Murf Versus

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

It struck me while watching “Mrs. Miniver” that the film was incredibly current for its time. It is rare to watch a movie about an event that is ongoing and rarer still that event be as important as World War II. 1942’s film “Mrs. Miniver” follows the Miniver family living outside of London, England, at the outset of the war, the Blitz, and directly references the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940. Despite its focus on the English in World War II, “Mrs. Miniver” was an American movie rushed to theaters by President Roosevelt as a propaganda film to stir up more Americans to support fighting the Germans.

It was also one of the most boring movies I have watched. As stirring as its speeches and as important as its history, “Mrs. Miniver” spends too much time on romance and on the idyllic lives of the pre-war English middle class and aristocracy. In a way, it reminds me of “Gone with the Wind” only less exciting.

Greer Garson was adorable.

It is a shame too because the movie is well-acted. Mrs. Miniver is played by Greer Garson, who’s soft eyes look straight through the heart of everyone she meets. Later scenes in the movie, after her initial introduction as a vapid consumer housewife, bring home the tragedy of war even if the movie takes too long getting to them.

The rest of the cast is also very good. I especially liked Walter Pidgeon as the husband of Mrs. Miniver, Clem Miniver. He has a kind of old sitcom dad vibe to him throughout the film, despite there being no laugh track and even less to laugh about. An early scene where he and his wife have dinner and slowly work up the courage to admit to one another what they wasted money on that day felt like a scene from “I Love Lucy”.

“I Love Lucy” in a bomb shelter would be a welcome twist on the sitcom though.

Other than the children who were terrible by default, I initially hated their son and the film’s romantic lead, Vin Miniver, played by Richard Ney. Vin is initially introduced as an Oxford student who cannot stop talking about the troubles of classes in English society. I found it very humorous how he wanted to stand up for the middle class against British aristocracy when his parents lived in a house large enough to have its own name. Blue blood or not, he hardly suffered either.

His character did grow on me and if the film hadn’t dawdled so much I might’ve cared for his romance with Carol Beldon (Teresa Wright), the granddaughter of the well-to-do Lady Beldon. I did appreciate that she called Vin out on his bullshit when they first met since all he was was a “talker” and she at least did something with her time when she wasn’t busy being rich.

British.

Carol Beldon’s grandmother, Lady Beldon, is played by Dame May Whitty and she owns all of her scenes. As classist as she can be, Lady Beldon is one of the few comedic elements in the movie, which was much appreciated given the rest of the subject matter even if she was a total bitch about most things. Her character arc revolves almost entirely around a flower competition which her family host, pays for, and that she always wins. It is all rather tripe.

The absolute best scene in the entire film takes place at its very end. Gathering in a bombed out church, there are gaps in the seating where lost loved ones once sat. The pastor’s sermon is rousing. The story goes that it was written over and over again up until the day it was shot. It was so important, that President Roosevelt cribbed it in his own speeches regarding the war effort. If the war hadn’t already been won, then I might’ve jumped out of my comfy living room and gone off to fight for freedom myself.

Easily the most memorable scene, this speech, especially in context, was perfect.

Regardless of all these qualities, Diane and I both spent most of the film wondering when it would lead to anything. When we realized it was a World War II movie, we got interested despite the movie maintaining its glacial pacing. “Mrs. Miniver” feels long and is long. It takes too much time to get where it needs to be for the story to begin and everytime you think it is over, it isn’t. We very much appreciated the historic value of this film, but we will never watch it again.

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

Src: Movie Poster Site

For both of us, “Yankee Doodle Dandy”, the 1942 biographical musical, was a surprise. As Americans, we were obviously familiar with the songs in the movie, but we had never gotten the additional context of George M. Cohan and his life. Though not necessarily true-to-life, James Cagney played the role of the “song and dance” man to perfection. Neither Diane nor I knew what to expect before watching the film, but we both thoroughly enjoyed it.

“Yankee Doodle Dandy” is a biographical story about Irish-American George M. Cohan (played by James Cagney). Cohan was an entertainer, dancer, singer, producer, and writer. Of all his hits, the two I am most familiar with are “Over There” and “You’re a Grand Old Flag”, two songs I have heard all my life though I knew nothing of their composer.

“Yankee Doodle Dandy” includes the first depiction of a sitting President while on film.

Even the movie remarks upon the familiarity of Cohan’s music. Later in the film, teenagers arrive needing water for their car. George is asleep in a hammock reading a magazine and they ask him if he was ever in showbusiness. He says he was, but they don’t know any of the songs he mentions were his. Instead, they only know that new hit single “Jeepers Creepers”. Of course “Jeepers Creepers” is a jazz standard now and a “hit” horror movie franchise, but Cohan’s music has lasted the test of time too or else people like us wouldn’t know them.

As Cohan, James Cagney is sublime in the role. We previously saw him on this list in “Public Enemy”, but playing a singer and dancer in George M. Cohan is far removed from his turn as a criminal. It’s amazing seeing his range and after watching “Yankee Doodle Dandy” I am finally understanding why he was a respected and well-known actor in his time.

This scene in which George M. Cohan first meets his future wife was an absolute delight.

Similar to most of the films on this list thus far, “Yankee Doodle Dandy” covers George M. Cohan’s entire life, absent his final years and death. The story is bookended by his meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Cohan’s twilight years.

It is also a musical and, in the same vein as other movies on this list depicting Broadway, we had no idea what any of the plays performed within the movie are about. It is amazing how much is lost over time. I am sure the musical Little Johnny Jones was better known in the ‘40s, but the only thing from it for which we were familiar was the song “Give My Regards to Broadway”. The depiction in the movie of Little Johnny Jones, Cohan’s first full-length musical, was confusing and completely alien to us otherwise.

Mericuh!

The best praise I can give for a movie like “Yankee Doodle Dandy” is that I would watch it again. It was fun, funny, and an all-around great performance. There was an instance of blackface, but it was within the context of Vaudeville and excusable enough for the time. And, again, I cannot speak enough of Cagney’s performance. He made me laugh, nearly made me cry, and his stiff-legged dancing mixed with his sing-speak songs kept me engaged.

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

Look here: I got something to say and I am going to say it. This is the kind of thing that makes a man, I mean really makes a man. Without it, the world would be chaos – glim, glum, no glamour. With it, man has the power to rewrite it all. He can kiss the dame and he can win any fight. Money is nothing in comparison. And love? Well, we already got that, precious.

And just what is that “thing” that “really makes a man”, you ask?

Watching “The Maltese Falcon” from 1941, of course!

There’s nothing manlier than dressing like this. Sadly, fedoras (and hats) have been ruined by men who say “M’lady.”

To me, nothing says classic Hollywood dialogue like film noir. It has that perfect blend of slang, speed, and philosophy. At any moment, a line can dip into the most sexist thing you have ever heard or wax romantic at the next pair of legs that walks by. Style over substance, etc.

Humphrey Bogart in “The Maltese Falcon” is no exception. He plays your archetypical private eye, a man by the name of Sam Spade, who spends the entire plot knowing nothing and everything at the same time. He’s a variation of the “smartest man in the room” who uses his street smarts more than his intellect to read his way in and out of any room. With charm and moxey, nothing stops him.

I have long wanted to watch “The Maltese Falcon” and other movies like it. I didn’t grow up with any want to be a detective or private eye, but this is a classic distillation of a male power fantasy for those of us who don’t want to be Achilles or some other kind of muscle-bound man-strosity. It is incredibly sexist, of course.

This guy’s eyes creeped me out every time he was on screen. I would’ve sworn he must’ve played Igor in a Frankenstein movie at some point.

The women in “The Maltese Falcon” are varied but undeveloped. The wife of Sam’s murdered partner reveals her and Sam’s affair early on. She barely factors into the rest of plot give or take a few sad-eyed shots of her looking onto the rest of the story. Sam’s secretary busts her ass the entire movie and she doesn’t even get kidnapped once for more screen time. She’s the most positive female character, but she is entirely limited to doing what Sam orders. The love interest, Brigid (Mary Astor), spends the entire movie “being afraid” despite being one of the principle villains!

That’s not to say I disliked the movie, it is just dated by default. I am sure there is an alternate universe incel version of me that worships Humphrey Bogart in this role. I know this universe’s me wishes I could wear a suit and hat half as well. But I’d prefer a version without women if they are only going to serve as accessories to a plot that would hardly change without them.

Surprise! Women can get arrested too. Progressive.

I will say that Brigid’s turn as being an actual villain and Sam’s refusal to protect her since she murdered his partner was refreshingly modern. Even if I cared little for what happened to her and we had to suffer a scene about how Sam and Bridgid were “in love” after a few days of making eyes at one another, seeing the romantic interest get arrested was great. Diane and I both loved that they didn’t end up together.

Beyond that, it is a beautiful film. Unlike “Citizen Kane” where parodies spoil the plot, parodies of “The Maltese Falcon” tend to ape the style and not the story. Despite always knowing of the movie, I was on the edge of my seat the entire time wondering what might happen next. Like “Citizen Kane”, there are some really cool camera angles and shots that really heighten the intensity at times or focus in on the actors.

I doubt either of us ever revisit “The Maltese Falcon”. It feels like a product of its time, albeit in a less harmful way than some of the racist or even more sexist movies we’ve seen in this series. There’s a lot to love and I still want to explore the film noir sub-genre further, but this is a one and done for us both.

Don’t be this guy. Never be this guy.

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

Src:Movie Poster Shop

Returning to movies neither of us have seen, we have 1940’s “The Philadelphia Story”, a romantic comedy starring Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart. Despite the star power, this one was a total flop. I loved the idea and found the first half to be funny, but the movie’s second half derailed the humor with a contrived romantic subplot. It also had one of the worst endings of any of the movies we have watched thus far and also managed to be one of the most sexist.

“The Philadelphia Story” focuses on Tracy Lord, a rich socialite from Philadelphia, soon to marry for her second time to a man from new money named George. Her previous marriage to C. K. Dexter Haven (played by Cary Grant) ended prematurely because of his alcoholism and possible physical abuse. On the eve of her wedding, she is visited by a tabloid journalist (James Stewart) and photographer (Ruth Hussey, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance). They pose as friends of the family through the assistance of C. K. Dexter Haven who is helping them work on behalf of the magazine Spy to cover the wedding even though the family would never consent to having reporters on the property.

It’s never 100% clear that C. K. Dexter Haven ever beat Tracy Lord. The one bit of physical abuse is played for laughs.

This plot quickly leads to humor. James Stewart’s writer-turned-journalist is an intellectual snob who is turned off by the world of the richest Americans. He thumbs his nose at their excess. Tracy is made aware of the reporters’ identities almost immediately. C. K. Dexter Haven reveals he was only in on the plot because the magazine’s editor has a story that will damage the family’s reputation (the family’s patriarch recently had an affair with a dancer in New York).

Things take a turn when everyone finds out everyone else’s secret with the exception of George who, despite being the story’s nicest person, no one likes, especially the Lord family who much prefer Tracy’s ex-husband C. K. Dexter Haven. The movie keeps up some humor, but focuses more on Tracy’s remaining love (and contempt) for her ex, her lack of connection with her soon-to-be-husband, and a potential new romance with James Stewart’s character.

Yet another movie where a female side character is far more attractive than the female lead (though not necessarily a better actress).

I read that at the time this kind of plot was a way to allow for extramarital affairs which were taboo. The basic idea is two lovers who need time apart to seek out other romances before realizing their love for one another. For me, there was nothing but confusion as Cary Grant’s character charmed his way through the rest of the film with little obvious motivation and James Stewart chewed on his dialogue.

It’s a shame “The Philadelphia Story” ended up being so flat. It clearly had the star power and neither of us had any issue with any of the performances. If the plot had been able to keep my interest, this might’ve been an okay movie. Instead, it is one of the worst of the bunch so far despite being our first introduction in this series to James Stewart, Katharine Hepburn, and Cary Grant, all of whom I had looked forward to seeing.

This scene where the Lords play up their upbringing at the expense of the two characters who come from more humble backgrounds was crazy but enjoyable. I wish more of the movie was like this.

Worse, the final 15 minutes or so of this movie was not just bad but demeaning to the audience. The movie directly mentioned that C. K. Dexter Harvey had abused Tracy during their marriage, but they decided to remarry after George walked out on the wedding after accusing Tracy of doing more than just kissing the night before with the drunken James Stewart. Stewart’s character who was in a relationship with Ruth Hussey’s photographer asks Tracy to marry him in George’s stead, directly in front of his supposed girlfriend, only to be refused. Everyone seems to do a complete 180° and nothing feels earned.

Most offensive of all, Tracy’s father gives her a speech of how he is proud of her for going back to C. K. Dexter Harvey. This comes after a speech earlier in the film where he blames his oldest daughter for his infidelity. He told her that when a man gets older they look for ways to feel young and if they have a horrible daughter who doesn’t dote upon them, then they are likely to look for that love elsewhere. It is a horrifying, repugnant speech made all the worse by giving the character no fallout or comeuppance for its utterance.

Seriously, this is the most sexist character we’ve seen yet. He blames his daughter for why he cheats? Fuck him. He deserved a real kick in the ass.

Despite the star power and performances, we cannot recommend this movie to anyone. Its views have not aged well. Try as it might to portray a strong female, Katharine Hepburn is saddled with a script written by men and for men. For all its potential, “The Philadelphia Story” was a real bummer.

I don’t care what Cary Grant is doing here, the man is dreamy!

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

Src: Movie Poster Collectors

1939 was a packed year when it comes to movies. Perhaps none of the movies released that year remains as famous or as popular as this week’s movie, “The Wizard of Oz”. And since both Diane and I hate this movie, we decided to pair it with a second movie: 1985’s “Return to Oz”. Thankfully, we left out “Oz the Great and the Powerful from 2013 or this post would be overkill.

As you know, “The Wizard of Oz” is a musical about a dog, Toto, and his owner, Dorothy, who are whisked away to a far away land called Oz after a cyclone strikes their farm in Kansas. Toto gets top billing in my retelling because he is the single best thing about this movie. That and the music.

/r/MovieDetails, “The farmhands at the beginning of the Wizard of Oz are really the companions.” ZOMGbestMOVever

“The Wizard of Oz” is something most everyone sees at least once here in the United States. Channels frequently play it each year, often as a marathon, and it is the kind of movie that parents pass down to their children and subsequent generations. I watched it as a kid. Diane watched it as a kid. For both of us, it didn’t take.

In rewatching the film, I can appreciate its technical beauty and fantasy charm. It is overflowing with rich imagination and the color to match. Even in its cheapness, it is timeless. The songs also soar above the rest as they are, in my opinion, the most important thing “The Wizard of Oz” brings to the table. “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” is an objectively perfect song and is most likely the greatest original song for a movie ever. Judy Garland’s performance of it is all you ever really need to see in “The Wizard of Oz” to get your money’s worth, especially as Toto watches on from a tractor.

Toto literally being held back by the rest of this film.

The rest of “The Wizard of Oz” is just okay. Frankly, neither of us really get the appeal. We didn’t as kids and we don’t now as kid-adults. The movie lacks in plot and plays out more like a string of interconnected music videos making about as much sense as anything you would see on YouTube. I am not directly familiar with the books on which the movie is based, but there’s no digging into any rich mythos either. “The Wizard of Oz” seems like an early blueprint for all live action children’s movies, but its so prototypical that it is hard for me to sit through and enjoy. I think it is better experienced by listening to the soundtrack and not much else.

Fast forward from 1939 to 1985 and you get a much different kind of movie. “Return to Oz” was not something that either of us saw as kids. This was Diane’s first watching and my second after chasing it down years ago out of shock that it existed.

Thankfully, Glinda the Good Witch is not in “Return to Oz” where she can instigate everything and never help anyone.

“Return to Oz” picks up immediately after “The Wizard of Oz” and it functions as a sequel/spiritual successor, only it is completely different. Based more on the books, “Return to Oz” is a darker, richer story that abandons music and dancing for abject horror. Even with its age, the scene introducing Mombi, a woman who treats her 31 severed heads as accessories to be worn as her mood demands, is terrifying. Similarly, all of the claymation work done to bring the Nome King to life is equally horrifying and memorable.

Neither of us will try to argue that “Return to Oz” is an objectively better movie. It is certainly the lesser of the two and not nearly as important, at least in the span of film history. It exists as a relic of a dark era for the Walt Disney company. After struggling to make use of the Oz property they had purchased, “Return to Oz” was a failure in the box office.

I forgot this was in “The Wizard of Oz”. This looks good. I like this.

I find it hard to imagine that “The Wizard of Oz” was not similarly revered in the mid-80’s, so the fact that anyone greenlit a movie that could only be perceived as a sequel is beyond me. “Return to Oz” is set in a post-apocalyptic Oz where everything anyone ever loved about “The Wizard of Oz” is frozen in time, standing lifeless in the ruins of an emerald-less Emerald City. There’s no music. There’s less color. Dorothy only manages to return to Oz after escaping from electroshock therapy intended to treat her delusions from the first time she visited. It is a dark, 80’s fantasy film for kids and I love it for that, but it is the worst way possible to follow up “The Wizard of Oz” even with a four decade gap.

It’s also not a particularly good dark, 80’s fantasy film for kids. You are better off crying at “The Neverending Story” or eye-fucking David Bowie in “Labyrinth”. It has its moments, but “Return to Oz” only works as much as it does because it starts off by taking something iconic from everyone’s childhood and subverting into a desolate hellscape. I love it for that very reason even if I will forever question its very existence.

St. Patrick’s Day in America, everyone.

When comparing the two films, we found the side characters more entertaining in “Return to Oz”. While the three in “The Wizard of Oz” all have their classic song and dance routines to introduce themselves and what they are missing, the characters in “Return to Oz” all serve actual purposes and advance the plot without spending the entire runtime bitching about something they learn they already have in the end. One’s a chicken, which is unfortunate, but Tick-Tock is cool. He’s a wind-up soldier. Diane was partial to Gump, the resurrected head of a moose attached to some antique furniture.

I will give “The Wizard of Oz” the nod on the designs for Scarecrow, Tin Man, and even the Cowardly Lion (the lesser of the three). “Return to Oz” goes for a much more stylistic interpretation which I hated, but the makeup and costume work for the 1939 film still hold up to this day. Even more impressive, it holds up while the performers are doing some great singing and dancing. Ray Bolger, previously seen in our review for “The Great Ziegfeld” is fantastic and has no equal in either film, besides Toto, of course.

You had it all along, you dumb fucks, now stop wasting everyone’s time, including your own.

“Return to Oz” also has the superior Oz, even if it is a rundown dump. Why? No munchkinland. That place still creeps me out.

Sometimes there is no place like home. Sometimes the life lesson is to bury yourself in the familiar and never leave your farm. Other times, life calls for taking a chance even if it means replacing the excellent dog lead with a subpar chicken character. For us, “The Wizard of Oz” has its place and that is firmly in 1939 when it was fresh and original. I hope to never see it again unless I am only watching Judy Garland win over the rest of human history with a truly remarkable song.

Oh and I doubt I watch “Return to Oz” again unless I find someone else who can’t believe it existed. Seriously, Disney, why?