Author: Snugglecub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Here to Eternity – 1953

Here we have another war-time drama, this one taking place in Hawaii in 1941, just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  The tragic event took place on December 7^th, a date which President Roosevelt called “a date which will live in infamy.”  However the entire film actually takes place in the months leading up to the attack.  The movie was nominated for thirteen Academy Awards and won eight.  Fred Zinnemann won for Best Director, Frank Sinatra won for Best Supporting Actor, and Donna Reed won for Best Supporting Actress.

I can easily see why this was such a popular movie.  It had several things going for it.  It had a cast with some pretty big names such as Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Frank Sinatra, Donna Reed, and even Ernest Borgnine.  It was set in an emotional time in our nation’s history that was intimately familiar to its audiences. The attack on Pearl Harbor had taken place only twelve years earlier.  It had a somewhat exotic location, and a heavily dramatic plot.

Most of the movie actually moved a little slow.  It seemed like it was all set-up for the last forty minutes of the film.  We start out as a young bugler, Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Clift) arrives on the island of Oahu, wanting just to play his bugle or be an infantry soldier.  His Captain, Dana Holms, played by Philip Ober, has other plans for him.  You see, Prewitt used to be a good boxer and Holms wants him to be on the company boxing team.  Prewitt refuses, saying that he gave up the sport after seriously injuring his sparring partner at his last post.  The Captain responds by giving him “the treatment”, forcing him to endure the hardest and most miserable duties army life has to offer.  Prewitt stubbornly refuses to box and this goes on for the first hour of the movie.

The next half an hour fleshes out three smaller story-lines.  First is First Sargent Milton Warden (Lancaster) as he starts a love affair with Captain Holm’s wife, Karen (Kerr).  It is from this that we have that famous scene of the two lovers kissing on the beach as the waves rush over them.  It is interesting to note that the film-makers took every opportunity to have Lancaster without his shirt.  He was actually pretty fit and muscly.  The second story-line followed Private Angelo Maggio (Sinatra) as he gets drunk and makes an enemy of Staff Sergeant James R. Judson (Borgnine).  The third story involved Prewitt and his love affair with a hired girl / dance hall hostess, Lorene (Reed).

I can’t say for sure if this movie portrays army life in the 1940s accurately, but all the soldiers seem to be drunks and letches.  Whenever they got permission to leave the army base, they immediately got rip-roaring drunk and hit the dance halls.  They got into fist-fights that all too quickly turned into knife fights.  Was this really the typical life of the American soldier?  Did they really behave like that?  But the more I think about it, I am guessing that yes, they probably were.  First, what else was there to do?  Second, audiences in 1953 didn’t question that aspect of the film.  In fact, the movie was praised for its realism.  Third, the army is known for the machismo of its soldiers.  It is easy to imagine that in the 1940s, just as today, drinking, womanizing, and fighting were considered to be manly behavior.

Interesting note:  One thing that the movie overlooked in the book, on which it is based, was Private Maggio working as a male hustler, and the gay nightlife of Waikiki.  Apparently, in the book, he is paid to have oral sex with another man.  I doubt Sinatra would have taken the part if that had made its way into the script.

As it was, Sinatra actually fought to get the part.  In fact, he sent letter after letter to the head of the studio, Harry Cohn, asking for the part.  After Eli Wallach, who was originally cast as Maggio, walked away from the role to appear on Broadway, Sinatra got the part, and he really did a fine job.  I think he deserved his Supporting Actor Oscar.  His character was really sort of a tragic one.  He was the first to befriend Prewitt while the Captain was mistreating him.  But he was also a horrible drunk who got himself into trouble.  And in the end, he died as a result of his excessive extreme behavior.

Interesting note:  Sinatra’s screen-test was used in the final cut of the film, showing him drunkenly throwing olives across a bar, pretending they were dice.

 

Burt Lancaster actually did a pretty good job as well.  He looked good, and his character was likeable.  He did his best to protect Prewitt from the cruelty of Captain Holms in subtle ways.  He was believable as the lover and capable as the fighter.  As a matter of fact, I thought he was really the only intelligent character in the whole movie.  When the inevitable Japanese attack happens, he immediately takes command, saving the lives of many of his troops.  Sure, he drank as much as any other soldier, but he proved himself a competent soldier.

But that demonstrates the problem I had with Prewitt, the main character.  Prewitt may have been a polite pretty-boy with a conscience, but he was a moron.  He made several pretty stupid decisions, eventually getting himself killed by his fellow soldiers.  Fortunately, the film didn’t shy away from acknowledging how unintelligent he was.  The character knew he wasn’t very smart, but he was really a good guy, so it was alright.

And Finally, I have to mention Donna Reed.  Most people know her from The Donna Reed Show and It’s a Wonderful Life.  But here she gave a performance with more drama than I am used to seeing from her.  Watch for one scene in particular near the end of the film.  As her boyfriend, Prewitt, is leaving her home to join the fighting at the army base, even though he is wounded and bleeding, and certain to die needlessly, she frantically, even hysterically begs him not to go.  Reed did a great job in that scene.

In the end, I found that I enjoyed the movie – mostly because of Sinatra, who did a great job, and Lancaster, whose character I liked.  But also because, though the main plot was a little slow, the three main sub-plots were engaging and interesting to watch.  Like I said, it is easy to see why this one was awarded the Academy Award for Best Picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Greatest Show on Earth – 1952

Who doesn’t love the circus?  Well, that is what this Best picture winner was about, plain and simple.  The movie tried to tell the real story of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, both in the spotlight and out of it.  But they attempted to do it by writing a fictional story, tailor made by Hollywood, that involved both the public and private lives of the performers and the manager.  The research I did indicated that many critics consider this film to be one of the least deserving Best Picture winners.  Not having seen its competition, I can’t say for sure whether that is true or not.  All I can do is compare it to the other winners I’ve seen and see how it measures up.

My opinion is divided.  In some respects, it seemed a bit too frivolous and shallow to deserve the award.  The plot seemed a little too contrived and the subject matter to juvenile.  However, in other ways, it had a grand scale and a subtle self-importance about it that made me feel the opposite.  There was a certain amount of gravitas, and possibly even pathos, centered on the big-top that made me feel for the characters.  You see, these people’s lives revolved around their work: the circus.  They had the innate need to perform dangerous and even death-defying stunts for the approval of the screaming crowds.

And why not the circus?  Technicolor films were finally starting to take hold in Hollywood and there is no arena that is more colorful, bright, and glitzy.  The movie was like a kaleidoscope of bold and beautiful glamour.  It was a true sparkling, Technicolor spectacle.  In that respect, this is what previous Best Picture winner The Great Ziegfeld would have done if it had the chance.  The plot was no more shallow than It Happened One Night or Broadway Melody of 1929.  It had a touch of fantasy and a touch of reality, just like Gone With the Wind, or Casablanca.  If these films won, then why not The Greatest Show on Earth?

And this film had a few other tricks up its sleeve: Charlton Heston for one, and James Stewart for another.  Heston played Brad Braden, the circus manager.  He is the guy that lives, eats, and breathes circus.  He knows and cares for all the 1,400 circus employees and is the real engine behind the big show.  He is the hirer and the firer.  He makes all the big decisions except for the money, though he is portrayed as persuasive enough to get what he wants when it comes to that.  But being that obsessed with his job has its drawbacks when he is romantically involved with Holly, the beautiful trapeze artist played by Betty Hutton.  In order to draw the crowds needed to keep the show going, Brad hires another trapeze artist named Sebastian, played by Cornel Wilde.  Unfortunately for Holly, this pushes her out of the center ring.  Thus, we have the plot’s main conflict.

Then we had James Stewart playing the part of Buttons the Clown.  To me, his was a much more interesting story line, though in the context of the film, it was only a sub-plot.  Buttons wore his clown make-up all the time whether he was performing or not.  But it wasn’t because he was quirky or trying to “stay in character”.  It is established early on in the film that he is secretly hiding from something, though we don’t learn until almost the end what he is hiding from.  I thought Stewart did a great job, both as a clown, and as a man with a dark secret in his past.    The moments when he was not performing his clown act, there was a seriousness about him that was very interesting to see through the happy, comical make-up.

The film’s climactic sequence was, in my opinion, incredibly well done.  The circus train crashed.  The train wreck scene was very well done and exciting to watch.  It caught me off guard and I didn’t see it coming.  The “bad guys” got their just desserts, though the tragedy threatened to close the show.  Fortunately, the circus is portrayed as an industry that deals with hardship on a regular basis and always comes up smiling for the crowds.  They are depicted as a rare and special breed of folk who have a history of taking their lumps and being able to greet their audiences with the unquenchable merriment that is expected of them.  They are survivors.  Despite losing half their acts in the phenomenal accident, they get right back up and draw in the spectators to watch The Greatest Show on Earth!

But even putting all that aside, I enjoyed the movie simply because it was the circus.  They actually used Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus to make up the cast of extras.  Actual circus performers got to do their acts for the cameras.  The acrobats were thrilling, the performing animals were exotic and amazing, the clowns were funny, and the pageantry parades were dazzling.  The film does a great job of capturing the excitement of going to the circus.  That part of the movie was fun to watch.  Just the sheer volume of the circus acts they were able to fit into the film made it worth watching.

However, in my research, I found that many critics consider this movie to be the worst of the Best Picture winners.  So I have to ask the question:  Why did it win?  Some say that it was because the Director, Cecil B. DeMille was a supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  McCarthy, at the time, was pursuing Communists, and Carl Foreman, who was a producer of the main competition for the Best Picture award, High Noon, was soon to be on the Hollywood Blacklist.  Thus it was a political decision.

But there was another reason that sounded just as plausible.  This was the Academy’s last chance to vote for Cecil B. DeMille, to honor him for a lifetime of film making going well back into the silent movie era.  The members of the Academy (which included many veterans of the silent era) felt that as an elder statesman of Hollywood, he deserved the honor even if films like The Quiet Man, High Noon, Singin’ in the Rain, and Ivanhoe were seen as better movies.

For me, it was the movie’s contrived plot that was its ultimate failing.  The acting was passable, the stand-outs, of course, being Heston and Stewart.  But I found myself not caring who ended up with whom at the end.  Like I mentioned earlier, the sub-plot centered around Buttons the Clown was more interesting to me than the main plot.  (Unfortunately, the character’s back-story was never fully explained.)  But that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film.  I think Leonard Maltin summed it up pretty well in 1999: “Like most of DeMille’s films, this may not be art, but it was hugely enjoyable.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An American in Paris – 1951

Yay!!  Color!!  Gone With the Wind won the Best Picture Award in 1939 – twelve years earlier.  It was the first winner that was filmed in Technicolor.  After that we went directly back in to black and white.  What is taking movie makers so long to start making color films on a regular basis?  Was it really that much more expensive, unwanted, or difficult to produce color movies?  An American in Paris finally stepped up to the plate.  That being said, I found it ironic that in the wild party scene before the big ballet sequence, the party-goers were all dressed in costumes that were completely black and white.

Yes, I said ballet.  This movie was a musical, but not just a musical.  It was a dance-musical.   This is the first time I have watched it, and I have to admit that I went into it thinking that the plot would be practically non-existent.  I thought that the movie would be nothing more than an excuse for Gene Kelly to show off his skills as a dancer and choreographer.    But after watching the movie, I was pleasantly surprised.  I mean, sure, Kelly got to show off a lot, but the story was a little deeper than I expected… but only a little.

The plot revolves around three men and two women.  Gene Kelly plays Jerry Mulligan, the painter who is in love with Lise Bouvier , played by Leslie Caron.  Georges Guetary plays Henri  “Hank” Baurel, the singer who is also in love with Lise.  Nina Foch plays Milo Roberts, the rich heiress who is in love with Jerry.  And finally, Oscar Levant plays Adam Cook, the concert pianist who is in love with himself.  Throw them all together and you get a light-hearted plot that thankfully doesn’t try to take itself too seriously.  Because we all know why we are really here:  To hear the music of George  and Ira Gershwin and to see Gene Kelly dance to it.

And we really do get what we came for.  Kelly’s dancing is incredible!  He was young, fit, and very attractive.  His dance moves were performed with a grace and ease that made them seem like they were effortless, like the practiced and complex steps were second nature to him.  And his choreography was so appropriate to Gershiwn’s music.  The musical styles that were represented ranged from classical to ballet, from jazz to show-tune, with maybe even touches of big-band and Vaudeville.  Kelly’s dance moves kept pace, showing off his incredible talent and an obvious love for the art form.  And who knew you could tap-dance in loafers?

Interesting note:  Gene Kelly received an Academy Honorary Award that year for “his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film.” It was his only Oscar.

Leslie Caron was able to keep pace with Kelly quite well, though to be honest, it sometimes didn’t appear as effortless for her as it was for him.  Every now and then, she looked as if she really had to concentrate on what she was doing.  Then again, she did much of her work in toe-shoes, standing, walking, spinning, and leaping on the tips of her toes.  Not being a dancer, myself, I can only imagine how difficult that kind of dancing is.  But she did it all with a big brilliant smile.

Really, Kelly and Caron were the only members of the main cast who did any dancing.  Guteary was cast for his voice, and did a fine job, especially in his big number, I’ll Build a Stairway to Paradise.  If I had any complaint about his character, it would be that he had a very strong French accent.  Appropriate for a movie set in France, but sometimes, the accent was so thick that you couldn’t understand what he was saying, and for a song sung in English, that would seem to be a necessity.  Foch neither sang nor danced, but she was gorgeous, and she played the part of the spoiled rich girl well.

Finally we come to Oscar Levant.  Goodness gracious!  He was incredible.  As I have mentioned before in an earlier review, I can always tell if someone in a movie is actually playing their instrument, or if he is just pretending.  There is no doubt – Levant was really as talented as his character was supposed to be.  His piano playing was spell-binding.  He was amazing and flawless.  There is a scene in which he plays Gershwin’s Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra.  I was riveted as I watch his fingers fly over the keyboard.  True, the scene itself was obviously gratuitous, not at all necessary to the plot in any way, but the performance was so incredible, I didn’t mind.

And the same could be said for a lot of dancing in the film.  Sometimes it came out of nowhere, and it almost felt like it was there despite the story, of which, I admit, there wasn’t a lot.  But the dancing was so good, it didn’t matter that it wasn’t always necessary.  And as for the plot, it had its moments that caught my interest.  There was one scene in particular that was cute and clever.  At one point, Jerry is at a café with Henri and Adam.  Henri tells his friends of the girl he loves, and how he will marry her.  Jerry tells them of his girlfriend, and how he wants to do the same.  Neither of them realize that they are talking about the same girl, but Adam does.  Then the scene moves into the great song S Wonderful.  It was a very clever little moment.

There were a few other great Gershwin tunes that were used, such as Embraceable You, Nice Work If You Can Get It, and I Got Rhythm.  But then again, Gershwin’s music is always great to listen to.  The movie’s big finish was the American in Paris Ballet sequence.  It was sixteen minutes long and cost an unbelievable $500,000 to film.  Gershwin’s symphonic tone poem, An American in Paris, was written in 1928 and remains one of his most popular works, probably second to his most famous work, Rhapsody in Blue.  His music has a staggering complexity about it, but despite that fact, it has a way of remaining accessible to the listener.  It is incredibly impressive, but at the same time, it sounds right in the ear.

The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, and won six of them, but nobody expected it to take home the coveted Best Picture Award.  It wasn’t the favorite, as it was up against Decision before Dawn, A Place in the Sun, Quo Vadis, and most notably, A Streetcar Named Desire.  Stiff competition, to be sure, but apparently the voters were ready for something more light-hearted and fun.

Interesting note:  This is just an odd little observation, I noticed.  The 1951 movie poster for An American in Paris shows Leslie Caron in a yellow tutu and toe-shoes, dancing with Gene Kelly, wearing black pants and shirt.  That particular tutu Caron is wearing was blue in the film and she never danced with Kelly while wearing it.

Another interesting note:  I found a tiny inconsistency in the film.  At one point, during the song Tra-la-la (This Time It’s Really Love), Gene Kelly is lying on top of a piano and playing notes on the keyboard, thus playing the keys backwards.  But they messed up.  When he played notes higher on the keys, the notes you hear were lower, and when he played notes lower on the keys, the notes you hear were higher.  Kelly apparently forgot he was playing from the opposite side of the piano.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All About Eve – 1950

The 1950 winner of the Academy Award Best Picture is a wonderful film starring Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, George Sanders, Celeste Holm, Gary Merrill, and Hugh Marlow.  Already, we have a pretty good cast of actors.      Bette Davis, of course, is well known as an incredibly accomplished actress with a film career that lasted from her debut in 1931’s The Bad Sister, to her final appearance in 1987’s The Whales of August.  Fifty-six years!  She had under her belt, ten Academy Award nominations, two of which she won.  What an incredible career!

But the rest of the cast, although not as well known today, was quite well known in 1950.  Celeste Holm, you may remember, won the Best Supporting Actress award for her part in Gentleman’s Agreement.  George Sanders was a great British actor who was in over 130 films between 1929 and 1972.  I mention these two because they did a particularly fine job in All About Eve.  Their roles were very different and they performed them with what seemed like ease and skill.

Contained in this film is a very famous line spoken by Davis.  Her character, Margo Channing, is a highly respected and well-loved actress who is at the peak of her career, though she is getting too old for the young roles she plays on stage.  She is at her lover’s birthday party and she has seen her man, Bill Sampson, played by Gary Merrill, talking to the young and beautiful Eve Harrington, played by Anne Baxter.  She is just beginning to suspect that Eve’s mysterious adoration and ambition might be some kind of a creepy threat.  She assumes the worst and begins downing martinis like they were water, turning herself into a vicious woman who casually throws around incredibly witty insults at anyone in range.  Upon hearing some icy comment from Margo, her best friend Karen Richards, wonderfully played by Celeste Holm asks something like, “So, Margo, are you finishing up, or are you just getting started?”  Margo walks away from the conversation, but turns around long enough to deliver that famous line, “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”  What a great line!

Her co-stars all did a great job as her supporting cast, but really, Davis was the real scene stealer.  She seemed to draw my attention.  Maybe it was her attitude, her poise, or her unconventional good-looks.  Maybe it was her famous eyes that made me focus on her.  Maybe it was the mystique of a diva-like actress with such a big name.  Whatever it was, she had a presence about her that made her a pleasure to watch.  She really did command my attention.

With one exception.  Even Bette Davis had to give up the spotlight when it came to a bit part played by an actress that was not well known at the time.  Playing the minor role of Claudia Caswell, a hopeful but slightly air-headed young actress, whom the character of DeWitt described as a “graduate of the Copacabana School of Dramatic Arts”, was Marilyn Monroe.  She had such a small part but she milked it like you wouldn’t believe!  As hard as I tried, I couldn’t keep my eyes off of her.  Her lines were delivered in such a way as to make her tiny, one-dimensional character fascinating and captivating, charming and memorable.  The camera really did love Monroe.

Interesting note:  This was Monroe’s eighth film appearance.  The inexperienced Monroe was cowed by Bette Davis, and took 11 takes to complete the scene in the theatre lobby with the star.  When Davis barked at her, Monroe left the set to throw up.

But back to the film.  The plot was an interesting one that gave the audience a glimpse into the fictionalized lives of the rich and beautiful.  It had sophistication, style and glamor.  Add to that a touch of creepy and razor sharp wit, and you have a delightful film.  It is always interesting to hear insults which are thinly disguised as compliments.  It is an indication of very clever writing.

In the title role of Eve Harrington, Baxter actually made you believe her lies which made the big reveal in the end that much more satisfying to watch.  You see, her whole goal was to steal Margo’s entire life – her career, her success, her money, and yes, even her lover.  However, fortunately for Margo, Sanders’ character, Broadway critic, Addison DeWitt, was the first one to definitively see through Eve’s falsehoods.  And being the cold-hearted and vicious man he was, he used them to his advantage.  The scene in which he confronted Eve and told her in no uncertain terms that because he knew all her dirty little secrets, he owned her, even going so far as to slap her into submission.  That was especially satisfying to watch!  At that point in the film, you see just how low and evil Eve really is, and it was nice to see her finally get put in her place.

The final scene was also interesting to watch.  As the now successful actress, Eve, returns to her hotel after receiving a prestigious award, a star-struck and adoring fan has crept into her room.  She begins to show behavior that seems disturbingly similar to Eve’s own behavior at the beginning of the film.

All that being said, it was nice to get back to a film that did not have, for lack of a better term, a specific agenda.  Movies like Mrs. Miniver, The Lost Weekend, The Best Years of Our Lives, Gentleman’s Agreement, and All the King’s Men had their own agendas.  Whether it was to address a social issue, explore a difficult subject, or show support for a war effort, these films had an agenda that had a specific purpose and were trying to effect some kind of change in those who watched them.  But All About Eve had no such designs on its audiences.  It was just a cleverly written fictional story that was well acted and fun to watch.  I didn’t feel like I was being educated or like I was suddenly being expected to do something from having watched the film.  And it didn’t take itself too seriously.  It had both dramatic and reflective scenes and brief moments of light-hearted comedy.

Interesting note: Davis apparently read the script in one sitting and immediately accepted the role, knowing that the film would be a winner.  The role of Margo Channing is widely considered one of the best performances of Bette Davis’ career, and though both she and Anne Baxter were nominated for Best Actress, neither of them won the award.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the King’s Men – 1949

This movie was a political drama, first and foremost. As such, I have to admit that I went into it with a half-way closed mind. I didn’t particularly care for the movie, simply because I have never been a great follower of politics. The plot follows the career of Willie Stark, played by Broderick Crawford, as he changes from a poor but honest farmer fighting against local injustice by running for a small and unimportant office, to a wealthy state governor who is as corrupt as the day is long.

Interesting Note: The author of the novel on which the movie was based was a Pulitzer Prize winner for the book. The character of Willie Stark was thought to be inspired by the real-life politician Huey P. Long, former Governor of Louisiana, and a Louisiana Senator in the mid-1930s

Sometimes it was unclear whether the main character is Stark or the young reporter, Jack Burden, played by John Ireland, that is assigned to cover his story, and later comes to work for him. Jack is associated with and is friends with Judge Monte Stanton. He also happens to be in a relationship with the judge’s niece, Anne Stanton, played by Joanne Dru.

I couldn’t stand the character of Anne Stanton. She is shallow and dishonest. I mean, sure, she wasn’t the only character with realistic flaws, but she seemed even more flawed than the rest. She lives as a ward of the Judge and when Jack asks for her to wait for him, to give him time to build some kind of a successful career so that he can keep her in the lifestyle to which she is accustomed, she promises that she will. But as soon as she meets Willie Stark, she is smitten with his power and position. She kicks Jack to the curb and starts an affair with him. Tough break, Jack!

Later, even when the corrupt Willie is about to end his relationship with her, she takes the opportunity to throw her uncle, the Judge, under the bus. And then when Jack confronts her about it, she sobs and cries and turns her face away from him, not able to face what she has done. She is a liar, a back-stabber, and an all-around bad person.

But enough about the weak and spineless behavior of her character.

The real focus of the film can be summed up in the famous quote by Sir John Dalberg-Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The film-makers seemed to go out of their way to demonstrate this point. That phrase may be true, but in this case, I have to question how true.

By the end of the movie, Stark was such a popular politician that when attending his own impeachment hearing, a crowd of supporters stood outside the courthouse for an entire day, shouting his name. What the crowd didn’t know was that his power and position were gained by suppressing, stepping on and, in one case, even murdering his opponents and enemies. He had become a habitual alcoholic and notorious womanizer. He was a tyrannical father and husband, and a master at manipulating those who worked for him.

So we have to ask, why did the people love him so much? Why did I sometimes admire his character? Because despite all his amoral and sometimes criminal behavior, he made promises to his voters which he honored. Sure, he bulldozed over people to do it, but he got it done. Roads were built along with a hospital and schools – all things that greatly improved the state of Louisiana. His supporters just didn’t know all the dirty business.

In the end, the movie was a bit too slow-paced for my tastes, and the subject matter was not really one in which I am interested. But, that being said, I will say that I thought Broderick Crawford did a good job. He was believable as both the poor but honest man, and as the rich but corrupt politician. John Ireland acted his part well enough, but for one thing. From the very beginning, he had a look on his face that made him seem perpetually annoyed, even when he had no reason to be.

One actress in the film that I enjoyed watching was Mercedes McCambridge as Sadie Burke, Stark’s personal assistant. She had an intensity about her that was reflected in her performance. The script didn’t focus on her very much, but what was there was golden. There was a small scene in which she is looking at her face in the mirror, acknowledging that she is not as high born or as pretty as Anne Stanton, and wishing that she was attractive enough to catch Willie’s attention. The inferiority, jealousy, and bitterness in that little scene was incredibly well acted. I actually felt a great amount of sympathy for her in that moment. McCambridge won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for the role. Well done Mercedes!

Interesting Note: Director, Robert Rossen originally offered the starring role to John Wayne, who found the proposed film script unpatriotic and indignantly refused the part. Crawford, who eventually took the role, won the 1949 Academy Award for Best Actor, beating out Wayne, who had been nominated for his role in Sands of Iwo Jima.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hamlet – 1948

“To be, or not to be.  That is the Question.”    Or how about, “Frailty, thy name is woman.”  Maybe, “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.”  Or if you prefer, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.”  Or then again, “To thine own self be true.”  Or maybe even, “Get thee to a nunnery!”  Or why not, “The play is the thing.”  Also, though not included in this film adaptation, “What a piece of work is man?”  This is Shakespeare, and I don’t know any of his other plays, comedies or tragedies, that have so many memorable quotes.  Hamlet is, of course, is one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays, only being superseded, perhaps, by Romeo and Juliet.  This Oscar winning version is widely considered one of the best film adaptations of the drama, largely due to the film’s adaptor, director, and leading actor, Sir Lawrence Olivier.

The basic story is one that can be summed up in a nutshell.  Prince Hamlet’s father is murdered and the dead king’s ghost tells him to get revenge.  However, much of the tale’s drama comes from the psychological journey that Hamlet takes in enacting that revenge.  But I am not going to attempt to write a review of the plot of Shakespeare’s play.  Rather, I intend to focus, as much as possible, on Olivier’s film adaptation.   Keep in mind that the stage play is actually over four hours long.  This film adaptation runs just over two and a half hours.  Plenty of the play’s content was cut.  Most noticeably, the characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Fortinbras were completely left out.

Once again, I cannot wait until films start coming out in color.  The costumes alone were probably brilliant and dazzling, but as the movie was black and white they seemed diminished, somehow.  In fact, the film won an Academy Award for best Costume Design.  (The Queen’s costumes were particularly fantastic!)  But that being said, I recognized a specific benefit to the film being done in black and white.  I think one of the film’s biggest flaws was easier to hide without color.  Olivier was forty years old when performing the role.  Eileen Herlie, who played Gertrude, his mother, was only twenty-eight.  Despite the heavy makeup and bleach blonde hair, Olivier was obviously too old for the part.  Yes, his acting was superb, but he was just not young enough to play the youthful Prince.  Having the movie filmed in black and white, helped to hide that problem.

The movie’s score was composed by famous classical composer William Walton.  Much of the music sounded appropriate for the period in which the story takes place.  But during the dramatic moments, the score had a wonderful gravitas that seemed to emphasize the tortured psyche of Prince Hamlet, through which the plot leads us.

Other actors who stood out to me in the cast were Basil Sydney as King Claudius, Jean Simmons as Ophelia, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, and in a very minor role as the Gravedigger, Stanley Holloway.  Holloway is best known for playing Alfred P. Doolittle in 1964s My Fair Lady.

I’ve seen Hamlet on stage and I’ve seen another film adaptation – Kenneth Brannagh’s 1996 version.  So I am no stranger to the plot.  But one thing I never really understood was the exact nature of Ophelia’s death.  I mean, yes, she lost her marbles.  But then she goes out and commits suicide by drowning herself?  In Olivier’s version, her demise did not seem so deliberate, and that made it more believable to me, or at least more understandable.  This movie portrayed it as more of an accident than an intended suicide.  Her mind was so far gone that when she decided to get in the water and lazily float along with the river, it never occurred to her to try to stay afloat when her soaked clothing pulled her under the surface.  Simmons was gorgeous and played crazy well.

Another thing that I found very effective about the film was a simple, yet ingenious, special effect.  It was actually very cool and did a great job of building tension.  There are two scenes in which the dead King’s ghost makes an appearance.  Both times, they had the fog machines going and Walton’s music was dark and mysterious.  Each time, the camera was focused on the characters to which the apparition would appear.  Then, the sound of something like a heart-beat began, and the camera would phase in and out of focus in time with the ominous beating.  The first time it happened, I didn’t understand what was being done.  But the disorienting shifts in focus along with the crescendo of the music really made for a spooky effect.  Add to that the frightened expressions on the faces of the actors, and the effect accomplished its goal.

Lawrence Olivier really did a fine job, both behind and in front of the camera.  Once I got over the idea that he was too old for the part, I had to admit that he really was a great actor.  His emotions seemed real and believable.  I especially liked the “To be, or not to be” speech.  You often hear it quoted out of context, but Olivier’s delivery within the context of the play made it so much more meaningful.  In fact, Olivier has been considered by many to be the greatest actor of the 20^th century.

Interesting note:  Olivier had been the only actor to direct himself into an Academy Award for Best Actor until 1998, when Roberto Benigni did the same with the movie Life is Beautiful.  However, Benigni’s movie did not win the Academy Award for Best Picture.  Ironically, it lost that honor to the movie Shakespeare In Love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gentleman’s Agreement – 1947

I’m not sure why, but this one turned out to be a pretty long review.

Plain and simple, this movie was about anti-Semitism and its message was shouted loud and clear.  For those who might not know, anti-Semitism is a very specific prejudice against Jewish people.  It actually required that I do a bit of research into the subject.  The title of the film, Gentleman’s Agreement, is not exactly an obvious one.  It was not clear as to why this movie was so called until about three quarters of the way through the movie.  The point was made that the unjust treatment of the Jewish people was a problem that was not talked about.  It was generally hushed up and ignored, not recognized, and not dealt with.  It was a sort of gentleman’s agreement that the distasteful subject should just be overlooked by polite society.

I have been fortunate not to have grown up in or lived in an environment that that exposed me to that kind of prejudice.  That being the case, I don’t understand why any person would treat another human being differently because of a religion that he follows.  However, times were different back then and social attitudes and prejudices were likewise different.  In 1947, following the end of World War II, anti-Semitism was a real problem.  This movie took a definite stance and attempted to practice exactly what it preached.  It is not enough to just say you are not anti-Semitic.  You have to behave in a manner that actively fights against it.  Social change begins at home.

The film starred Gregory Peck as Philip Green, a journalist recently moved to New York, who is commissioned to write an article on anti-Semitism.  He has a reputation for writing powerful and thought-provoking articles, but even he is daunted by the sensitive subject.  He finds that he has difficulty finding the profound and unique angle that he needs to make the article what he wants it to be.  His solution, since he is still mostly unknown in New York, is to tell everyone that he is Jewish and see, first hand, how he is treated.  By today’s standards, he is treated horribly.

But I had to ask myself: how accurate was the problem depicted in the film?   Here is where my little bit of research comes in.  Apparently, it was just as bad as it was portrayed, though maybe not so concentrated.  Here is what that means:  In the film, Green starts telling people that he is Jewish.  Immediately and categorically, he and his family are shunned, ostracized, cheated, verbally and socially abused, and in general treated like second class citizens.

But therein lies the one major problem I had with the plot.  The writers seemed to make a list of all the most common forms of anti-Semitism, then one by one, they forced them upon Mr. Green, and by extension, the audience.  This made the story seem contrived, and consequently, very preachy.  Maybe that was their goal.  They went out of their way to examine the issue from a number of different angles and points of view.  How does it affect the Jewish people?  How does it affect non-Jews?  How does it affect Jewish children?  What forms of behavior are considered anti-Semitic?  How do Jews react to the extreme injustices they are forced to endure?  How do they cope with this horrible form of prejudice?  All these questions are systematically asked and answered.

Most of the characters in the movie are aware that anti-Semitism is an ugly thing.  But the movie also makes this point: simply looking the other way and allowing such behavior to continue is just as bad as perpetrating it.    This point is really driven home in Mr. Green’s relationship with his fiancé, Kathy Lacey, played by Dorothy McGuire.  I thought this actress did a wonderful job.  Not only did I like the way her part was acted, I liked the way it was written.  From the beginning, Green let her in on the charade, but her initial reaction to the scheme set the tone for everything that came to follow.  As soon as he told her that he was going to “come out” as Jewish, McGuire did a fantastic job of showing you exactly what went through Lacey’s mind.  She was afraid of being known as the fiancé of a Jew.  It was an instinctive reaction, but not because she thought she would be known as a Jew herself.   It was because she knew how badly Jews were being treated and she was afraid of being treated that way.  It seems to me to be a subtle but significant difference.  I thought her reaction was understandable.

However, her character’s behavior, when viewed critically, could be considered anti-Semitic – but usually in an indirect way.  You have to really be looking for it; you have to WANT to see it.  At one point, she is so tired of being treated so harshly whenever he perceives her as being anti-Semitic, she leaves him, and I said “Good for her!”  I didn’t really like Peck’s character.  He was so obsessed with his article that he forced everyone in his life to endure the hardships that he willingly took upon himself.  It was all about him, and everyone else be damned.  Sure anti-Semitism was a real problem, but the innocent people around him were made to suffer for his ideals.  I would have left him, too.

A breath of fresh air amid the heavy cloud of the film’s drama was the character of Anne Dettrey, played by Celeste Holm.  She won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for the role.  She was a character who was truly not anti-Semitic.  As Mr. Green’s co-worker and friend, she was unashamed of her Jewish friends and the actress really did a fine job showing it.  In fact, half the time I wanted Mr. Green to end up with her at the end of the movie because she was such a genuine and self-assured character.  She was honest and sympathetic to the plights of others.  And she was a true enough friend to be brutally honest with Mr. Green when he really needed it.

I also have to mention John Garfield, who played Mr. Green’s Jewish friend Dave Goldman, who gave him yet another perspective on the issue.  He was a bigger name actor at the time, but because he was actually Jewish and wanted to be a part of the film, he took a smaller supporting role.  He did a great job, and was very believable in the part.

This movie was informative and honest about the subject of anti-Semitism, but as a plots go, it seemed a bit too contrived, and had a tendency to force its point on the audience.  Anti-Semitism is a cruel and ugly thing that has no place in a civilized world.  I get it.  But it was so forcefully shoved down my throat, I almost felt like I, myself, was being accused of anti-Semitism for even sympathizing with McGuire’s character.  It is alright to make a point, but I felt like it went a little too far.

All that being said… everything that the film tried to say is unfortunately true, and it is sad that there are still anti-Semitic people in the world today.

Interesting Note:  The political nature of the film upset the House Un-American Activities Committee.  Elia Kazan (Director), Darryl Zanuk (Producer), John Garfield, and Anne Rever (actress who played Mrs. Green – Mr. Green’s mother) were all called to testify before the committee. Revere refused to testify outright and although Garfield appeared, he refused to “name names”. Both were placed in the Red Channels of the Hollywood Blacklist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Best Years of Our Lives – 1946

This was a very good movie for several reasons.  It had some wonderful acting, believable characters and story lines, serious dramatic content, and even an overall feeling of social consciousness.  It dealt with the difficult subject of WW II veterans coming home after the war and their attempts to return to their normal lives.  But the devastating war left no man unmarked, or undamaged.  The men who fought for our freedom were forever changed, forever scarred – some physically, some emotionally.

The film was nominated for eight Awards, winning seven of them.  Aside from Best Picture, it took home Oscars for Best Director (William Wyler), Best Actor (Fredric March), Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Harold Russell), Best Film Editing, and Best Music.

When it comes to this Academy Award Best Picture winner, I was quite pleasantly surprised.  I went into this movie thinking that is was going to be depressing and sad.  But thank goodness, I was wrong.  Sure, there were depressing moments, but the story was incredibly well written, giving it a feeling of hope despite terrible hardships.  I have to give a special notice of congratulations to MacKinlay Kantor for a job well done in writing the novella the movie was based on, and Robert Sherwood for writing the brilliant screenplay.  Sherwood won the Academy Award for best screenplay.  The plot was so incredibly believable.  What really cemented the realism for me was the ending.   It was not your typical Hollywood ending.  Not all the problems were resolved.  Not every character ended up happy.

The plot revolves around three service men in different branches of the military.  Actor Fredric March played Sergeant First Class Al Stephenson.  His problem: estrangement from a family he has not seen in several years and consequently, severe alcoholism.  Dana Andrews plays Air Force Captain Fred Derry.  His problem:  an inability to find satisfying work in a post-war low job market, a wife who is practically a stranger whom he married on a whim only a few weeks before shipping out to war, and post-traumatic stress syndrome.  Finally, non-actor Harold Russell played Petty Officer 2nd Class Homer Parrish.  His problem:  The loss of both hands during the war, and an inability to accept his own disability, rejecting others because he is afraid of being rejected.  He thought that others saw him as a freak, but I think that he couldn’t get past seeing himself as one.

As you can see, very serious and very realistic problems.  But the entire cast was up to the task.  The acting seemed natural and easy, even for Russell, whose disability was not a special effect.  He really did have prehensile hooks in place of his hands.  He did a fantastic job, even during the heavily dramatic moments of the demanding role.  There seemed to be more there than just simple acting.  He acted the part well because he had lived it.

A very handsome Dana Andrews did a great job as well.  He looked sharp in his Air Force Uniform, like a nice guy you’d want to know.  But though the disability he portrayed was not physical, it was certainly just as devastating.  His character would frequently relive the horrors of being a bomber in the war, screaming in his sleep and waking drenched in sweat.  As it turned out, he was the romantic lead of the film.  His love interest was an actress whom I have mentioned in an earlier review.

Teresa Wright played the part of Peggy Stephenson, Sargent Stephenson’s adult daughter.  Just as in Mrs. Miniver, Wright was a delight to watch.  She is beautiful and vivacious, and she always seems to have a sparkle in her eyes.  She played a much more adult character here, and once again, she stood out to me as an exceptional actress.

Like I mentioned earlier, one of the things that made the plot so much more real to me was the fact that not all the problems were resolved by the end of the film.  Sargent Stephenson was still drinking too much, Captain Derry was still reliving his experiences as a bombardier, and Petty Officer Parrish still had his physical disability to cope with.  But the point was made that despite the scars that all soldiers came home with, there was the hope of happiness and a light at the end of every tunnel.  Parrish got to marry his girl, Derry got away from his bad marriage and got together with Peggy, and Stephenson’s family was supporting him through his fight with his alcohol abuse.

This was a very emotional movie.  So far, in all the Academy Award winning films I have watched up to this point, I might even go so far as to say that this was the most dramatic Best Picture winner yet because it is one of the most realistic stories.  I imagine it might have hit close to home with a lot of audiences in 1946.  The subject matter was current for its time but still relevant for audiences of today.  The scars of war that all soldiers bear affect more than just the soldiers.  They affect the families and friends that they return to after the wars are over.

Interesting note:  Producer Samuel Goldwyn reportedly said of this film, “I don’t care if it doesn’t make a nickel… I just want every man, woman and child in America to see it.”  I can see what he meant.  The stories are just that powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lost Weekend – 1945

I can see why The Lost Weekend won the Academy Award for Best Picture, because it dealt with a subject that is very serious:  alcoholism.  Even today, alcoholism afflicts roughly 18 million people in the United States alone.  The movie pulled no punches and attempted to show the frightening depths to which a true drunk on a drinking binge will sink.  The results were pretty ugly, and made all the more so because they were so realistic.  To put it simply: alcoholism ruins lives.

The film starts out as Don Birnam, played by Ray Milland, is packing to go on a trip out of town with his brother.  He makes a point of telling him that he hasn’t had a drink in ten days.  But his brother Wick, played by Phillip Terry, is skeptical.  Right from the very beginning, it is clear that Don is hiding something, lying to his brother, and is dying for a drink.  He has hidden a bottle of Whisky by hanging it outside the window, but Wick finds it and pours it down the drain.  His girlfriend Helen, played by Jane Wyman, arrives to see them off.  Like Wick, she is also painfully aware that Don has a drinking problem, but is desperate to believe the best of her man.

The film wastes no time in showing that Don has a very serious problem.  You see, Don is no ordinary drunk.  Don is the kind of alcoholic that would put a dope fiend to shame.  From the very beginning, he is already at the point where he is prepared to beg, lie, cheat, and steal for a drink.  He has no concern for those around him and is only concerned with one thing – that next drink.  When he is finally left alone, he searches the apartment in vain for any drop of alcohol that he might have hidden – anything that his brother might not have found.  My first thought was that Millan was portraying the character and his behavior so completely over the top that it seemed unrealistic.  But then I remembered a documentary I once saw about alcoholism and substance abuse, and the lengths to which addicts will go for their drug of choice, and it started to make a lot more sense.  If his alcoholism had reached that point, his behavior was all too real.

The movie is based on a book of the same name, written by Charles R. Jackson.  Apparently, the movie follows the book pretty well with very few deviations.  The book was so well written and realistic, some have even said that it “was obviously semi-autobiographical.”  However, it is interesting to note one minor difference.  In the book, the character of Don Birnam is described as being tormented by a homosexual incident he’d had in college.  They left that alone, and I don’t think the film suffered for it.

The movie was very well done in that it showed the how low alcoholics are able to sink.  The begging, lying, cheating, and stealing were all there, but it got even worse, even to the point of horrific hallucinations and suicide attempts.  His brother got fed up and abandoned him to his fate.  And even his girlfriend was ready to do the same until she learned that he planned to kill himself.  But the film ended with a ray of hope.  Helen returns to stop him.  She even desperately tries to get him to drink more alcohol, saying that she would rather have him drunk than dead.

It was a god movie, being neither polite nor pretty.  Instead, it was gritty and real.  The acting was good and the characters believable.  Here is where I think the movie turns a little strange, and perhaps fails to translate for a modern audience.  The music.  For me, the soundtrack didn’t really seem to fit the story.  It was creepy music that would have been appropriate for an old Hollywood monster movie like The Creature From the Black Lagoon or The Mummy, not a serious drama about a raging alcoholic on a four day drinking binge.

The soundtrack employed an electronic instrument called a theremin which was supposedly used to create the pathos of alcoholism.  All it did for me was to remind me of Plan 9 from Outer Space.  The theremin makes a sound that is wobbly and high-pitched, eerie and other-worldly.  I kept expecting a slow close-up of a monster lurking in the closet.  But when the horror movie music played, they would start panning in for an extreme close-up on a glass of rye, as if maybe the alcohol itself was the monster.  Maybe the music might have been effective for 1945.  After all, The Lost Weekend was one of the first movies to employ the theremin as part of the soundtrack.  But by today’s standards, it didn’t seem to fit the film.

Another character in the film that I enjoyed watching was Nat, the local bar tender that gets Don started on his binge, played by Howard Da Silva.  He does everything a friendly bartender should do.  He is a good server and an attentive listener.  When he realizes that Don has gone completely off the deep end, he gives him one last shot before cutting him off and encouraging him to get some help.  That showed a certain amount of compassion and the desire to help out his friend.  Well done, Howard.

The subject of alcoholism is a difficult and serious one, and the movie was not afraid to show some of the seedier sides of the disease.  It was not always comfortable to watch, and as such it achieved its goal.  The hallucination scene was particularly disturbing.  But I think it was worthy of the Best Picture Academy Award it won.

Interesting note:  The day after the Oscar Ceremonies, Director, Billy Wilder, and Producer, Charles Brackett returned to work at the film studio complex.  They noticed that co-workers had hung empty alcohol bottles outside the office windows in homage to the Best Picture win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Going My Way – 1944

Here we come to Going My Way, a nice movie about an Irish Catholic priest named Father Charles “Chuck” O’Malley who is assigned to take over the financially failing church, St. Dominic’s. The elderly priest in residence is Father Fitzgibbon. Things seem hopeless, but then again, O’Malley is played by the biggest box office drawing actor of the 1940’s, Bing Crosby. Of course everything will be alright. Critics have called this film Crosby’s best, even putting it above such favorites as The Bells of St. Mary’s or White Christmas. Unfortunately, I can’t confirm or deny that appraisal. This is the first film starring Bing Crosby I have ever seen.

The movie was nominated for ten Academy Awards, winning seven of the coveted statuettes. Besides Best Picture, Crosby took home the Oscar for Best Actor. Fitzgibbon, played by Barry Fitzgerald, won for Best Supporting Actor, though he was also nominated for Best Actor, losing to Crosby. I’m still trying to reason that one out – Nominated for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for the same role. What if he had won them both? The film also won Awards for Best Director (Leo McCarey), Best Writing, Screenplay, Best Original Motion Picture Story, and Best Music, Song (more about that later).

The character of Father O’Malley was the kind of guy that was practically perfect in every way. He was written to be the priest we all wish we could have. He was kind and generous, smart and self-effacing, gentle and mild, funny and could sing like an angel. He had a great love for music, and a talent for composing, which, by the way, became a plot point in the story. You see, he finds that the best way for him to save the church from foreclosure is to write and sell a hit song.

He begins by starting a boy’s choir, recruiting the local hoodlums and teaching them to sing. But this is just set-up so that later in the film he will have a back-up choir to help him sell his hit song to the record producer, Max Dolan, played by William Frawley, otherwise known as Fred Mertz from I Love Lucy. He even has a connection to (and therefore the help of) the world famous opera star, Genevieve Linden, played by real life opera star Rise Stevens, who fronts the song for him. The plan works, but not in the way that O’Malley intends.

The title song, “Going My Way“, is his big hopeful, but Dolan turns it down, calling it too high-class and schmaltzy. As the record producer is leaving, Crosby sings the song “Swinging on a Star” with his pitch perfect hoodlum choir. Dolan hears it and decides to buy it on the spot. The Church is saved! The mortgage is paid and everyone is happy!

But none of it matters because the half church burns down in a fire.

Some elements of the plot vaguely reminded me of the 1992 movie Sister Act. A failing church is put back on the straight-and-narrow because of someone who breathes life back into it, using the gift of music. And I have to admit, Crosby sure had the gift. He was, of course, an accomplished actor, but I think he was just as well known as a singer. He had a beautiful baritone voice that was soft and velvety and perfectly even from his low to his high range. He sang five songs in the movie.

The title song was a beautiful tune that really lent itself to Crosby’s crooning style. But let’s face it – nobody today remembers it. Everyone, however, remembers “Swinging on a Star“. It has a delightful, catchy melody and cute lyrics. In fact, this is the song that won the Academy Award for Best Music, Song. As I watched the movie, I kept thinking that the movie should have been called Swinging on a Star, but I guess that would have given the little plot twist away.

All that, of course, was only the main story line of the plot. There were others. For example, there was a bit of drama that centered around Father Fitzgibbon as the doddering, elderly priest who had to step aside to make way for the spry, young one. As a matter of fact, Fitzgerald did a very good job as the aged clergyman. He was mildly crotchety, slightly cantankerous, and wonderfully endearing.

Another story line was that of Carol James, played by beautiful Jean Heather, a young woman who had run away from home and is suspected of being up to no good. So where do the police bring her? Why, to the church, of course. Father O’Malley helps her out with a little money and sends her on her way. She meets the handsome son of the banker behind the foreclosure of the church and marries him. To me, this little side story was so insignificant to the main plot that it is almost not even worth mentioning but I know exactly why it was part of the movie.

A few weeks after the couple are wed, the young man joins the military and goes off to war. Remember, this is still 1944 and World War II is not yet over. We can’t pass up the chance to display a handsome young man in his sharp military uniform fighting in the service of his country, his tearful young bride waiting for his return.

If I had any real criticism of Going My Way, it would be that the character of Father O’Malley was so noble and righteous, so godly and perfect, he was not really believable. A man like that would surely be given sainthood. I’m not saying that there aren’t actually people who are that good, but he didn’t seem to have a single flaw. Not one. Something, anything – a loss of temper, a bad habit, a dark past – would have made him seem more real to me.

This was another film that, while I enjoyed it, was a little too slow paced for my tastes. But it was good to finally see Bing Crosby in a film. I understand why he was such a popular actor.

Interesting note: After World War II, Bing Crosby and Leo McCarey presented a copy of the motion picture to Pope Pius XII at the Vatican.