The Writer's Poke

Roger Ebert did audio commentary for the DVDs of only six films: Casablanca (1942) Dark City (1998) Crumb (1994) Floating Weeds (1959) Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) Citizen Kane (1941)  Why just those six? I'd be curious to know, especially because for 30 years, he used to go through movies frame by frame with students at the University of Colorado. I don't know how many of those sessions were recorded, if any.  Watching the typical "audio commentary" feature on a DVD isn't something I often do, usually because: I've just watched the movie, and I don't have the time or motivation to immediately watch it again with the commentary on. Unfortunately, I find that when I don't watch the commentary immediately after watching the movie, I don't.  So, when I finished re-watching the film this time, I immediately started watching the Ebert commentary. I watched about the first 25-30 minutes and found it to be excellent. The same DVD also has the Pet...

From what I read, Hitchcock thought Rope was a failure, with the plot being ultimately "thin" and the "one continuous shot" featured in the movie as too gimmicky. After a very short 1948 run in theaters, Rope was more or less forgotten until 1984, the first time it went on VHS. It wouldn't go on DVD until 2001.  The "one continuous shot" is actually a series of ten shots. The "invisible cuts" are made by the camera, for example, going "dark" into a man's jacket and then coming back out at the beginning of the next shot. It's a pretty cool technique that isn't overly noticeable until you start looking for it, which you might when you realize that each shot is going for minutes without a cut or break.  Obviously, the film has a sort of "play" feel, as the entire movie takes place in one room of the apartment. We may look into the kitchen or down a hall, but we don't ever actually leave the main living room. I...

With Saboteur, I mentioned that a little sound might have helped. Shadow of a Doubt opens with a waltz, and that waltz is later hummed by different members of the family. So we get sound right from the start of this film, and then a soundtrack, too, that captures the emotions of the characters. The sound helps. I did start to wonder if the plot was too simplistic. We more or less know who's guilty. We don't know from the start of what, but he's guilty. What we don't know, I guess, is what Charlie (Teresa Wright) will do about it. She's weak. First agreeing to help the Detective (Macdonald Carey). Then agreeing to help Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton). (Her mom/Uncle Charlie's sister comes across as weak, too. The men in the film aren't weak... just quirky and not necessarily all that smart.) Meanwhile, I like the banter between Charlie's dad (Henry Travers) and the neighbor (Hume Cronyn). They're always discussing the best way to kill each other without...

When I watched this the first time in 2017, I ended up giving it a 2 out 5-star rating. I didn't write down any notes to explain my rationale, and so as I was re-watching the film now, I found myself trying to piece together how I might have rated it so poorly then. This time around, I appreciated the set pieces, especially the State of Liberty ending. But the film had other "set pieces," and by that, I simply mean, Hitchcock clearly took some time to figure out how to best shoot the factory, the cabin in the woods, the dockyard, the dance floor, and so on. Good camera work. Good set up of scenes. Good lighting. Just a lot of "good stuff" that a 2-star film wouldn't have.  Did the movie lack anything, then? Well, it's a quiet film. When I think of Hitchcock, I think of the dramatic score. Try watching Psycho without the soundtrack. It wouldn't be nearly the same, right? I just wonder what a good musical score would add to Saboteur.  That might, in fa...

"This is the part I really like. This is the part where she does that shit with her hair." -- Red (Morgan Freeman) to Andy (Tim Robbins) as they watch Gilda in Shawshank prison, The Shawshank Redemption (1994) In Madonna's song "Vogue," there's the line, "Rita Hayworth gave good face." It's a silly line that always sticks in my head. Her face is good. In some ways, it's overly big and her features are broad and expressive. Her cheekbones and jawline are ridiculously defined, and her 40s hairstyle pops with vitality and color even in movies shot in black and white.  First, I want to say that Glenn Ford deserves equal billing in Gilda, but there's no doubt the hair flip introduction of Gilda (Rita Hayworth) is one of the most icon entrances in film. How can Ford do anything to compete with that?  Second, there are a couple of other Gilda moments that are almost as iconic: One, when she marries Johnny (Ford) in her black wedding/mourning d...

This is a romance, a musical, and a war/propaganda film. In other words, it has a lot of boxes to check off.  Beautifully shot in technicolor, I kind of understand why some people write, "Who cares if there's a plot? It's beautiful."  Kind of understand, but sorry... a film still needs to be good.  One of the first problems with the plot, I guess, is that Rosalind (Rita Hayworth) can do better. Or to put it another way, she can have any man she wants. Paul (Lee Bowman) tries to make a quick move on her, and she sees it happening and calls him on it.  Which isn't to say that she shouldn't give him a second chance, but what exactly do they have in common? And, the second problem with films like this: They've known each other for a minute, and she's going to marry him and give up her dancing career just like that? Huh?  Tommy (Marc Platt) is in love with Rosalind, too. But not only does he not say anything to her, but he essentially never shows it in any ...

I like War movies, but I probably like War movies that spend more time and effort asking, "What are we fighting for?"  There's gotta be some sort of balance. I don't like War movies that go so far over the line the other way that everyone is just dying to end the war and get home. If there's a war, then let the people fighting it have a reason to fight it, and let them be into fighting it, sure. But don't give me 100% propaganda, either.  As I watched this film, I started thinking: Maybe the problem is that this is more propaganda film than war film. It was made right in the middle of World War II, and while the Allies were "winning" the war in 1942, maybe they didn't completely realize that yet.  After all, Hitler has entered Paris, and the British are being bombed and they've had to evacuate Dunkirk...  This film mentions details like that, but it's more interested in following the lives of a few men who have survived having their vesse...

I guess you call this a family bi-op. It's under 2 hours, so it doesn't quite qualify as an epic. And the actual period of time it covers is very strange. The World Wars are there as almost bookends, but the film doesn't use them as the bookends. Rather, it uses the period of time the family spent in their flat as the beginning and ending points.  So much happens in this family in roughly a 20-year period, because that's all there is, 20 years. It honestly feels like it should be a 30- or 40-year period. It feels that way because Frank and Ethel Gibbons (Robert Newton and Celia Johnson) age much more than 20 years, and Frank is on the brink of retirement, which should put him closer to 60 than 40.  Overall, I guess I like that focus on the family rather than on world events. Of course the family is impacted by what's going on in the world around them, but the drama of their day-to-day lives is what matters most. They are aware of Hitler and the prospect of a new war...

Why is Charles (Rex Harrison) so blithe? I guess that's the question I never get answered. He's married to a woman for about 5 years, and she dies unexpectedly of a heart attack. Seven years later, he's married to another woman, and things seem to be fine.  Then, I guess for fun, they and another couple invite over a weird older woman for a seance. You know she's weird because she rides a bike. Anyway, she doesn't really know what she's doing, and somehow Charles's dead wife crosses over.  This starts what I guess is supposed to be a bunch of funny shenanigans, a hilarious lovers' triangle. And maybe it's serious. Maybe the dead wife is trying to kill the husband so she can have him back on the other side?  I don't know. The humor is 1940s British, but even so, it just doesn't work for me. The female ghost is green, for reasons I never figure out. And while he can't touch her, she can touch and move physical objects. She can even drive a ...

As a "who done it," I'm not sure it comes as much of a surprise who done it, or even why. That said, I thought the movie told an unusual story in an unusual way.  The beginning is the end, really. The film opens with a man getting shot. Soon enough we will learn that the man is Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott). He's the person Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford) buys the property from for what will become her first restaurant.  That's all getting ahead of the story, though. Mildred ends up at the police station because when he's shot, she's married to Monte. She sits in the station telling the detective her life story. That is the movie.  Mildred's whole deal is that she will do anything for her children. Unfortunately, her oldest daughter, Veda (Ann Blyth), turns out to be an amoral spoiled brat. Are we to blame Mildred for how she turned out? Veda's dad, Bert (Bruce Bennett) more or less implies that Mildred is to blame. His view is that Mildred doesn...

After watching a couple of his 1930s films, I can confirm that Randolph Scott is much more "recognizable" as his more mature self in this 1940s film. I like the way everything in this story is split in two: Farmers vs. Cowboys is the main division, but the town is also divided. On one side, it's the church and businesses (civilization) on one side of the street, and the saloons on the other side.  Dan (Scott) is the town marshal. This gives him the obligation to patrol both sides. He also has a counterpart: Sheriff Trimble (Edgar Buchanan), representing the law for the county. Dan takes his job seriously. The Sheriff would rather play cards and stay out of trouble.  We have the two love interests: Sherry (Rhoda Fleming) on the church side, and Rita (Ann Dvorak) on the saloon side. Dan likes both of them, and they both like him. But Dan has a little more "saloon side" in him. He wants to represent the good guys, but he's willing to use his gun. He's also ...

The Criterion DVD includes a 1991 audio interview with Robert Montgomery's daughter, Elizabeth Montgomery. Dang it, Criterion. These are the sort of extras that Criterion includes that are both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because they're usually pretty cool. A curse, because I'm always tempted to skip them so I can watch another movie... especially if it's an audio-only supplement. For every 90-minute film, you need to budget 4 or 5 hours just to go through all the extras. Then the stuff you learn in the extras make you want to follow-up with Google searches. Then you probably have a list of movies and actors that you want to add to your watch list. It just goes on and on.  And that's great, because I will never ever run out of content to watch, read, or listen to.  In the interview, Elizabeth -- what a great, happy voice -- admits that she still didn't know her father's body of work all that well. Keep in mind she was 58 at the time, and she would b...

For the curious, this one is available for free on YouTube (fair quality). I watched it because I wanted to see how badly it copied Double Indemnity (1944), and because I've been watching Ann Savage films. Savage plays Toni, the Barbara Stanwyck role. Hugh Beaumont plays Kenny in the Fred MacMurray role. Technically, there's an Edward G. Robinson role, but the actor doesn't stand out in his part whatsoever. Honestly, that's one of the major problems. No chemistry between characters, and no fun banter between the young male and his older boss. If Beaumont was in Double Indemnity, I think he pulls off MacMurray's part just fine. He's just as good an actor, but he just happens to be in a worse film. Although I'm watching Savage films, it's only because of her role in My Winnipeg (2007). That's what interests me about her. She's definitely a B-movie actor -- no Barbara Stanwyck. The murder in this film takes place before the halfway point. The entir...

Cool cover art. Reminds me of Sin City. I just watched Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg (2007), and in it is 86-year-old Ann Savage, an actor who had been retired from the movies for over 50 years. That made really curious to see what the 24-year-old Savage was like. In My Winnipeg, I couldn't tell if she could act, or if the weirdness of the film just called for Savage to be weird. To be honest, after watching Detour, I still don't know for sure if she can act, because her performance is weird in a film noir sort of way. The basic premise is that Al (Tom Neal) needs to hitch across country. His girlfriend is in L.A. She wanted to see if she could make it there, but she quickly discovers she can't. Al wants to get out there and marry her quick. Unfortunately, "fate" isn't kind to Al. He ends up getting a ride from a guy who either died while Al was driving or who died falling out of the passenger's side door, hitting his head on a rock. Al's bad luck ...

This version plays up the "book" adaptation angle, but as others have noted, even though it's reading the "text" to the audience, it's not the actual text of the novel. Why read "the first paragraph or Chapter 1" and then completely change the opening? Pretty weird. Another thing to point out -- Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine are just a couple years apart in age. I think Welles is 28, which is a shockingly young Rochester -- I just watched the George C. Scott version, and Scott was at least 15 years older when played Rochester. Joan Fontaine, on the other hand, is a little too old -- maybe 26 -- to be playing the part of Jane Eyre, and she's also way too pretty... probably the best-looking Jane Eyre of all the various actresses who have played Jane Eyre.. and although Jane Eyre is supposed to be horribly plain, no version casts a plain actress. But in what universe is Joan Fontaine plain? Overall, I like this version when it goes goth and works...

Dumbo has a real name, it's Jumbo, Jr. That's the name Mrs. Jumbo (she doesn't have her own name) gives him, but it's only used once in the movie. Thereon out, he's Dumbo. We only see moms, no dads. When the storks come to deliver babies -- and all are delivered at the same exact time (weird) -- they drop off the bundles to the moms, and the moms are alone. Where are all the dads? It made me wonder if Circuses only wanted female animals, and if so, what do they do with all the male offspring when they start to get a little too old and a little too male? Dumbo's "villains" in this movie are funny, because they aren't the other animals who make fun of him. They are the older female elephants -- the sewing circle. They are the ones that cannot stand Dumbo's ears, as if his ears are somehow a slight on all elephants. What happens to this group of elephants? At the end of the movie, they are totally gone, as if the circus has discarded them. The DVD...

Some movies automatically click, and others don't. Why? Deanna Durbin, now pretty much a forgotten actress in 2026, except for hardcore movie buffs, was the top paid actress in 1945. Her salary per movie at that point was in the $400,000 range. That still seems like a lot of money today, but keep in mind that in today's dollars, she was making $8 million per movie. Unfortunately for me, this movie doesn't ever click. I want it to, but it doesn't. What I really like about the film is the lighting. This movie has perfect black & white noir lighting. Just perfect. It's fun to see Durbin hit her mark and just watch as her face enters that perfectly prepared lighting. But after the introduction of the original problem -- she sees a murder happen as she's reading a murder mystery and then chances to glance out her train window at just the right moment -- I don't find myself connecting much to the story being told. Maybe it's a problem of splattered genres....

  Too simple? Jonathan Jr. (Robert Cummings) is set to marry, but his father is dying and wants to meet his son's fiancée. He can't find her, assumes his father will be dead by morning, and substitutes the hatcheck girl, Anne (Deanna Durbin).  For whatever reason, Jonathan Sr. (Charles Laughton) doesn't die. Maybe Anne revitalizes him. But anyway, you know from the beginning that Jr. and Anne will end up together. His fiancée is never depicted as a bad woman, and if they were engaged to be married, you assume she and Jr. loved each other. I guess the only "bad" thing about her was that she's attached to her mother, which would, I grant, make the honeymoon awkward.  Laughton is fun as the old man, but this is a romantic comedy with little real comedy. If you wanted to push the limits of the plot, why not have Sr. fall in love with Anne? She does teach him to dance, after all, but the movie never goes there. All we're left with is the idea that maybe Sr. dec...

The world might have been at War in 1944, but Hollywood was still cranking out the movies, including this singing Romantic Comedy.  This month I've been going through Deanna Durbin films. Most can be classified as "cookie cutter" and "light entertainment," which is not to say they're not somewhat enjoyable to watch... but this film had me smiling almost all of the way through. Great comedy, great use of technicolor -- maybe the best technicolor film I've ever seen, or at least the best one I've seen in quite some time.  Basic plot: Caroline (Deanna Durbin) is a senator's daughter -- so, rich and privileged. She's in love with a military man, Lt. Robert Latham (Robert Latham), but he's just a social climber, previously in love with the daughter of another senator, until that senator lost reelection.  Actually, I think that's a little harsh. Latham might actually love her, too, but that Caroline is a sitting senator's daughter is ju...