word...associate closely towards the stories in the book. I don't want this review to be all about religion, so I guess I'll just address it here. I will try to focus on the aspects of the film and not on the source material, but if I have to I will voice my opinion on the issue.

That aside, this film kind of sucks. The main problem I had with the film is such, it's incredibly boring. Similarly to most other biblical epics, the pace is languid, the film wooden and the length overlong. This film tells four stories. First is Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve frolic in the garden of Eden for a while, but then Eve eats a magic fruit and god gets pretty mad because he told her not to. As a result, he banishes Eve and Adam from the garden and they form their own life. They have two sons, Cain and Abel. One day, Cain kills Abel and then god banishes him. Next is the story of Noah and his big ark where he takes a bunch of animals and rides out god's giant flood which destroys everything else on earth.

Noah builds a giant ark after god asks him to, because god wants to kill everyone else. Then Noah and his family take many animals and ride out the storm. This lasts for about forty minutes. Then it gets really boring. God sends Abraham into the desert with his family and stuff, and Abraham establishes a colony there. God speaks to Abraham and gives him advice, gets his wife pregnant, after god advised him to sleep with his maid instead, and then sends three angels to destroy the nearby city of Sodom. Then god gets Abraham to almost kill his son, but then he doesn't.

Okay. Where do I start? Perhaps a little history would be helpful. This film was started with Robert Bresson directing, but then Dino De Laurentiis, the producer, got fed up with Bresson's original and artistic style. He replaced him with John Huston, an atheist, and Huston took the job. For the money, of course. Huston also played Noah, and the narrator, and at points, god. I'll get to the acting in a minute, but first I just want to say one thing. This film may be among the few films I have ever had the violent urge to yell at the screen "get on with it!".

Anyways, the acting. The film has a lot of great actors, and a lot of unknowns. They all share one common thread, they suck. I don't want to seem harsh, but oh my, are they bad. Their dialogue is taken directly from the bible, and thus it feels wooden and forced coming out of their mouths. The only actor who seems at ease with it is George C. Scott, who goes completely method in the role of Abraham, in a way that seems incredibly fake. I'll do a list here: Michael Parks as Adam+ Ulla Bergryd as Eve= wooden, forced, completely naked for the first half of the film. Richard Harris as Cain= over the top, wooden, over dramatic. John Huston as Noah and God= good voice, bad acting, seems incredibly bored, says lines in a mocking and uninterested tone. George C. Scott as Abraham+ Ava Gardener as Sarah = one is too much, one is too little, one seems to young, one seems too old, one is not bad, the other isn't good at all. Peter O'Toole as The Three Angels = easily the best performance in the film, he is actually not that bad, but he does blow up a building by staring at it furiously. Final Verdict= pretty bad acting, most of the cast doesn't establish their characters in any way that makes us care for them at all.

Well, there you go. The acting is pretty bad. But one can put the majority of the blame of the screenplay. Christopher Fry is a well regarded playwright of the time, but you couldn't tell by this film. His dialogue is stodgy and old fashioned. He never develops the characters in anyway, and his view point is incredibly one sided. He just transfers the bible to the screen, there is no innovation here at all. He never put his own spin on it, or tried to make the material more viewable, he just wrote it, in a very boring way actually. This is the root of all the film's problems. If the screenplay had been just the tiniest bit innovative or creative, than perhaps the film might have been better than the final result.

The cinematography looks appropriately epic, but I never really got anything from this film in terms of scope. I just couldn't feel it, I couldn't feel that quality that makes or breaks this kind of film. That isn't due mainly to the cinematography, but it wasn't quite as creative as I had hoped. The film certainly looks good, but it does not feel "good". It just lacks that quality that makes this film a success. The film's failure does not have to do with the cinematography, but it certainly has to do with a few other major things.

The score, in all it's bombastic "epic" glory, is perhaps one of the most annoying parts of this film. It never gives the film an edge at all. It just plays out with little to no innovation, and all it's musicality in itself is also kind of boring. It just chugs along, never feeling quite that special or interesting at all. The sets are quite nice, they give the film a false sense of grandeur, but it certainly makes things look good to the eyes.

This brings me to another subject, and perhaps the most interesting one to me. Huston's direction, in itself I find it a really intriguing idea. An atheist directing a movie on the bible. Was Huston going to add something, or try to approach the subject matter in a way that expresses skepticism? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Huston did something worse here than giving the film his point of view, he gave the film his sense of boredom. It increasingly appears that Huston just took the job for the money, and like Annie, invested it with empty promises. The scope and spectacle is all here, but where is the heart of this film? To be honest, it doesn't have any. For all it's preaching and showcasing of god's magical abilities, this film ultimately has nothing to say, and even less to show.

It's just there.

The Bible: In The Beginning...
1966,
Starring: John Huston, George C. Scott and Peter O'Toole,
Directed by John Huston,
4.5/10 (F)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. Sinful Davey
25. In This Our Life
26. We Were Strangers
27. The Bible: In The Beginning...
27. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 

In This Our Life (1942)

NOTE TO VIEWERS: Cinema Stripped Down will now only show the sections "The Plot" and "The Film" when the author deems that these sections are relevant enough to be featured. If the film has a boring, or uninteresting history, THE FILM will not be featured.

WELL, THAT WAS MELODRAMATIC 

There we go. There's that word: melodrama. Hold on, let me say it again: melodrama. Has it sunk in again? Well I really can't stress it enough, this film is so melodramatic. I mean, I can handle melodrama as much as the next man, but this is just too much. This is pretty much the definition of melodrama, there's fighting, drama, cheating, romance, crying, insanity, murder, heat and a southern Gothic sense to it. And what makes In This Our Life bad? The fact that at every moment of plot you almost want to roll your eyes, and that some of the things that happen make you want to heckle the characters into oblivion.

What can the actors do? Well, pretty much nothing. Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland were unfortunately bestowed with the ability to overact in increasingly melodramatic ways. Here, that point is proven. Katharine Hepburn once said of Meryl Streep, " Click, click, click," while referring to the wheels turning inside Streep's head. She meant to say that Streep never inhibits a character, just acts. Here, I believe that quote would be much better bestowed upon Bette Davis. Yep, it's that bad. Sometimes I can tolerate, and even enjoy Davis. But here, she goes way too far.

Her character is that of a woman who ditches her fiancee for her sister's husband and then wants her fiancee back again. She inhibits this shallow, over the top caricature with more over the top. She really overdoes it, and leaves the audience really despise her. Not the character, but Davis. When Davis "acts", she makes the audience really hate her for putting us through this shameful display of pure insanity. That sounds harsh, but I really can't express how I am feeling in any other way. I just got incredibly fed up while watching this film, and Davis was part of that. I'm not saving that Davis was bad, some would say she is amazing, but her style is just not for me, and this film is a great example of why.

Olivia De Havilland also got on my nerves. She just seems to play the same character in everything. She plays the fragile woman who can be counted on roughing it out when it counts. In Gone With The Wind she does this, in The Snake Pit she does this, and in In This Our Life she does this. What I find aggravating about the whole thing is that she recognizes this, but she keeps doing it! Was she typecasted in this role, or was this just who she was? I know for sure that she was not such a saint, so perhaps this is all she was thought to do. I am sure she had great versatility, but here it just isn't recognized.

In the supporting roles,George Brent and Dennis Morgan play two men who were in love with both lead actresses at one point. While both their portrayals were soapy and over the top, I did really reel that Morgan was the best part of the film. His portrayal actually felt more than slightly realistic.  He offered up a believable performance in a very unbelievable film. He seems like a desperate soul, a lost person who can't quite find his place, and also misses his chance when he does strike something goal. Though he has limited screen time, I would have most definitely rather seen more of him than anyone else.

The film also has a subplot involving racism (Slight Spoilers Follow). Bette Davis hits and kills a little girl with her car and then blames it on the black family friend. He goes to jail, and the people are very prejudiced against him, and only our heroic team of Olivia De Havilland and George Brent can save him from Davis's careless accusation. This part of the film is actually handled quite well, and Huston treats the subject with grace, something I've never called him before. Indeed, it's heavy handed, but compared to the rest of the film it's To Kill a Mockingbird.

Although the actors really make this a complete and utter melodrama, they wouldn't be able to do anything without a truly terrible script. And boy do they get one. Every plot point is handled clumsily, and it makes the whole thing feel like a huge soap opera. This film is so over the top that it's one technicolour camera away from Sirkian heights of melodrama. Indeed, the script gives the film some pure and utter soap. It's not even funny, it's barely enjoyable (yes, I can easily see how one can enjoy a soap opera). A lot of this is mainly due to the script.
And oh god the score! It is so anonymous and uninteresting. It is almost as if someone held a jam session with a string quartet used to playing on "As The World Turns". It could have been worse, but if there is one thing I've picked up from Huston, it's that almost none of his films feature a good score. The cinematography is also quite anonymous. Unlike Huston's previous effort, which was full of great shots, In This Our Life is content with a couple close ups, but mainly just relies on a master for the whole film. It is the very definition of substance over style.

And now when I get to talk about Huston. In his sophomore film, John Huston turns 180 degrees away from his first film: "The Maltese Falcon". That film was interesting, and created a mood unlike anything seen here. Oh sure, this film has a mood, the kind of mood you expect to see on daytime television. The only two main reasons Huston made it was to help his friend Howard Koch, as this was one of his first screenplays (and then he wrote Casablanca), and to keep close to Olivia de Havilland, whom he was entangled with romantically at the time, and whom he later beat up Errol Flynn on the behalf of.

Overall, what is this film? Well, to tell you the truth, it's pretty bad. It has it's moments, and for that it isn't terrible. But still, it's pretty bad.

In This Our Life,
1942,
Starring: Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland and Dennis Morgan
Directed by John Huston
5.5/10 (D+)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. Sinful Davey
25. In This Our Life
26. We Were Strangers
27. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 

Sinful Davey (1969)

THE FILM:
Sinful Davey would mark the beginning of John Huston's so called "dry" period. This period, which in Huston's eyes, would last from 1969 to 1975. He made many of his worst films during this area, and he blamed his decline on this film. It was basically forgotten after release, spending only a week in theaters. I had a devil of a time locating this film, eventually finding it on a limited release bare bones edition by MGM. The package it came in is so amateurish, I though in the beginning I was being duped. Anyways, there is a reason this film is little known. It was released six years after Tom Jones, and was generally thought to be a "rip-off" of that film.

The film cast a young John Hurt, ten years before he would break through in Alien and The Elephant Man, as the lead. The cast was filled out by a couple promising young actors and actresses, and Robert Morley, whom Huston had worked with on Beat the Devil and The African Queen. Huston had originally wanted to cast his daughter Anjelica in the lead female role. The producer disagreed, as Anjelica had only appeared in Huston's A Walk With Love and Death up until this point. Huston eventually agreed on Pamela Franklin, but this caused a rift between producer and director, a rift that widened even more when Huston refused to re-edit the film.

Today, where does this film stand? It has a 5.8 on IMDb (that's bad), and 33% on Rotten Tomatoes (also quite bad), and it is barely remembered, if at all. It is one of Huston's most forgotten films, and there's a reason for that....

THE PLOT:
Davey Haggart is a drummer in the British Army. One day, he deserts the army, and begins a life of crime. Davey is inspired by a man who may or may not be his father, an infamous criminal. Davey sets out to up his father, by committing the exact same crimes as him. He does this by dressing up as a Duke, and integrating himself into high society, while conspiring with a fellow pickpocket to rob the same Duke his father robbed. A small wrench is thrown into Davey's plans when Annie, a girl whom he befriended in his youth, is dead set on reforming Davey.

Annie also harbors a great love for Davey, an affection he does not return to her. While Davey seems to end up in bed with every girl he meets, he is still completely ignorant to Annie's love. Can Annie reform Davey before he suffers the same fate as his father, death by hanging?

THE CRITICISM:
....It's not very interesting. It's just an average film, through and through. There's nothing really special going on here, just your typical adventure film. The performances, direction, script, all are perfectly average, and they never excel beyond expectations. This isn't a bad film, but it isn't very good either. As Huston stated himself, it feels very dry. Some parts are exciting, and entertaining enough to light a smile on your face, but nothing here indicates any kind of genius whatsoever.

The best part is easily John Hurt. Hurt is a great actor, and he proves here that he charisma to spare, and was a great lead actor all the same. It's the kind of part that requires little acting, but heaps of presence. Despite being virtually unknown at the time, Hurt acts like he owns the place, and as a result totally owns the character of Davey Haggart. With a better script and director, this could have easily been awesome. However, we do get a glimpse of what could have been through Hurt. Despite the film itself, he excels. I could have easily watched just Hurt going around the country robbing people. That would have been a movie.

The rest of the cast is uniformly blah. We never really care for many of the characters, and the film's light tone makes it hard for us to really feel any stakes towards Davey's fate. Pamela Franklin is the wide-eyed do-gooder who tries to save Davey's soul. Every time she's on screen I checked my watch. She's just not that interesting, and her character's mission doesn't make much sense. I watched the film an hour ago, and she's already began to fade from memory. The rest of the cast, Robert Morley, Nigel Davenport and Ronald Fraser make little impact on the viewer and are easily forgotten, as is most of the movie.

I can't really offer any suggestions as to what would have made the casting better, but I can definitely describe what could have been done to improve the script. Make. It. Darker. I understand why the film wanted to be "light", it appeals to more people. But there is just no sense of danger here at all. Davey's escapades are very entertaining, but with a little malice, or stakes, they could have been much more interesting than what they are. The film feels very "cute", it never really wants to be more than it is. It is in that respect, one of Huston's most sincere films. However, sincerity doesn't equal a good film this time around.

The cinematography is certainly very pretty to look at, although the transfer to home video is very poor, rendering everything looking mute and dull. The film's locations are very nice indeed, and some of the scenes of John Hurt robbing people at a ball are very inventive and help to further the comedy of the situation. the score is rather unremarkable but it, along with the opening song are still quite effective within the movie itself, often helping with the light tone.

The direction is quite typical of Huston, it feels relaxed as if he is just letting the story take place at it's own pace.  It does help that the film has a relatively short running time. At 95 minutes, it certainly does not feel overlong. It could have benefited from a director who was more in tune with what he wanted from the film, but I can't bash Huston's direction completely, as there is nothing that really stands out as awful. There is also, however, nothing that stands out as good either, quite indicative of the film itself.

Overall, is Sinful Davey bad? No. Is it good? Not really. What it is is an hour and a half of John Hurt running around Scotland. You could do worse.

Sinful Davey,
1969,
Starring: John Hurt, Pamela Franklin and Robert Morley,
Directed by John Huston.
6/10 (C-)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. Sinful Davey
24. We Were Strangers
25. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror