A Face in the Crowd (1957) Review

Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau

“I hear you just wrote the ending to my book.”

A Face in the Crowd is one of those films that might be destined to be considered constantly provocative and predictive of the future. Before ever seeing it or knowing anything about it, I’ve heard people compare its main character Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, played by a young Andy Griffith, to Donald Trump and some others. In truth, Trump is not the first egotistical rich person to get high on his own farts, and the movie has more to say than just that one should look out for these types. While the film does have value and meaning in these “messages”, with those messages automatically pushing it to a higher quality of storytelling than that which has nothing to say, the cost of this is how often certain characters are just one thing.

Larry is initially all rebel and all wacky, before eventually being all asshole when need be for the story. It’s hard to say if he’s going too far with his brashness, as him going so far is seemingly the point. Patricia Neal as Marcia Jeffries and Walter Matthau as Mel Miller are more absurd than even him. Mel often has a sly remark on the tip of his tongue and Marcia is always reacting to Larry in an audience-insert role. Especially seeing as she isn’t shown having anything going on in her life outside of Larry, she comes off as a caricature. Both are just different ways one might observe or think about someone like Larry. There’s even a time when Mel is waxing lyrically, only for the scene to unnaturally fade before he’s done talking. His words are more syrup than substance.

The pacing by contrast is excellent. The movie starts as a pseudo-adventure, with us following Marcia try to make more of her show and something for Larry, then quickly things get out of hand for both her and the film, being more eclectic. Marcia becoming less involved at this point leads to the issue of the story focusing more on its social commentary than being a proper story. We’re now focused on the new and intimidating plotlines that relate to Larry. Just as life is busy for him, the story is busy with him typically trying to overconfidently power through problems. Arguably this all could have been trimmed down, though the dominating presence of it all helps communicate what the narrative’s trying to say. The movie doesn’t spare showing what a wealthy lifestyle affords someone: influence, (illegally) young women, and notably compromises in one’s values. The quickness makes this slideshow easy to watch, other than the occasional slow point.

The ending asks a little much of these plain characters, with the score taking everything to a slightly comical and overdramatic level. Just as this movie is more about documenting a type of person, the ending should carry that style of merely capturing something that apparently needs to be seen. The “big” performances generally serve to remind you you’re watching a drama and add a level of fakeness. Admittedly, even Larry as a whole seems cartoonish, but you can also say that about real people, especially some politicians. Seeing real people like this does weaken the impact of the picture, as does the blatant allegory of something like the laughing machine, showing the weakness and unoriginality of this affair. A more sophisticated comment about the subject would help a lot. Maybe watching this movie at the time would be more meaningful? As is, it does have some things going for it, mainly in not knowing what will happen next and the acting not being focused on enough to matter. If it was about thirty minutes shorter and the ending more in keeping with the rest of the plot, it wouldn’t be obvious that we’re short on tricks and it’d be easier to focus on the punchy pace.

SPOILERS

The ending seems more directed at the audience than any character. Mel’s dialogue in particular details this, coming off as quite silly in the context of the film, essentially with him telling off Larry. However, it does communicate a truth of human nature. Many people only care about someone’s image, especially their positive image, without worrying too much about any scandal. The real crux is time, with many stars relegated to more and more distant memories. Just as much as the picture criticizes someone like Larry for being so mean to people, it criticizes the average person. The reason why people like Trump persist is because of the fallibility of anyone to hold accountable the types that show no respect for them or at least others, especially the less fortunate. They’ll also empower someone to influence politicians just because of easy manipulation tactics, like showing support to women and people of color and having a unique personality. Some might note how at the end Larry calls his black workers a racial slur, which suggests his support of them may have been a conscious facade, if not then something that can be retracted at whim.

There’s other ways of looking at the lead, such as that when Larry was this hot rebel that didn’t know or care for the way of doing things around him, he was genuine and that’s what people liked about him. Him feeling like he had nothing to prove and didn’t care about success is why he became successful. However, power corrupted him, though only took advantage of what was already there. Larry was always rude to some degree, it just greatly exacerbated. As Larry became powerful, he to a degree became aware of his corruption, but was so high on success so as not to care. He used to genuinely work in a salt of the Earth environment and have that spirit to him, though that eventually became something he pretended to be on his show, with that aesthetic literally just set decoration. Businesses found a way to make him marketable and to appeal to him in a way that would get him to cooperate, so they used him to sell products until he was no longer able to. They in turn exploited the part of Larry that wanted attention. No corporations tried to stop him for being such a mean person when there wasn’t a scandal. Despite being popular because of how he was different, Larry eventually just became another suit.

The ending where he’s basically yelling for a shred of attention reveals that he’s now desperate for that feeling of control, at best being left with his only friend pre-fame. Seeing as that friend is never shown walking out on him, that might imply Larry was once a sincerely good person, though what else would he even do? If I was him I’d just keep living in that lavish place wearing nice clothes as long as I could. Mel later saying he and Marcia were too charmed by him but got wise implies he was always like this and there always will be people like this and the trick is to know to leave once you know the truth. Marcia’s character arc mirrors this, with her initially infatuated with him, putting up with some lesser red flags, becoming like him (mainly when she wants acknowledgement and money), is hurt by him, and realizes how she’s behaved. If you compare this to either an abusive relationship or to having some negative experience with a politician, it’s not likely someone could just do one thing to sink the other as Marcia does, which is one reason the ending feels a bit off. However, this represents a quicker and more theatrical way of detailing how someone’s bad reputation can remove their support and respect overtime. Marcia as a whole seems to represent what it does to someone when they empower a person that ultimately is no good.

OVERVIEW

Cleverly, the film doesn’t answer the question of whether destructive rich people are born mean or become that way. It simply says that it happens and what to do when it does, as oftentimes it doesn’t matter either way and just as the movie flips over whether Larry is a product of nature or nurture, so can we get these mixed signs from real life people. What does matter, and what you’re left on when considering the narrative, is that such Trump types don’t deserve influence and should be ignored, at least if they’re in a place to suck other people down. Still, there will probably be some way for them to steal at least a little credibility and attention, as self-identified wealthy representatives of average people can find at least a small few that will listen, even as time withers them into A Face in the Crowd.

The Share Out (1962) Review

William Russell and Moira Redmond in what looks like a lobby card for the film.

The Share Out gets to the point. The cast are at worst admirable and effective in their roles, the story is clever and intriguing, and due to the one hour runtime, the pacing succeeds due to having little time to waste. You could imagine a better group of filmmakers finding a way for more intense performances, a more sophisticated script, or a tighter product; as near the beginning this film could be punchier. Regardless, this little novelty provides for the fans of these quick and hot little tv mysteries while supplying a little more for those that want above average. A big theme of this movie is trust. Most of the trusting revolves around the wonderfully charming and sly protagonist Mike Stafford, played by William Russell. Despite the fact that many people rely on him and despite the audience following him, the script proves how smart it can be by telling us of his crooked ways in the beginning, only for the sheer good will and likability of Russell to get us on his side. He’s the only one that doesn’t act like he has something to hide. Based on how confident he often is, you can tell Mike has thought through everything quite a bit.

Mike is brought into “The Calderwood Property Group” to help around and due to his charisma is trusted. However, there’s not much logical reason for him to be, though most of the character’s personal plans involve trusting someone, and he presents himself as the perfect person to rely on. You can also suppose everyone would feel better working with a newbie than those they’ve come to know. Regardless, initially no one seems to be any more likely of being guilty of anything than anyone else, such as the murder that occurs early on. The leader of The Calderwood Property Group, Colonel Calderwood, played by Alexander Knox, has seemingly thought up a pretty solid way of keeping his business associates honest. Thus, the movie is initially about everybody checking the other person to see if they’re trustworthy, as opposed to anyone worrying about cheating in order to get ahead. The movie is briefly more about setup for the end that is baked into a look at human behavior. In theory, there’d be no real conflict, but when you have such slimy people, even the most secure plans never are as airtight as one might hope, so that’s where the drama intensifies.

The story asks you to second guess people a lot, which creates a tense atmosphere. The black and white and somewhat noirish look of the whole film adds to this seedy charm, as does the conversations that you almost know will contain some lying. It is strange that the characters don’t have more awareness that them trusting in others is foolish. Some incidents of someone relying on another, such as at the climax, don’t make much sense. Maybe this is supposed to be a look at some great fallibility of human beings, far too willing to do something that seems simple but is really stupid, or it’s a plot contrivance?

SPOILERS

As is a very common trope, the handsome man sticks by the law and ultimately seems rewarded for it. He is in good graces with the police and has a pretty girl for added measure. However, this handsome man has already betrayed everyone else as need be, so the ending does a twist on him lying to everyone else. The detective we’ve been following reveals he thinks Mike committed one of the murders, suggesting he was lying by saying Mike was good to go. Just like how the other characters essentially had to trust someone and that ultimately was their downfall, there’s no reason why Mike would get off any differently. The film has had a few clever tricks to get us to trust and like him, and if you know conventions of these movies, it’s not uncommon for these guys to genuinely reform at the end, but there’s no reason based on the information here for us to trust him.

When he was accused of the murder, I initially recalled how we saw what he was doing at the time and it couldn’t have been him, but then I realized that during that scene there was a time skip, then we saw Mike and another person discover the body. Who is to say Mike wasn’t the killer, but then he left, came back, and acted innocent, just like how he was putting on appearances for everyone else? Admittedly, Mike didn’t have a reason to kill the guy, unless someone paid him to offscreen. The point of this ending may have been to say that “crime doesn’t pay” to the audience, and as such it could have done a bit better at finding a more believable reason to get Mike in trouble, or even just letting him win. This is not a big issue, though.

OVERVIEW

The Share Out is a really effective drama that boasts enough solid actors and ideas to not waste the hour length. See for scenes of private investigations being executed by taking the subject to dinner, discussions of how sticky ends come to all except the cleverest, and faked phone calls.

Painted Faces (1929) Review

Is this not supposed to be terrifying?

“See you in jail!”

Painted Faces offers some surprising moral gray in a story that takes advantage of many tropes of the time. The familiarities of men arguing in suits, music numbers, circus shows, and more make for a nice backdrop for how weird this film can get at times. It comes off as being weird as it doesn’t know how else to be, instead of being a conscious choice. The issue is how sometimes that weirdness originates from poor storytelling, but this is still better than being bad and typical. The story focuses on Joe E. Brown as Hermann and his troubles. The nonlinear narrative reveals more and more about him. While his struggles are not terribly engaging, at least Brown himself gives him this humble outsider aesthetic, with him often being kicked to the side or mistreated. However, his mistreatment only pushes him to think that sometimes the common choice that will make you liked isn’t always the right one and that you might need to stand in defiance of others. Brown is very convincing as this incredibly shy and nervous fellow just trying to do the right thing.

Practically every character here is very bendable and dubious. This is handled with nuance, instead of just having people be pure good or pure evil. Many of the characters feel like they could be real. The first notable example of this is how the supposedly civilized jury pressures Hermann into voting guilty in a case where someone’s life is on the line just because they want to leave. When he refuses, they threaten, insult, and are violent to him. Before it’s revealed who didn’t think he was guilty, the foreman assumes it was one of the women, acting like they’re too stupid to know to go guilty. The jury are also portrayed as illiterate, racist when referring to the foreign-accented Hermann, and manipulative in how they used a woman’s crying to try to sway Hermann. This just goes to show the sort of issue with these sorts of systems. People wanting to go home and resume their lives could mean death for another. Admittedly, instead of it taking many days for the jury to resolve, it could have been much faster if everyone had the conversation they ultimately had at the end.

The pacing is extremely awkward, such as when Hermann waits to share important information or when there’s lots of setup for something that doesn’t matter just so we can have a bit more context or suspense. The movie is very blatant about often having nothing to say, with filler instead of plot progression. Hermann will be asked by the jury to provide evidence for his opinion, only for him to give non-answers. Some of this seems to come down to possibly having to fill a time quota or not knowing how to make a sound film. Note that 1929 was the second year to have all-talking pictures. In universe, Hermann comes off as really dumb for this. He does have many other negative traits, as well. A more minor example is when he’s so hurt by his love interest not giving him attention that he tries to distract her from what she’s focused on. More consequentially, that interest is his underage step daughter. Maybe that was okay at the time, but you at least can’t deny that him ever making a pass at her would be very manipulative inherently. There’s a point where he may have kissed her when unconscious, though it’s not really clear if she was. In a scene of him at a Chinese restaurant, he and the others with him are belittling and racist to Chinese people.

SPOILERS

Buddy, the man being accused of the murder, is a little funny in how one note and also idiotic he is. He’s a bit hot tempered and tries to attack someone in front of the jury for “lying” about him, which could not possibly have turned out well. Despite being about a murder, the tone is a bit light, with a musical number and some comedy, with that underage step daughter eventually getting with another man… then we find out that other man murdered her. That particular scene is about the most memorable and jarring one here for how suddenly pitch black it gets. This is spoiled by Brown delivering the reveal of this like it’s being told for dramatic effect instead of as just something he experienced. A real person wouldn’t include the theatrical pauses and other flourishes. For no apparent reason, Hermann continues to hold off important information until it’s dramatically convenient. The big twist comes when he ultimately confesses to being the killer himself. The scene features some nice angst on Brown’s face, though every line and motion from the cast feels staged. While it’s understandable that he wouldn’t want to confess until it’s his only choice, there’s not much buildup or tension for the reveal, so it feels like something that could have just been mentioned earlier. Wouldn’t Hermann have understood that his story wouldn’t sway anyone without that part at the end?

The jury suddenly turns over to Hermann’s side and hard defends him after he confesses, which breaks from how they were before. You’d think they would still be mad at him for taking up so much time, but they act like he’s a swell guy now. “Oh, well now that we know you murdered someone…” It’s like they’re all so proud of him for his vigilante justice. Their bold appreciation for Hermann comes across as a parody of media in favor of said vigilantes. Wisely, they don’t seem to act like they’ve been unfair to him, such as by apologizing, showing how selfish people can be. Maybe Hermann doing clown tricks for the others was supposed to be them softening to him, but that doesn’t come across as they go back to being really mean to him right after?

In a movie about seemingly noble people who really have a dark side, it is telling that Hermann, who was portrayed as the most noble, would really be one of the creepiest. He starts laughing at the end of it all and asks the others why they aren’t laughing now that they “know the story about the funny clown”. His face is also particularly frightening. The movie ends with him walking out the court covered in some darkness saddened by the fellow jurors having something to look forward to, while poor Hermann is still fragile, probably unhealed, and primed to do something emotional and regrettable because of all that he’s experienced.

OVERVIEW

Don’t confuse Painted Faces with Twelve Angry Men. As a jury story or a lost love story, it’s a bit weak, but there’s a few tricks and interesting blends of the concepts that makes for a shaky film that can about manage at such a short runtime. The lead character here being less confident and more prone to negative behavior is a fun difference.

The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976) Review

The Who Who Sold The World He Fell To

So, I wonder… is The Man Who Fell To Earth the same as the Man Who Sold the World? A few things really stop this flick from shining. The main one is that David Bowie turns in a pretty piss poor performance. He does get some brownie points for really looking like an alien and contrasting how aggressively 70s everything looks. If he never played an alien in his career, you’d wonder why. It does seem like something that would be in his wheelhouse. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger after him, he might shine in a role where very little is asked of him, especially in terms of giving a layered and human performance. We are asked to care about the little white duke that is “Thomas Jerome Newton”, also known as Tommy, with him sometimes going into panic or madness. However, he comes off just like a person that doesn’t know how to deliver their lines, not an alien. “Get out of my mind, all of you!” is one particularly silly line. Whenever Tommy has to have complex emotions, Bowie comes off as wooden and having no idea what to do. Apparently he really didn’t, and thus he basically kills any chance for the film to work.

Early on, the film is defined by a shoddiness so brazen as to possibly be intentional. We see some shaky camerawork document Tommy going down a hill, then we see him wander around not doing anything of consequence. It feels very low budget and that isn’t the worst thing to strive for, but it sets a tone of being more about an experience than getting to an ending, but so much of the actual film is just mindless imagery that at best can have a meaning forced out of it. The score is also chaotic, sometimes loud and jarring or starting and stopping at random-feeling points. We get a lot of pointless shots of closeups on faces or someone walking around. Important information then is sometimes skipped over. There’s a little bit of narration when the movie otherwise doesn’t have any. It all comes off as thoughtless.

Candy Clark as Mary-Lou does lay on a lot of ham, but sometimes is moving, like when she cries about receiving money because she really wants Tommy. Her character often is chasing something, which makes her more relatable. Clark captures a decent naivety at such times that is one of the more interesting elements at play. Some of the more compelling moments are when Mary-Lou is a bit mad over her love of Tommy, who she is not ever particularly on the same page with. The other characters, and sometimes Mary-Lou, feel like stock filler that gets us to either some sci-fi visual mumbo jumbo or more likely, tits and ass. Depending on some interpretations of the story, like being about the business side of life, she doesn’t really matter much. As such, she is dressing beyond anything else.

The plot is basically incomprehensible, with the excessive visual mumbo jumbo and sudden shift in characterization of the cast making it hard to ever know what is going on. The script, especially with how Tommy is depicted at the end, wants to be clever so badly, but it forgot to really say anything or come to an actual point that means something. Sometimes we just see characters in a certain state without us knowing how they got there, like when Tommy suddenly has money or the really creepy bit where his nipple is cut open. We see Tommy just wandering around with no apparent aim, even a scene of him at a pawnshop seeming to be low on funds, only to somehow have a lot more money and resources in no time without us seeing how. Perhaps there is some way to connect all the disparate dots in this story and see it as brilliant, but such tales are always polarizing? No matter what, it is hard not to see the nudity and psychedelia as mere spectacle, or the slow dialogue-heavy scenes that take an eternity to get anywhere as just killing time.

One interpretation is that Tommy can be seen as a metaphor for David Bowie himself. He looked and felt very alien. Despite not coming from much, he managed to make others a lot of money, was able to have a lot of frivolous thrills, then ultimately got stuck in the system that made him successful. The gun-play sex party especially feels like it could be intended to reflect rock and roll excess in how gratuitous and violent it is. This doesn’t much benefit the film as seeing this as analogous to Bowie is very much just one interpretation and you have to reach outside the information in the movie to think this. Seeing this as about Bowie or more broadly about what fame does to even the most “outsider” of artists is debatably a bit clever. A lot of the movie, like the scenes of Tommy in space, are meaningless in this view.

SPOILERS

Tommy and Mary-Lou’s relationship is not well handled. They are essentially fine until one day they’re bickering and getting very heated, without a more natural transition. Their acting leaves much to be desired. In fact, Mary-Lou does a lot of jumping from loving Tommy to being over him, with her character not adding anything by the end. She could be seen as just “the girl” that might serve as a celebrity’s first marriage. Near the end Mary-Lou loves him so much that she doesn’t try to save herself when she thinks Tommy is going to murder her, and gets over how horrible it was for him to act like he was immediately. In almost no time, she is saying she doesn’t love him anymore.

The film often keeps its focus off Tommy and either on the plot or other characters. When he takes off his human suit to show Mary-Lou his true form, we don’t get much of how Tommy is thinking and feeling, but we very much do from Mary-Lou. As such, the few scenes that do focus on Tommy, notably the last shot of the film, are a bit weird. The emphasis on him acts like we’ve had some great look at him, so it should be tragic when he succumbs to his demons, but it instead emphasizes how much of a mess this all is. Similar can be said for how quickly Tommy and Mary-Lou’s relationship corrodes. We jump from them being stable to a very explosive fight. Their first argument is also the first big sign of Tommy going mad. He acts cartoonish and way more over the top than he usually has.

Tommy showing his true identity to Mary-Lou doesn’t carry the value you’d expect it to. One big reason for this is Tommy hasn’t shown much love for her or for anything, so why would he feel comfortable with this? Why not have a build up of them having a seemingly great relationship, with this being the tipping point of how much he feels for her? The sequence also gets lost in the montage of sci-fi imagery, how bad Bowie’s costume is, and how absurdly Mary-Lou acts. She’s screaming in terror, then soon enough disrobes. Also, did we have to see a closeup of her peeing? Is that one of the filmmakers’ kink? Buck Henry as Oliver V. Farnsworth’s death scene also is a real fever dream. The heavy breathing, light music, and the long time it takes to kill him makes for a really bizarre and comical scene that can’t hope to emotionally invest you in this person being killed. Him bouncing off the window he is thrown at is basically a joke, as is how obviously the falling body is a dummy.

OVERVIEW

The Man Who Fell To Earth is simply too busy. If it is about the celebrity lifestyle, then that is a bit light for a film so chaotic and more importantly so long. Such a long runtime and simple story asks to be more about the fine details, such as seeing specifics of Tommy and his life, yet so much is shown either out of context or is not given much gravitas. Many reviews essentially look outside the film, such as in viewing it as a social commentary, so it makes sense the text itself is so thin, but that also means it can’t survive on its own. Some might find this type of adventure fun, but it’s definitely a very acquired taste that to some is the definition of boring and mindless. Or maybe I just don’t get it?

Doctor Who: The Giggle // 14th Doctor Specials (2023) Review Part 3

One of the creepier images in the episode, though the VFX leaves much to be desired.

The finale of Doctor Who is a novel little concept that has in fairness been tried many times. The issue with ever doing it is who can handle not having this franchise? Even if the series managed such low ratings and disinterest that the BBC would in turn cancel it, maybe in ten or fifteen years it could be rebooted? The Giggle has never been sold as or committed to being a finale, but it does include many elements of it that do seek to offer a sense of closure. This is mainly done in the “explanation” of why the Doctor regenerated back into the Tenth Doctor and what happens after it, with it I guess seeming that the Doctor knows this is his most popular incarnation and the one who seems ideal for such a thing? We also get some returning albeit minor characters from the classic series. Will we ever get a Susan appearance? While the idea of giving the show a finale; a fake finale (which this definitely is); and regenerating into past Doctors, especially to make a point, is really fascinating and not as worthy of disdain as some would say, all these ideas are not handled nearly as well as they could have been.

The Giggle serves as the closest of the specials here to a sixtieth anniversary, though it is still light on much celebration of the past. A big thing we get is Tennant. Tennant returning is a good idea. It thematically shows how no matter how much this character changes, he remains the same and offers closure to this tenure in theory, though these specials are even light on references to the Russell T. Davies era. Considering how the Doctor witnessed a lot of strange things be done with regeneration by other time lords it works that part of the Doctor would want to be a bit strange and revisit a past experience. What other past elements we get comes in the form of a few verbal references; the welcomed but minor companion Mel, played by Bonnie Langford, predictably Jemma Redgrave as Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, and the more fascinating return of the Toymaker. While the Toymaker’s one previous appearance was in one of the worst Who serials of the 60s, his ability to essentially shift reality and create impossible games for people to win is a phenomenal idea. Neil Patrick Harris brings a menace to him as someone who appears so bored with everything that he feels a need to be so destructive.

Thus, it’s a huge disappointment that much of this narrative is setup with little payoff. This is epitomized by a scene of Donna being approached by creepy dolls, which serve no purpose and prove no threat. The two meaningful-to-the-plot games he plays are seeing who can pick the higher card and later don’t drop a ball. Both are played as comedic, but due to their inclusion in this supposed serious finale that is trying to do so much, it muddles the tone. Beyond Harris’ performance, Tennant does sell the intensity of the Doctor’s emotions in his stress and anguish when it seems like something bad is about to happen, which comes out in a few all too brief scenes. The Doctor and Toymaker make the best of the story when talking about their experiences and specifically how they differ from humans. They’re to a degree being compared in how traumatizing it can be to go through as much as they have, which also explains why the villain acts how he does. Thus, it’s sad how little he appears.

A lot of time is spent setting up just how bad the situation is, hearing about all the things the Toymaker has done and admittedly getting some solid visuals, like the toy burning, only for a lot of this to eventually be brushed to the side. A very sudden twist is included and that just takes up the ending. Why not have the threat of the Toymaker be more connected to the twist? Maybe we could have had this be two specials, one dealing with the Toymaker with the twist part of the cliffhanger, then the last is only about the latter element. As is, this episode is so rushed. Random characters explain a lot of the plot, the cliffhanger of last episode and how it’s being resolved is similarly discussed before suddenly being pushed aside, “the Vlinx” was established as a character only to do nothing, as does Kate’s insults, Mel and more importantly Donna are barely in this, and some of the faster paced moments play as fairly comical. The scene of the Toymaker in a black tuxedo doesn’t have him even doing anything, which suggests something was cut. Same with the Doctor’s clothes regenerating with him when he first became #14. That suggested there was some weird space anomaly, but that’s not the case according to this episode.

SPOILERS

We get a really quick scene of two UNIT soldiers walking towards the Toymaker, the Doctor tells them to stop, they get killed, then he tells Kate they indeed died. It all is just very silly. Earlier, the Doctor said to Donna he wasn’t sure he could get her out alive, which is not something that weighs on the situation nearly as strongly as it should. This turmoil needs to mean something. That confession, as well as the Doctor seeming fed up with the cruelty of humanity, are good character moments in a vacuum, but come across as tossed in to make the story “deep”. The Doctor talking about order and chaos could have represented a theme that would play through to the end. Why not have it tie into how he defeats the Toymaker? The actual way he goes is absolutely absurd, losing a fairly easy game when apparently everyone else ever has lost to him. Him bragging about who has been defeated just feels like a waste of time, seeing as the Doctor doesn’t really have to do much to succeed. What if he either has to die or sacrifice Donna in order to win? What if he simply gets the Toymaker to go away, but the latter’s destruction is not even fixed?

Some of the better aspects of the story is the explanation of how the Doctor initially met the Toymaker and how the Toymaker got to Earth. The Doctor is later very clever in outsmarting the villain into letting them go. He probably understood how hopeless things were, so manipulated the Toymaker with what he knew he would want. At the same time, the Toymaker manipulates the Doctor by knowing how to cause him emotional turmoil. As such, the Doctor is often clearly fearful of him. He even offers him something… The Doctor and the Toymaker traveling together would have been a really fascinating idea. Makes you wonder if the Toymaker would steal the TARDIS. This is reminiscent of the time in the audio adventures a Nazi was a companion of the Doctor.

Ncuti Gatwa does a fair enough job, though his incarnation of the lead is devalued by this episode really just being about Tennant until the end. He doesn’t even get a chance to follow the tradition of acting really weird from the post-regeneration haze, being more about giving a bit of dialogue to the Tennant Doctor. What would have been better is if the regeneration occurs at the very end. Considering that the Tennant Doctor apparently has all the interesting baggage about the character, with Gatwa’s more of a clean slate, Gatwa’s era will probably feel like a spinoff or remake, as it might not be following many of the developments to the character that shaped the Doctor. The two Doctors saying goodbye feels like a symbolic passing of the torch, like the Doctor we’ve really known from William Hartnell to David Tennant is bowing out.

Something not covered much in the series is what causes the Doctor to regenerate into the face he does. Such a thing could tell us a lot about the character, at least making for a solid episode. The Fourteenth Doctor era hopes to offer such an explanation, with it seeming to be that it was subconscious, so he could find Donna and retire. This is concocted as something Donna just thought up, which is a lot less satisfying than if it was something the Doctor had to discover. This also spits in the face of a lot of past moments. The Doctor likes adventure, though admittedly has at times wanted to retire but felt he was unable. Wouldn’t he justify to himself now that he can do twice as much life saving? Coming up with a reason for him to call it quits isn’t impossible, but it should take a lot longer and be more about an internal struggle unlike what he’s seen before instead of being done in a few conversations in at best three episodes, but really just this one. The Doctor has already experienced the death of loved ones and failing to help people as much as he could. What’s different about now? The show must not even really believe in this, as the Fourteenth Doctor is left with his own TARDIS, which strongly suggests this isn’t the last of him. 

Hopefully it isn’t, as this “ending” is so quick and unearned. It doesn’t even distinguish itself from the many breaks of the Doctor. The emotional gravatas it is given feels like a trick just waiting to be retconned. 14 saying how happy he is retired feels way too easy, ignoring the aforementioned breaks he’s done, like between series nine and ten. The need to help that would push someone that’s gone so hard and so long fighting isn’t just going to go away. The best way to interpret this is as just a finale to the previous Davies era, as that was just a few years instead of sixty and almost every episode of it starred Tennant. A lot of the various eras of the show feel a bit distinct, but this episode still asks to be so much more and ultimately invites more questions. Even if the Tennant incarnation is just tired and wants to be both alive and retired, what about the others? Will 14 not one day die and perhaps be replaced by another risky adventurer?

While bigeneration isn’t a bad idea, it does only seem to be here for the sake of giving us more Tennant if it’s ever needed, instead of it really being dug into. A lot of exploration could occur for it and admittedly it might happen. A bit more would help the episode. There have also been a few times where we’re supposed to see Tennant off, so it’s increasingly ridiculous when he’s brought back. It does in a way make sense the Doctor could not let go of being Tennant, considering he felt he could do so much more in The End of Time. Those trying to calculate our hero’s age usually have the Tenth as around the youngest tenured, so perhaps to the Doctor, he is the one that got away? Still, it’s probably for the best that he avoids this incarnation considering that 10 cheated death once before in series four, with this episode featuring his third regeneration, all relatively soon after the last one.

OVERVIEW

Obviously it’s not objective what the best interpretation of what the Doctor is is, but Russell T. Davies’ approach of the character being essentially anything, such as that he can now do what’s shown in the episode or affirming the Timeless Child story, erases the Doctor really even being a character. He doesn’t have any wants or drive, as in an instant he could be something else. This admittedly is a problem that plagues any long running character, such as superheroes. It can get to the point where it might seem too boring to some to not go in a “this person is basically Jesus” way. It was so much more special when he was just a weird alien with a box that admittedly didn’t aspire as massive of change. As the Twelfth Doctor once powerfully said, he does what he does just because it’s kind, but that message is diluted when it’s suggested he does so because he’s really so great and special. Due to the frankly broken story of The Giggle, including the blatant attempts to force emotions out of a hat, all this comes off as laziness. What if Davies’ real reasoning is wanting an excuse to make simply a sci-fi show under the Doctor Who name instead of understanding the legacy he is a part of? He would not be the first to change things up, but he might be the first to really run with radically transforming what the Doctor is or acts like.

Miracle on 34th Street (1947) Review – Santa Claus Almost Destroys Society

Brass Monkey!

Miracle on 34th Street has such a sense of brevity and good humor that it is believable why it is a holiday classic, while also being extremely clever and layered in its messaging. This is all tied together with very solid performances. In the same way the film characters ask each other if Santa is or could be real, the actors never let into the absurdity of this, often taking it seriously. Doris Walker, played by Maureen O’Hara, tries to be pragmatic and open to all sides, while hard leaning to her view on child rearing that you should not lie by saying Santa is real. The film politely and confidently mocks her for whenever she insists on removing the sense of imagination kids have. Her and her daughter Susan, played by Natalie Wood to my surprise, in turn come off a little cold. Still, they aren’t treated as completely wrong.

John Payne as Fred Gailey acts not unlike a child and is rewarded for it. He has a strong sense of loyalty for Santa. Many characters in the movie talk about being honorable or moral, only to crumble when it’s more convenient for them to do something else. Fred is important as he is the one who doesn’t break to others. While no one in the movie is less than stellar, they simply do not compare to the big bundle of joy that is Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle. It isn’t explained why anyone believes he is Santa, but the inferred reason is that he is so positive and joyful that everyone can’t help but feel uplifted. He even resonates to the audience in how wholesome and unphased he is through various trials and tribulations. This effect is damaged by a brief section of the film, but he is always positive and constructive otherwise. He and others don’t forget to add some comedy, like when he analyzes psychologist Granville Sawyer or demonstrates to Doris his mental and physical health. Both are also necessary scenes to the plot, with the film avoiding elements that only serve to be filler.

There are two major themes at play. One is pushing to do the right thing vs. profit. There is an interesting symbiosis between the two. Everyone being initially too business minded is shown to hurt everyone, like when Macy’s intends to always pressure customers into buying their own products, even if they simply don’t have what they want. Kris’ desire to always do the right thing both benefits the company and people, though he went against the store’s rules in doing so. Once everyone knows and likes Kris to the point he’s part of the business, people start compromising their own values to protect him, instead of doing so to shut him down. Either option of doing the right thing or profit comes with risks.

While the picture clearly says what is right is to accept Kris, it is still in the best interest of Macy’s and the parents to make sure whoever is going to be interacting with their children is safe. Requiring such inspections, even when gratuitous, do serve to make sure it’s harder for nasty people to get through. Still, sometimes taking a chance or breaking the rules works, like when Doris needs a new Santa at the last minute, so asks Kris to play the part. Imagine if Kris was some drunkard that did something obscene on the float? Such rule breaking would not be looked on so positively, even when it at other times is celebrated.

The other theme is pragmatism vs. following what would be better off true. Just looking at Doris, she comes off as a bit vicious and cold in her business-minded world. If everyone did act like her, as they somewhat do in the court scenes, society would to a degree be more hostile and less enjoyable. Belief in Santa certainly does give children joy, though the movie sadly doesn’t comment on whether or not it’s a good thing for them to believe. Kris frees some people from their colder way of thinking by being so nice, but this is in a sense manipulation. No one wants to be a bad guy by shooting him down or they really accept him due to not wanting to accept someone so nice is really such an issue. Doris in turn struggles with thinking he could be threatening and delusional vs. how positive of an influence he is on her daughter and everybody else. It also is often difficult to be so astute as to be always doing the logical thing. Doris was letting her daughter hangout with Fred when he very well could have been bad. At the very least, he and Doris have conflict from disagreeing on what is best for Susan.

The film looks very cozy and Christmas-y, just determined to become a classic. Things like the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade become cinematic in how grand and busy it is, with Kris sitting atop one float like a God among men. While the movie never drops playing as a straight drama that happens to be about something ridiculous, there are a few opportunities for jokes. “But if you do, remember this: you can count on getting just two votes, your own and that district attorney’s out there.” “The District Attorney’s a Republican.” There’s also, “That baseball player sure looks like a giant to me.” “Sometimes people grow very large, but that’s abnormal.” “I’ll bet your mother told you that, too.” Finally, “Sometimes I wish I married a butcher or a plumber.” “My dear, if I lose this hearing, you may very well get your wish.”

SPOILERS

It is bizarre Santa would get so angry at Sawyer and even assault him. It does betray much of what the story is going for. Seeing as Sawyer was so accusatory to Kris, what if he felt so offended by Kris that he injured himself and claimed Kris did it? Or he witnessed Kris do something with his cane that was perfectly fine, but he saw it from such an angle that it looked bad? It’s in turn really weird seeing Kris briefly give up. Was he going to stay in the hospital forever and just let Christmas go because of such a minor matter? Fred cheers him up with some pretty obvious logic that he should’ve come to on his own. Only now, Kris has basically forced Fred to get in the heat of things to help him out. Even ignoring how this contradicts my interpretation of this movie, logically shouldn’t Kris hitting Sawyer prove Sawyer right? This does go to show the stupidity of trusting in anyone that they will do no wrong. Legally declaring Santa false at the trial, which was partially the fault of Kris, is said would have drastically negative outcomes for society.

The reason Kris gets out of his legal situation is because Fred advocated for him at great personal cost, which introduced to many people’s minds that Santa could be real. At that point, Santa’s existence is decided more over money and branding. Certain people admit to not believing Santa can be real in private, but then go out in public and at least say they aren’t sure. Children are used to manipulate those that don’t want to accept that they have lied about his existence, which does go to show how strange it is that we live in a society that would be dishonest about such a thing. Just like in real life, the public needs something that could pass as “proof”. Once they get it, they just jump on accepting this wild concept with bizarre implications instead of being more critical. In fact, the reason the trial became more about proving or disproving Santa is because Fred’s claim about doing so made for a great headline.

Kris is right that it’s better for Susan to be less serious and more about the absurdities of life, like pretending to be a monkey, as that is what makes life worth living. Susan is right that it’s better to have something useful like a house than toys. In being hard to convince of the validity of Kris’ claim of being Santa Claus, Kris is in turn more persistent in trying to prove her right and thus arranges for Susan and Doris to get the house the former wants. If they already were believers, he might not have seen the need. She and her mother aren’t any perfectly logical beings however.

At the end, Doris tells her impressionable child about believing in faith. Even if it is true that some concepts are so complicated that sense probably can’t reach them, so you only get there through faith, that still can often lead to trouble. We don’t see Doris do much transitioning from thinking Santa is definitely not real to thinking he is, which goes to show how people trust in emotions and concepts over facts, just like how she originally trusted strongly that Kris should be the parade Santa because of desperation. This even gets turned around on the audience as Kris never offers proof of being Santa Claus. We essentially have to take his word for it, which is arguably the point of the film.

OVERVIEW

This film wears the cloak of the courtroom dramas of the time. A commonality is for whatever we’re seeing to become a much bigger deal than originally hoped as. Miracle on 34th Street uses this convention to make a thoughtful and funny story about the strange places the human mentality can take us. As stated in the movie, sane people can end up in wards and crazy people can remain free. No matter what can be interpreted, the picture never forgets to be jolly and lighthearted, with Gwenn and the script exuding an infectious joy in how all the problems are very nice and the villains easily swayed. Regardless, the message of the ending is that anyone, even those that think out of the box or follow authority or try to do the right thing even when it can cost their livelihoods can do something insane under the right circumstances.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) Review

How many dalmatians are in this movie again?

Interestingly, One Hundred and One Dalmatians never drops a lighthearted tone, but still maintains its very morbid stakes. From the get go, the film goes for a quaint and funny style. It doesn’t deny itself flavorings of the 60s, Britain, and “charmingly offbeat and unrealistic”. Many shots look like a still painting, where pans are achieved with the image just moving across the screen. The characters also have a slight lack of fluidity, though this all adds to a surreal effect that matches the dialogue and narrative. Initially, the spirits of our leads are consistently high, with an arguably unnecessary part of the story serving to establish this world.

The proper story is about how the one hundred and one doggies will escape doom, but the beginning covers the romance of Roger Radcliffe, played by Ben Wright, that is barely even in the film once the stakes increase. His characterization is very flat, with him not much of a character. He is colored by a few moments. A favorite is when he offers the soaking wet Anita, played by Lisa Davis, a handkerchief, not realizing that he and thus the handkerchief are also wet. The other highlight is when he lays lyrics about Cruella de Vil on the melody he just wrote, singing about her like he personally knows and despises her, despite him only knowing of her that she’s a little rude. None of this really matters and it leaves you to wonder how Rog thought of as many lines as he did, but of course all of the movie has cute humor like this. There are many such flourishes to the narrative that do little more than get laughs, but are nice. Lisa also isn’t much of a character.

The film commits to being about either the scenery, the tone, or the story. As an example, the opening wastes no time pushing along to the point where the two lead dalmatians have puppies. Afterwards, two very expressive characters “Jasper and Horace Baddun” push their way into the story, with Roger’s maid making absolute sure you comprehend the gravity of the situation to the plot. Martha Wentworth acts her heart out with the music matching her. This scene only manages laughs instead of genuine dread. Afterwards, the heat is on. We don’t get inside anyone’s head. In fact, the scenes of all the various animals working together removes much individuality or personality to them. They are solely about this mission. One even says he’ll bark all night if need be. The effect of this is removing a sense of watching a real story, but the adventure being so exciting makes up for that. It takes the impotence off the characterization and puts it onto the action.

There are a few seeming exceptions to this, like when Rod Taylor as Pongo narrates the beginning of the movie. We see his wit and perspective, such as in considering Roger to be his pet. He also successfully pushes Roger wherever he feels is best. This dynamic and relative focus doesn’t last long. In fact, even Betty Lou Gerson as Cruella de Vil, who is often characterized as campy and manic, doesn’t ever have fun or not be all about serving her role in the story. She is simply extremely hotheaded and quick to yell. Cruella barely does anything when you’d expect her to stop to be memorable. Jasper and Horace at least go for laughs. People seemingly have projected more onto her, especially because her design is very distinct and her voice like that of someone like Bette Davis. Davis and Cruella would have a similar fanbase of film students and drag queens.

The best three roles here have got to be Sergeant Tibbs, the Captain, and the Colonel. The three have a humorous dynamic and back-and-forth, with various little gestures and novelties given to each, which does finally offer at least a bit of realism. You do have to extend your disbelief to accept that all these dogs will dedicate themselves to sending the message of the dognapped puppies, but those three cover how that would actually work. They carry honest souls and this natural aversion to the horrors they witness. You can tell by their expressions and actions that they feel like that if they fail then a real tragedy will have occurred. They take their role pretty seriously, though humorous things still happen. Their banter and even distinct appearances color them. The fact this is a dog, cat, and horse instead of all being dogs suggests they’ve somehow come to form a really unique and charming bond. They’re beyond any sense of tribalism.

We get a wonderfully lengthy and detailed look at how the events play out. The fun of the movie is in seeing what little issues the characters will be written into and how they’ll get out. Along the way are many quick jokes that serve as texture. This includes the dognapping apparently making the paper; Cruella’s pen exploding on Roger, giving him spots; some of the puppies unable to understand why they’d be asked to get dirty; and an apparent dog tv show and commercial, as if some human tv producers are out there feeling a need to give airtime to a show for dogs and also sell products to them. The threats are not particularly serious, but are very entertaining. There is arguably a logical explanation, the reason why issues befall Jasper and Horace is because of how idiotic they are, so it makes sense they would struggle to do anything meaningful. The movie commits to and pulls laughs from how silly they are, so their stupidity never feels convenient.

OVERVIEW

One Hundred and One Dalmatians is a tonally consistent and solid blend of adventure and comedy. It plays best as a warm and quirky Christmas tale that never takes itself too straight, though note it does a little just to get you invested. You’re taken to a strange new world where a large group is nice to each other and works together for free. Not a world I know!

Just thought I’d add in that Roger and Anita not caring about their place getting covered in dirt is hilarious.

The Night of the Hunter (1955) Review

One of the most unsettling shots in the film.

The Night of the Hunter deserves all of its accolades for many reasons. It is ideal to experience this film with no kind of idea of what will occur in it. To still discuss such things, one of the best and more noticeable aspects is the directing. Every shot looks gorgeous and cinematic, as if meticulously planned. Their grand scope evokes the sense of new and intimidating terrains. The dark shadows show the horrors just around the corner. Many shots, such as one famous shot of Lillian Gish appearing pitch black and covered in shadows, still tell you what you need to know about the scene. The expressiveness of her silhouette and details of the lighting are the key. As an example, her being surrounded by an aura of light in that scene suggests holiness on her part.

The antagonist Robert Mitchum as Harry Powell often does bad things in the dark, which suggest he is quite petty and unimposing, so to essentially “steal” power for himself utilizes one of his only abilities, to hide away. Another common theme is him standing tall while others are lying down, with him projecting his meaty voice and knife, essentially trying to subtly manipulate those into cowering in fear and doing as he says. Mitchum really gives a great and terrifying portrayal in how he can seem nice and stable before going looney. Harry often uses Christianity to make himself look noble and holy to those around him, showing how manipulable religion is. He believes he can talk to God and appears to use his religion as justification for the murders he does. Whenever Harry screams, he comes off a little goofy, though it does go to show how pathetic he is when his actions catch up to him. I won’t defend when he sticks his arms out like Frankenstein in a serious moment.

Willa Harper, played by Shelley Winters, seems to feel she must follow Harry and do as he says. Willa is portrayed as a well meaning, but vulnerable and alone woman always trying to do right by her family and others. Lillian Gish as Rachel Cooper represents the seasoned and embittered woman that has had to deal with men taking advantage of her all her life. While Rachel believes in God and is also shown to be virtuous, she still goes her own path, as opposed to doing something like make herself find a man to marry. Her clear main concern is helping those around her, instead of listening for God to tell her what to do, as Harry does.

Shockingly, the greatest performances are of the eleven-year old Billy Chapin as John Harper and the six-year old Sally Jane Bruce as Pearl Harper. Both pack an incredible amount of emotional complexity in their roles. What the older John is aware of is how little power he has. While he can assess threats, we see this sense of dread from how little he can meaningfully do. This is shown by how often he is just out of reach of great danger. His face can seem withered and tired, but not defeated, like he can’t comprehend the horrors as much as an adult might. He also misses his father and is more unsure of himself without him, though this isn’t ever made explicit and at least a few more hints at this desire would clarify the character and the ending more. Pearl is less discerning of her surroundings, with it sometimes being for the best and the worst that she will essentially trust anyone. The shot of tears running down her face and especially when she yells about her doll are extremely moving and unsettling. She takes most things in stride, so her showing emotions communicates the change in intensity.

SPOILERS

Willa’s death scene shows her in a bedroom with shadowing and architecture that is reminiscent of a church, like she’s tried to familiarize herself with a space and person that are supposedly Godly and will lead her, but those only serve to hurt her. One of the best looking moments of the film is the terrifyingly creepy shot of her in a car in the bottom of a river. A common theme is adult women and children essentially being forced to trust authority figures and men around them. This doesn’t do them any good, with Harry’s behavior probably traumatizing John and Pearl. He tries to get information from them either by insulting them or promising food for knowledge of where the money is.

John and Pearl are expectedly at his mercy, not very clever in how they keep themselves safe, like when John lies about the location of the money, then tries and fails to run away. The reason they do get away from Harry is by luck. First they lock him in the basement, then narrowly escape on a boat, then find Rachel. She happens to be smart and Harry happens to give her a lie that doesn’t make sense. Luck can be a fickle thing, with the reason he is able to again find them because of their foster sister being sweet talked to by Harry. This is also another case of a woman doing what she’s supposed to, being interested in a holy man, hurting everyone. Taking all this in, the film arguably is criticizing power structures like this where a family has essentially no choice but to trust the patriarch.

To contrast how much control Harry projects over people, notably Willa, Rachel mostly sees him in light. When she fires at him, we see Harry just before he’s hit reasonably clearly and with Rachel standing prepared. All she needed to defeat him was to stand tall and firm. I had wondered why Harry would go in a house with a woman with a gun and also why earlier Rachel would sing with him. Harry may have started singing, and a religious hymn specifically, with the point of getting Rachel in a false sense of security. Rachel might’ve sung back to make him feel she was safer than she was, so she could have an easier time shooting or getting him arrested.

John inadvertently revealing where the money is at the end to the police mirrors the earlier scene of his father making him take an oath to keep it hidden, showing how religion can essentially change to serve any purpose that is needed or be broken entirely. John breaking down when Harry is arrested and later unwilling to testify against him shows an opposition to the brutality of the criminal justice system, of course skewed by his eyes. While John’s father did murder people, what good did it serve to hang him? John in turn can’t handle more killings occurring, especially when Harry’s arrest was so similar to John’s dad’s.

John hitting Harry with the doll, causing the money to spill out, could mean he doesn’t want the trouble the money was giving him and thus wants it out of his life. This rejection of the supposedly good legal system and capital could suggest at least a change for John, perhaps even a good one? He also seemingly rejects life in a populated area, as he witnessed the townsfolk wanting to lynch Harry, showing that a supposedly just society is subject to wanting vengeance. John is now finally with a stable and loving home, wearing clean clothes and enjoying Christmas. One part of the final act that eludes me is why Pearl would drop her doll and hug Harry as if he was her father. Shouldn’t she be afraid of him? This could represent both her and John’s desire for a father figure.

OVERVIEW

The reason why The Night of the Hunter is such a classic is not mainly because of its deeper themes or visual aesthetic, it’s because of the expertly paced noir thriller that is direly suspenseful and intriguing. On top of that, Mitchum’s role is not only well fleshed out, but memorable. The elements that throwback to silent films or biblical references are just icing on the cake for movie nerds like myself.

Scavenger Hunt (1979) Review

A lobby card for the film

Is Scavenger Hunt stupid? Yes. Is it particularly good? No.

No matter how you feel about Scavenger Hunt, you can’t accuse it of false advertising. It is very much a scavenger hunt and very 70s, just look at the hair and clothes. One of my favorite tropes of the era is when the main concept of the story is really dumb, so there’s some equally dumb explanation to try to justify the plot. This isn’t the first nor best example of “a rich person dies and just feels like making the main characters go on some absurd quest”, but it does get brownie points for the rich person being played by the great Vincent Price! There’s in fact many, many quality and funny actors here, who do at worst a serviceable job. For the record, the best usage of that trope has got to be from It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. As a story, it’s very standard and a bit cliché, which is not a big issue.

A lot of famous actors appear here ready to flex a certain novelty. Most play a very simple role, but that is in keeping with this movie being more about an adventure than any sort of drama. Some highlights include Scatman Crothers singing “Ain’t She Sweet”, the line “A killer soufflé!”, the line “Acupuncture”, and many others. At one point, the police are called on one group and someone asks the cop to not arrest them just yet for the sake of sportsmanship. Tony Randall as Henry Motley is one of the best written and performed characters, with him walking away with some heart in his attempt to treat this as a sort of bonding experience with his kids. He is often out of his depth and it’s fun to see his small failures and successes. One of my favorite scenes is between the wimpish Randall and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the latter making a then uncommon film appearance. Arnold, despite playing someone very friendly, obviously dominates over Randall and has this big smirk on his face, like he’s having so much fun. Especially with how the scene ends, it’s quite zany. I’m a bit of an Arnold apologist in general, but he doesn’t provide any kind of great performance here, to put it mildly.

Other favorites are Richard Mulligan as Marvin Dummitz, whose dimwitted nature compliments Crothers, with the two forming a duo. Roddy McDowall and Cleavon Little among others play servants of Price’s character. They’re clearly having fun with these very animated roles, like they’re all trying to be wackier than the other. The actual leads are a pretty standard cut “Young guys and a girl that dress and act how the youth of the time did”. As such, they’re comparatively uninteresting and suffer in comparison to the bigger actors around them. They get enough focus to still be watchable and relatable. Wisely, the movie gives at least a little attention to everyone, so you could conceive of any character being someone’s favorite and who they’d want to win. It is very satisfying to just see what happens and guess who the victor will be. None of the leads are particularly bad.

SPOILERS

Most of the teams are reasonably moralistic and good natured, but instead of focusing purely on their conflict, one group is essentially picked to be the antagonists. Cloris Leachman as Mildred Carruthers, Richard Benjamin as Stuart Selsome, and Richard Masur as Georgie Carruthers are all humorously slimy. “Let me tell you your fortune… you don’t get any fortune!” The movie knows not to take their threat seriously. They are in some ways unrealistic in their villainy, such as by cheating, which adds to the “lowbrow” tone that’s been the sort of thing critics will rip apart.

To combat them with a bold sheen of wholesomeness is the fact all the other teams join forces at the end to beat them, like these three random characters are supposed to be laughed at as we celebrate their loss. The movie near the end moves all its chips from ensemble adventure to threat vs the noble, like we’re eating trope soup. The other teams gave all their items to one group with no intention of receiving anything for themselves. It’s like they just felt Mildred and co just needed to be defeated. Of course, it ends up coming down to our heroes only winning because they had a few extra seconds and a technicality to boot!

OVERVIEW

If I could change one thing, I’d make it longer so there could be more entertainment going on as well as more development of the story. Some characters don’t get very much focus. Films like this beg for creativity. It offers a mixed bag of sometimes being more interesting and others more plain. For this reason, and due to Scavenger Hunt’s inability to take anything seriously or be more than a genre comedy of the time, critics were not too nice to it.

The type of humor, reminiscent of other films of its time, might seem old fashioned to some and more importantly less biting or witty, going for a more “common denominator” tone. That can still be very funny and appealing, but maybe it’s a bit too easy? A lot of the story, such as how it’s resolved, could’ve been done in a far more clever manner. The film certainly isn’t any hard classic or essential, but it’s a lot of fun and won’t disappoint for completionists of the various stars involved. It is a shame it didn’t dare to be more, like if it went to Mad World levels of insanity and madness that make that earlier film such a riot.

Christmas in Connecticut (1945) Review

Barbara Stanwyck as Elizabeth Lane (Not Sloan!)

Christmas in Connecticut is a very charming and funny holiday film. Many wacky and bizarre things happen, with them generally being taken with a light heart. To epitomize this, John Sloan, played by Reginald Gardiner, finds the scheming of some other characters idiotic and doesn’t want to be involved, but is ultimately compelled to. It’s like the holiday spirit and comedic tone are forcing poor John into doing what the story needs, as if Christmas is this great force where magic happens. The basic concept of Barbara Stanwyck as Elizabeth Lane having to put on a fake life for the sake of pleasing her coworkers is a good hook and the movie delivers. Stanwyck is very likable, as usual. Stanwyck plays her humor-enhanced lines straight, letting the dialogue get the laughs. Her focus is on her believable character that doesn’t want to do something like interrupt or hurt anyone, but at the same time doesn’t want to lose personal things like her job or a new coat. When she does find something more stimulating and interesting, she lights up and is ready to take the world by storm.

There are a number of feminist themes at the heart of the story, which mostly revolve around Elizabeth. When she feels she has control, she takes it and enjoys it, often being fed up with those who in her eyes are not letting her just live. At around the one hour mark, she seems willing to do something she shouldn’t simply because it is finally giving her fulfillment. This is also in line with her character as this whole time she is pretending to be what is expected of a woman and considered to be the ideal, but she’s only doing it for money. A great performance of Stanwyck is when she yells about how tired she is of everything, which eventually gets to a good joke as a bonus. Arguably this “feminist” view is contradicted by her still just wanting love, but to counter that, most people want love and she doesn’t let her desire for such a thing get in the way of her job or independence. She in fact doesn’t seem to ever mind her job or wish she could be a housewife instead. Also, while she isn’t married, she claims to be, but still uses her own last name, which would suggest that in the lie she tells others she didn’t want to change it.

The other cast members essentially fill the role of giving non-comedic deliveries of comedic situations, which get laughs. Una O’Connor as Norah and to a lesser extent S.Z. Sakall as Felix Bassenak add a more wacky touch, seeming generally more animated than the others. Neither serve a crucial role, but work to steal the odd scene. Dennis Morgan as Jefferson Jones is one of the flatter, but also more important characters. He’s at his best in the beginning when he acts like this goofy guy that just wants some tasty food. The sight gag of him eating a well presented meal in a nice outfit on a raft in the middle of the water is hilarious. Another great shot is the romantic scene of two characters on a horse and carriage talking about their feelings, being surrounded by the pretty snow. The strong emotions of the characters have been just below the surface, so it doesn’t feel jarring when they finally come out, especially because the two now have privacy. The dialogue is very sweet and heartfelt. The scenes around this one are also funny.

SPOILERS

When Elizabeth first falls for Jefferson, she has a giant grin on her face and is about ready to abandon her facade for the sake of how good he makes her feel. Seeing as she probably thinks this will pass, she doesn’t go through with anything, such as a kiss. The scene gives us a nice chance to see Elizabeth be a little naughty, entertaining the possibility of being with this man. Another one of the most powerful scenes is at the end when Elizabeth is pleased to be arrested, as she will be with Jefferson and thus her marriage with John will be again put off, as if doing a social taboo can have the potential to free someone. Now that she knows she loves and wants to be with Jefferson, she lacks much of a care in the world, not even maintaining her lies when they fall apart as they to her have lost their value. This also represents her removing the mold expected of her, to be a wife and a mother in an overly idyllic scene. Even though she seems upset about losing her job, she is quick to move on to her next opportunity, not going to let things get her down. Beyond Elizabeth is Jefferson’s nurse and brief fiancée who similarly just “goes for what she wants” and doesn’t much worry about social judgment.

One issue, that also contradicts this theme, is Jefferson creepily forcing kisses on Elizabeth when she doesn’t want them. He predictably never gets in trouble for this. When Elizabeth learns that he is no longer engaged, they can in her eyes be together, which does go along with Elizabeth trying to be ethical, but also going for what she wants if there’s no reason not to have it. If you removed the lack of consent, Elizabeth going and kissing Jefferson at the end would be a great climactic moment that shows our lead finally getting what she was after. Morgan does still turn in a very good performance here, having this light in his eyes, like he is ravenous to be with Elizabeth. It’s a shame his energy here couldn’t have been used for a moment like when he finds out he doesn’t have to marry the nurse instead of on non-consensual gestures.

OVERVIEW

Ignoring any greater meaning, Christmas in Connecticut is consistently witty and well performed, with warm visuals and a sharp pace keeping the boat afloat and the 100-minute runtime feeling much shorter.