Romancefest Wrap Up

Well, I accomplished my goal of watching 28 romantic films in 28 days, in honor of February, the month of Valentine's Day. I got behind a couple times and had to watch up to 3 movies in a day in order to catch up, but I made it.

I followed my original plan of watching movies from the AFI "100 Years, 100 Passions" list, and with the exception of OUT OF AFRICA, I only watched ones I hadn't seen before. Still, with all the movies I'd already seen, plus these 28, I have something like 19 more to go before I can say I've watched the whole list, and who knows if I'll ever watch those ones.

I really liked seeing stars I'm familiar with in movies I'm less familiar with. I have a greater understanding of the legacies of stars like Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand and Bette Davis now that I've watched some movies I might not have watched otherwise. Also, I got to see familiar people like Frank Morgan and Humphrey Bogart in unfamiliar roles. There were also films directed by directors who directed some of my favorite films, like Robert Wise and George Stevens, so I was glad to see more of their work.

And now, some fun facts:

Movies I saw where people die -- 11

I'm only counting the death if it was a main member of the central love story, even if it was a triangle. I'm not counting deaths from surrounding relationships or supporting characters.

Methods of death -- 2 shootings, 3 terminal illnesses, 1 plane crash, 1 by old age, 2 drownings, 1 death by train, 1 car wreck, 1 gas chamber, 1 electric chair

Happy endings -- 12

Admittedly, this is kind of subjective, but that's less than half! So next time someone tries to tell you Hollywood's about happy endings, especially old Hollywood movies, kindly remind them that they don't know what they're talking about.

Musicals -- 6

Movies with Paris -- 3, but it seemed like a lot more

Movies involving the military -- 5

Multiple appearances by an actor or actress -- 7

2 with Bette Davis, 3 with Barbra Streisand, 3 with Natalie Wood, 2 with Greta Garbo, 2 with Ryan O'Neal, 2 with Robert Redford, 2 with Montgomery Clift

Repeated directors -- 5

2 by Sydney Pollack, 2 by Elia Kazan, 2 by George Stevens, 2 by George Cukor, 2 by Vincente Minnelli

And my favorite --

Movies involving the symbolic use of loons:

ON GOLDEN POND and A PLACE IN THE SUN

Romancefest 28: A Place in the Sun

This was probably the most surprising film I've watched all month. Not that it has a twist ending, or anything -- it proceeds logically and tragically to the only conclusion it could really have. But, the way the story develops, going into it not knowing anything about it, the film ends at a totally different place than you expect it to.

A PLACE IN THE SUN starts with Montgomery Clift hitchhiking into town. He has traveled to visit his uncle, a prominent businessman who runs a factory in town that almost everyone seems to work at. His uncle (Keefe Brasselle) agrees to hire Clift to work in the factory, first on the floor with later promises to be moved up to management and maybe higher if things work out.

Clift seems to take to the job easily, willing to keep his nose down and work, even drafting proposals to more efficiently streamline the way the factory works. He clearly wants to make this work, and clearly wants to make something out of himself.

There are rules in place to keep the male employees from fraternizing with the female ones, but Clift quickly zeroes in on a factory worker played by Shelley Winters in a heart breaking performance that just gets more heart breaking as the story develops.

As Clift rises in the ranks of higher society and is accepted more and more into his uncle's family, he catches the eye of a young society girl played by Elizabeth Taylor. She's the opposite of Winters -- glamorous where Winters is mousy, seemingly unattainable where Winters is more than willing to love Clift. Still, somehow, Taylor and Clift hit if off, and now Clift has a problem as he's torn between the two women.

This is where the plot kicks in, and I don't want to give any of it away. Here are some hints: the film surprisingly flirts with issues involving abortion, and eventually the district attorney of a small lakeside vacation community has to be called in to investigate a tragic accident. This is Raymond Burr as a nightmare version of his familiar Perry Mason character -- Burr's DA approaches crime and punishment as if every crime is a personal assault on him that must be avenged at all costs. You don't want to show up in court with Burr's DA on the other side. I love movies like this, where they're perfectly strong all the way through and they still have a great character to introduce at the last minute.

The movie is notable for the way it deals with complex issues of guilt, cowardice, image, and self esteem. Clift is great at projecting all of these conflicting feelings on his face and body language, an even though he basically makes wrong choice after wrong choice, it's difficult not to sympathize with him, even though he's not particularly likable. Others might deny this, but if I'm honest with myself, I can really identify with the need to do one thing and say another, and then try to cover up your actions out of shame or guilt. It doesn't have to involve crime or even moral issues, necessarily -- just things as simple as an opinion, or thought, or something you said. Everyone has weak moments where they don't want others to know who they really are inside and will do a lot of shameful things to cover it up. There's a constant struggle inside everyone between the person they are and the person they want to be.

Then, there's the person you think other people want you to be. Where does that fit in?

If you are thinking to yourself right now, "That's not true about me, what's he talking about?" then you're in the middle of exactly what I'm talking about.

Romancefest 27: What's Up, Doc?

WHAT'S UP, DOC? delivers on the promise of Barbra Streisand as a great comedic actress set out by FUNNY GIRL. But, WHAT'S UP, DOC? doesn't have any of the pretension of the earlier film and moves at a pace as fast as Streisand's comic delivery. This chick can read lines, man.

The film is a tribute to the screwball genre that's almost dead now, and also gives several nods to the Looney Tunes for inspiration. The plot revolves around several characters staying in a hotel, all with matching overnight bags. There are mix-ups, the bags change hands, people mistake identities, slam lots of doors, run up and down lots of halls, and chase each other around SanFrancisco in a variety of vehicles.

Some of it works, some of it doesn't. Part of the problem is everyone seems to know they're being funny. Film critic turned director, Peter Bogdanovich, clearly approached this movie with a, "Hey, gang, let's make a comedy!" attitude, and it rubbed off on everyone. Everyone's always winking and nodding at (and sometimes talking to) the camera/audience and we occasionally get the feeling they want us to laugh just because we're supposed to and not because they actually put the work in.

But, despite all that, I can't deny there are long stretches of the film that work very well. The set up was a little clumsy, and I don't quite get Streisand's immediate attraction to leading man, Ryan O'Neal, a bespectacled, nerdy, shy, clumsy musicologist carrying around a bag of precious igneous rocks. But, once the plot kicks in and dominos start falling over, the chain reaction gains its own momentum and the "why" doesn't really matter anymore.

The other strong presence aside from Streisand and O'Neal is Madeline Kahn in her screen debut. I'm familiar with her only from Mel Brooks movies and CLUE, but she shows the same comedic genius early on, reaching such heights of exasperation that her dialogue almost comes off as lyrics in a song.

O'Neal pales in comparison here to the energy of Streisand, but he does show there's more to him than the bland, whiny persona he was stuck with in LOVE STORY. In fact, WHAT'S UP, DOC? sticks it to LOVE STORY nicely when O'Neal apologizes to Streisand near the end of the film. He says he's sorry, she quotes LOVE STORY:

STREISAND: Love means never having to say you're sorry.

O'NEAL: That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I know, right?

Another great line from Streisand:

"I know I'm different, but from now on I'm going to try to be the same."

Romancefest 26: The Postman Always Rings Twice

THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by one of my favorite authors, James M. Cain. This 1946 version is not as successful as adapting Cain's material as DOUBLE INDEMNITY was a couple years before, but then the screen version of INDEMNITY was written by one of the greatest writers of all time, Raymond Chandler, and directed by one of the greatest directors of all time, Billy Wilder.

In fact, POSTMAN isn't even as successful at adapting Cain as BODY HEAT is -- and that's not even directly based on Cain, just inspired.

Still, the movie's not terrible. It's just not great either. It's okay.

The film is classified as film noir, mostly because of the plot elements -- a drifter comes to town and conspires with a femme fatale to murder her husband. No one's the good guy, no one's the bad guy, everyone's basically sleazy. There you have it.

But, it's missing the rest of what makes film noir great, mostly the look. Sure, it's black and white, but it's not shot particularly well -- there isn't a lot of the dramatic use of shadow and light sources that define other greats (and not-so-greats) of the genre. So, the looks renders the movie kind of bland.

In fact, pretty much the only exciting thing the movie has going for it is Lana Turner as the femme fatale, Cora. She's in a loveless marriage with a man who owns a roadside gas station and diner (Cecil Kellaway). She has dreams for the family business, but could do without her husband, so when drifter Frank Chambers (John Garfield) rolls into town and takes a job as an extra man at the diner, she takes advantage of his lust for her to get the murder ball rolling.

Or, does she? Maybe she's really into him. I guess it's not fair to totally blame her, though a lot of film noir revolves around the idea that women are predatory creatures just waiting to take care of weak and cowardly men. Frank Chambers is definitely weak and cowardly, but he also doesn't seem to have a moral bone in his body and is more than happy to help with the murder plot, especially after an initial attempt to run off with Cora is foiled by how much it sucks to hitchhike and not have money.

The film retains a lot of the novel, but loses some of the fire towards the end in which there's a last ditch effort to explain the title and also a hint at salvation through love for the main character.

I guess this movie made the AFI list because of how steamy a couple of the scenes between Turner and Garfield, but aside from their initial meeting I'd say there isn't a lot of chemistry here. It must have been shocking at the time, but these days it has lost some of its power.

The film really isn't about love and lust so much as it is about suspicion. Once the murder is done, Turner and Garfield attempt to live with each other and end up driving each other insane second guessing each other and attempting to screw each other over. On one hand you'd think your partner in crime would be the only person you can trust, but on the other it makes sense they'd be at the top of your list of suspects.

Romancefest 25: Anna Karenina

When the 1935 version of ANNA KARENINA came to an end, I decided to rewatch the final half hour. The tragic ending is pretty famous, so it's not that I was surprised. It's just that I felt the first half of the movie was so clumsy and misguided in setting up the story that when the final few scenes slammed everything home so efficiently I had to take a second look.

Based on the Tolstoy novel some say is the greatest novel ever written (that I've never read), the movie stars Greta Garbo as the title character, a high profile aristocrat in an unhappy marriage who loves her son. To outsiders, she seems to have everything together. Her drunk, womanizing soldier brother (Reginald Owen) comes to her for advice when his wife (Phoebe Foster) is on the verge of leaving him because he hasn't been faithful. Anna patches it all together, explaining men have affairs and it's to be expected and you're just supposed to put up with it.

Similarly, she helps hook her sister-in-law (Maureen O'Sullivan) up with a suitor she doesn't particularly want to settle for (Gyles Isham) because it's the proper thing to do, rather than let her keep on chasing after a guy who isn't interested in her.

This guy is Vronsky, another soldier and friend of Anna's brother. As played by Fredric March he's one of the biggest weaknesses of the first half of the film. His performance is bland, and you don't really buy it when he falls immediately in love with Anna, despite the stunning shot when he first sees her emerging from the steam blown by a train. That's foreshadowing, everyone. It's disappointing, too, since he was so good in DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE a few years before.

Anna slowly warms up to him, first at a dance in Moscow and then back in St. Petersburg, where Vronsky follows her. He unabashedly and aggressively courts Anna as she attempts to explain she has a high profile husband and a son that she loves. Vronsky doesn't care, even going so far as to suggest that she forget about her son. This doesn't endear the audience to Vronsky, partially because there doesn't seem to be any chemistry between Garbo and March but also because some of the best scenes where Garbo really relaxes and turns on the charm are between Anna and her son (Freddie Bartholomew). Up to this point I was assuming the movie wanted me to want Anna and Vronsky to get together, but around this time I started wondering if that was what the movie was really about.

The super awesome Basil Rathbone shows up as Anna's husband to complicate things, both for the plot and for me. He doesn't want Anna running around with Vronsky and feeding the gossip hounds, but he also doesn't believe in divorce. He doesn't seem to love her and she doesn't seem to love him, and as always, Rathbone seems effortlessly evil and ruthless. Still, you can kind of see where he's coming from. I mean, it's annoying how Vronsky is always lurking around, sometimes right in front of Anna's husband, clearly trying to swoop in and steal her away. Any man would be annoyed whether they had good or evil intentions. Also, Rathbone's performance is so strong that he overshadows most of the rest of the movie. Sure, he's unfair, but at least he seems to have a point of view, unlike Vronsky.

So, they're clearly trying to portray the cuckolded husband as evil, which supports the theory you're supposed to be rooting for Anna and Vronsky's affair. But, you don't want Anna to leave her son and you don't particularly like Vronsky, so maybe you're not supposed to root for them. This is where the last half hour kicks in and the movie suddenly gets an opinion.

I don't want to give anything away, but Vronsky gets a chance to go off and fight a war and suddenly seems way more into his soldier career than he ever seemed into Anna, which disturbs her. Has she thrown away her previous life for a guy who's just going to run off to war, now that he has conquered Anna? Will he forget about her now that he's gotten what he wants? Was this worth giving up her kid for?

Later, Anna takes a trip back to visit her brother and sister-in-law and sees the results of her interventions in the early scenes of the movie -- her brother's still running around on his wife, and his wife says she would have left him if Anna hadn't intervened. This doesn't sit so well with Anna, who now has a different perspective on the whole cheating game. Meanwhile her sister-in-law has a kid and is married to Levin, who thanks Anna for intervening early in their romance and hooking them up. Again, Anna has a different point of view now and isn't sure she did the right thing.

So, we start to see that the movie has a point after all and we should have trusted it from the beginning. I think the main component that made the film hard to buy at first was the lack of chemistry between the two leads and the rushed narrative. There should have been some more courtship, some more examples of why Anna would even be into Vronsky in the first place, and that would have distracted the audience from the moral implications of the affair until later in the film.

Garbo, like the movie itself, grew on me as the story developed. At times she seems so sleepy and slow, like she can't be bothered to really show up and perform, but I think that's just her style and it's not like it's a mistake that she's coming off that way. It works to her advantage when she hits emotional heights for the sake of contrast, but it also works against her in a story that should be at least halfway about passion.

I bought the tragic results. I didn't buy the passion that started it.

Romancefest 24: An American in Paris

When I was watching GIGI a few days ago, I found myself wondering why Leslie Caron wasn’t in more movies. Now that I’ve seen AN AMERICAN IN PARIS I realize she WAS in more movies. I just haven’t seen them. She makes her screen debut in this one and again plays an innocent French girl, though without the lust for life that Gigi had.

But, the real star of AN AMERICAN IN PARIS is Gene Kelly, of course. This movie seems like it was almost a practice run for the great SINGIN IN THE RAIN – it has a similar love story, but the rest of the plot isn’t as interesting. It has good song and dance numbers, but not as amazing as the ones in SINGING IN THE RAIN.

Kelly stars as a struggling painter in Paris, an ex GI who never left France. He lives in a rooming house above a café with another ex-pat, an unemployed concert pianist (Oscar Levant). Sometimes their mutual friend, a successful night club singer and dancer (Georges Gueteray), drops in to slum it with them. Even though Kelly plays a painter, he spends most of his time dancing up and down the streets of Paris, engaging shop keepers, local kids, and his buddies in his mind-blowing tap routines.

It’s not long before Kelly is courted by an older woman (Nina Foch) who takes interest both in his art and his GREAT ASS. At least, I assume it must be his great ass. Who knows. In any case, she inserts herself into his life as his benefactor but clearly wants a little action on the side. Kelly’s on the fence about the whole thing, especially after running into the cute shop girl played by Leslie Caron, who has a secret of her own – she’s engaged to Gueteray’s character, Kelly’s buddy. Uh oh!

One of my favorite scenes is Kelly’s song and dance to “Who Could Ask for Anything More” where he teaches the English lyrics to a group of French kids. Kelly’s seemingly improvisational (though probably carefully choreographed) use of the normal every day set makes the dance exciting, but the genuine reactions of the kids sell the scene. It’s rare you get such genuine kids in such a Hollywood movie, but then again it’d be difficult to be face to face with Kelly’s genius and not be genuinely amazed.

Another favorite scene is the first one really dealing with the love triangle, in which Gueteray shares romantic advice with Kelly over a cup of coffee at the café, and Levant sits nervously by, the only one who knows the two men are in love with the same girl. This scene also erupts into a song and dance number, and here it’s the exuberance of love that sells it. MGM musicals were famous for the idea that the songs and dances should express the feelings of the characters, and here the songs and dances act as almost a celebration of what it means to be in love.

Unfortunately for me, the big show-stopper that ends the movie was one of my least favorite parts. I don’t think this is a very popular opinion, but I preferred the song and dance sequences that were “really” happening in the plot, and thought it was a shame that the whole climax took place in Gene Kelly’s imagination.

There are two similar fantasy sequences earlier in the film, and I think both of them are more effective. The first is a ballet dance compilation illustrating Gueteray’s descriptions of Leslie Canon’s character, showing all of the different sides of her personality through dance. The second is a day dream in which Levant unleashes a smoking piano concerto.

So, the movie kind of collapses under its own weight in the end, but overall it’s still great, light-hearted fun.

Romancefest 23: Random Harvest

RANDOM HARVEST has a plot that is based on a pretty far-fetched contrivance that has been used and reused throughout narrative history to keep lovers apart, especially in the art form known as “soap operas” – amnesia.

Ronald Colman stars as a shell schocked veteran of the first World War, recovering in a mental institution. As part of his condition, he’s lost his memory and doesn’t know who he is or where he came from. He’s also hesitant to talk, though he can if he has to. As the movie opens, he’s presented with a hopeful elderly couple who think he might be their son. Both the couple and Colman end up disappointed. No such luck.

As the small town surrounding the mental institution celebrates the end of the first World War, Colman slips out of the hospital and runs into Paula (Greer Garson) on the street. She’s beautiful and empathetic and can tell that Colman isn’t quite all there. Her protective instinct kicks in, and she takes him to a local pub for some brandy (to take the edge off) and then to a musical comedy show that she performs in as a singing and dancing actress.

From here, their romance blooms, and Colman’s able to put together a semblance of a quiet life and build a little family as his post traumatic stress fades into the background and he adjusts to every day life.

There’s a plot twist involving Colman’s character regaining his memory and returning to his previous life, forgetting everything of his life with Paula, as Paula attempts to insert herself back into his life. But, I don’t want to go into too much detail, because the way the melodrama works depends on the viewer being pulled this way and that by the plot revelations.

Anyway, why does any of this work? It’s mostly thanks to the performances of Colman and Garson. Colman is incredibly touching as the shell shocked veteran, especially in the opening series of scenes as he slowly begins to open up to Garson’s character. His eyes dart around as if searching her face for the truth – is she potential trouble, or is she a friend? He speaks in halting sentences, carefully choosing each word as if the wrong one might cause everything to go wrong. He’s able to do all of this realistically and avoids becoming a simpering sympathy-hog. Reading about the movie, I found out Colman really fought in the first World War, so I like to think he’s bringing his personal experience to the role.

Garson also gains the audience’s sympathy, despite the contrivances of the plot, because she is so convincingly kind-hearted. Her big scenes also work off of the good will of the first half of the movie – it’s almost as if Colman sets up the first half of the movie so Garson can effectively carry off the second half of the movie.

Mervyn LeRoy directed this film, and I was glad to see that it was visually striking in many ways. LeRoy produced some of the biggest, most beautiful films of MGM’s glory days (WIZARD OF OZ and GONE WITH THE WIND) but some of his later efforts seemed stilted (THE BAD SEED). With RANDOM HARVEST he’s still on the upswing.

Romancefest 22: A Star is Born

After seeing how great A STAR IS BORN is, I'm a little ashamed to say I've been putting it off due to the near 3 hour running time. But, when you're trying to cram 28 movies into 28 days, the 3 hour ones keep getting dropped to the bottom of the list until you simply have no other choice.

A STAR IS BORN is famous for starring Judy Garland in a stunning performance slightly based on her own Hollywood experiences. Released in 1954, A STAR IS BORN showcases Garland 15 years after the release of her biggest success as a young actress, THE WIZARD OF OZ, and roughly 15 years before her premature death. By 1954 Garland already looks a little worse for wear, especially if you're familiar with her youthful, fresh-faced performance from THE WIZARD OF OZ -- her voice sounds a little smoky, her face looks a little puffy, and it all works to the advantage of the character, who is a little after her prime when her stardom comes late and suddenly for her.

James Mason co-stars as a washed up, alcoholic movie star who keeps his studio handlers busy attempting to stay ahead of him with damage control attempts. As the movie opens, Mason is storming on stage at a celebrity charity event, despite the studio heads' attempts to keep him off the stage due to his drunken condition. Garland, performing as a chorus girl, rescues Mason from embarrassment with a brilliant bit of improv that comes off as a comedic performance, and Mason gratefully follows her to a small club where she's performing with a group of musicians.

He decides she has that certain "it" -- the undefinable quality that fills the gap between a performer and a star, and immediately goes about marketing her to the studio, where she follows a rocky road to the top. She goes through a traumatizing makeover, during which the studio attempts to turn her into a fake glamor queen before Mason rescues her and helps her showcase her "girl next door" qualities.

A romantic relationship blossoms between the two, but they have difficulties reconciling their different career trajectories -- as Garland continues to rocket to the top, Mason continues to fall from grace, becoming increasingly self destructive despite his attempts to stay clean for Garland.

Garland's performance overshadows Mason's, but they're both great. Mason has the difficult task of making an alcoholic, destructive, self obsessed loser charming and likable, and he pulls it off by treating the whole thing as if it's almost an after thought, as if he's just going along with the flow of chaos instead of single-handedly creating it.

It's cool to see Garland in a non-Dorothy role -- THE WIZARD OF OZ is one of my favorite movies and I've probably seen it more times than any other movie. So, in my mind, Dorothy and Garland are pretty much indistinguishable, especially since I don't think I've watched another full-length Garland performance until today. She's great in this role, convincingly confident in her own abilities while also projecting a humble attitude, almost goofy in her mannerisms at times. But, she also rises to great dramatic heights, especially towards the end of the film.

The best moments are Garland's singing performances -- she has a lot more chances to show off her huge voice in A STAR IS BORN than she did in WIZARD. She opens her mouth, and it almost knocks the sets over. She makes these giant renditions of show tunes and night club songs seem easy while going above and beyond with the heights she's willing to take them. At times it almost becomes exhausting -- how many show stoppers can one movie have? But, it never ceases to be amazing, and you can see why James Mason's character would pick her as a star.

There are production horror stories about this movie -- apparently it premiered with the 3 hour running time to great reviews, then was cut by the studio by about a half hour after which bad word of mouth caused the movie to flop. Apparently Warner shelved the movie and lost the excised half hour for years, before the film was finally dug up and given the respect it deserves as one of the greatest musicals of the era. The version I watched was patched together in parts with stills where footage was missing, but it was far less than I was expecting after reading some descriptions of the restoration.

This really is an interesting musical, and a rvealing look at how the genre matured and diversified itself during its glory days. Today we think of musicals as being harmless diversions without much substance, but back when musicals were all over the place, it was possible to have all kinds, even a hard-hitting drama that critiqued the Hollywood system.

Romancefest 21: Gigi

Now, this is more like it -- finally, some fun! Some light! Some non-death.

I used to have a Pink Floyd poster that was basically just a reproduction of the cover of their UMMAGUMMA album. It had the four dudes in the band hanging around, and the soundtrack album to GIGI was prominently displayed, sitting on the floor leaning up against the wall. I used to look up at it on my wall and wonder what the deal was with GIGI that it warranted placement on the cover of a Pink Floyd album.

I'm still not exactly sure what the significance was, if any, but GIGI is definitely a fun and entertaining movie musical, winner of a bunch of Academy Awards, though it seems like you never see it on TV anymore or hear anyone talk about it.

GIGI stars Leslie Caron as the title character, a young girl (apparently a teenager?) growing up in 1900 Paris. She's raised by her protective grandmother (Hermione Gingold) and her eccentric great Aunt (Eva Gabor) who attempt to teach her how to grow up to be a respectable woman in a city that is seemingly crawling with players who live only for a series of sensationalistic, tabloidy one night stands. Unfortunately Gigi's aunt's idea of a respectable woman appears to be a resigned, subserviate sex-slave who is only "in it" for the money. Gigi's less interested in that and more interested in romance.

Meanwhile, rich young playboy Gaston (Louis Jourdan) is fed up with his superficial lifestyle of drunken all-night parties and head-line making love affairs. His Uncle (Maurice Chevalier) gives him some advice on the player lifestyle -- after all, even though he's what you might call a senior citizen, he's still not married and proudly prowls the streets of Paris picking up on women and singing the praises (somewhat creepily) of "little girls." Still, he's charming as hell and just loves to have fun and party, so it's a tempting lifestyle.

Gaston's Uncle actually used to have an affair with Gigi's grandmother, and Gaston still visits the grandmother on occasion and enjoys innocently flirting with Gigi, playing cards, sneaking her champagne, bringing her gifts. Eventually Gaston realizes Gigi not only epitomizes the opposite of everything he's sick of with her innocence and enthusiasm, but is also blossoming into a young woman who could actually be a romantic prospect.

It's interesting, despite the fact that Gigi is the title character, Gaston takes up most of the screen time, and he's actually not that bad of a leading man. I'm not familiar with the actor Louis Jourdan, but he is able to be an engaging leading man, unlike some of the other guys I've seen in movies this month, including some more famous ones. You can sympathize with his position as much as you can sympathize with Gigi's. Sure, the screen lights up when Gigi shows up, and you sometimes wish the movie was more about her, but it's not like you fall asleep when Gaston's on screen.

This is kind of a naturalistic musical in the sense that most of the movie is shot on the streets of Paris and in real locations, instead of on fantastic sets. Also, there aren't any really big epic dance numbers -- most of the songs are accompanied by actors walking around or simply sitting at a table and singing at the camera. Somehow, thanks to the shot compositions and performances, this avoids being boring. Most of the songs are kind of conversational, almost spoken as much as sung. So, you don't feel like the movie is taking a break every 5 minutes for a big show-stopper -- it all kind of flows together seamlessly.

The film is also beautifully shot with lots of primary colors and great locations. On top of all of that, it's also funny and very quotable, with great lines like:

"The only people who make love all the time are liars."

"Someone ought to look after you and I could if you'd love me."

"Youth can really do a fellow in."

That last one is an interesting insight from Chevalier's aged Uncle character -- he says it just after his nephew unloads on him with his own romantic drama. Chevalier's character is glad he's over that tumultuous period where every relationship seems huge and epic and meaningful, and content just to relax and let whatever happens happen. But, he also seems to revel in being somewhat involved in the relationship between Gaston and Gigi as if he remembers those days fondly.

When you're in the middle of it, it can seem like an impossibly frustrating game. But, if you've played enough, you can kind of sit back and just let it happen.

Romancefest 20: Camille

Two terminal illness stories in a row! How come everyone has to die in Romancefest? All right, not everyone, but it seems like a lot.

It's 1847 and Greta Garbo stars as party-girl Marguerite Gautier, who frequents the theaters and clubs of Paris in an attempt to snag a rich guy (or series of rich guys) to make a living off of. She competes with the other girls and uses an older sidekick to help scout for royalty. Unbeknownst to everyone, she's terminally ill.

One night, Armand Duval (Robert Taylor) stumbles ass backwards into her box seat at the theater and she mistakes him for a rich guy she has her sights on and engages in some flirting. Soon she realizes she was mistaken, but is eventually won over by his sincerity. She's a little under the weather, and he's the only one who genuinely seems to care.

Taylor's a little bland in the film as a leading man, but the character is interesting. He's so innocent and sincere, as compared to the rest of the hedonistic characters, that it ends up being very sweet. Which, I guess, is why they call this a romance. And, unlike some other matinee idols of old (Rudolph Valentino, I'm looking at you) Taylor still seems to be handsome by today's standards.

Lionel Barrymore shows up as Duval's father, who tells Garbo to back off -- he knows her reputation and doesn't want her messing up his son's life. So, Garbo has to decide whether her last few days of happiness before she kicks off are important enough to potentially ruin the life of the only guy she ever really loved.

Garbo is kind of hypnotic in the lead role -- she's not really traditionally attractive, but she has a slow, thought out way of speaking and moving that draws you in. You can understand why Taylor would be drawn to her, despite her obvious flaws. Even though her whole life is a shallow party, you can sense deep down she's above it, but not in a pretentious way -- the party is the pretension.

I first became aware of CAMILLE as the movie Annie and Daddy Warbucks go to see in the 1982 ANNIE flick. My parents taped it off TV for me when it was on back in 1986, and I used to watch it all the time. But, when it got to the "Let's Go to the Movies" scene, I almost always fast-forwarded through the CAMILLE clips -- it seemed like they showed way too much of a movie that was completely incidental to the plot. And, they showed the ending of the film, so when the final seconds came on screen during this viewing, they were instantly recognizable.

There have been a million adaptations of this story, which was originally an Alexandre Dumas novel, but all of the reading I'm doing is telling me this version, starring Garbo and directed by George Cukor, is the definitive version.

So, now I can say I've seen it.

Romancefest 19: Dark Victory

This is the second Bette Davis movie of the month, and it has a lot in common with the first. I liked NOW, VOYAGER better, but the stories are similar -- in each film, Davis plays an emotionally and medically crippled woman who attempts to learn to live her life on her own terms with the help of some male influences.

This time around, instead of mental illness, Davis' character is suffering from a brain tumor and knows she only has a limited time to live. We meet her at the age of 23 as a rich, hedonistic orphan, partying all night and showing/racing/jumping horses and hunting all day (when she's not sleeping in). She's bothered by what she thinks are increasingly troublesome hangovers, but she soon learns the truth -- she's dying.

She reluctantly visits a specialist, played by George Brent, who operates on her tumor and eventually falls in love with her. Meanwhile, her stable hand, played by Humphrey Bogart, offers her an alternative look at life, first appearing as an affable but insolent employee, then stepping in as a potential slummy roll in the hay, and finally as a source of unconventional wisdom. It's interesting to see Bogart in a supporting role since I've mostly just seen his starring vehicles.

Geraldine Fitzgerald and Ronal Reagan round out the cast as a loyal assistant/best friend and likable, but wasted, perpetual party guest.

As the movie opened I didn't think Davis' role was as complex as her role in NOW, VOYAGER, where she suggested a lot of inner turmoil with pained facial expressions. But, as the plot thickened, the role got a little meatier as Davis had to act insecure without acting insecure -- putting on a brave, fun-loving, party girl face while clearly being horrified. Again, she's able to transmit a lot of this with her facial expressions -- she has a face that's beautiful when she smiles, but sour as hell when she doesn't. But, she's also good at fidgeting around with her hands and other props, heightening the tension of a scene simply by occupying it with an endless nervous energy. It's not your typical glamorous leading lady stuff.

The interesting part of the movie is the main characters' growth. The part that keeps me at an emotional distance is the death plot. Yes, her illness is integral to the entire premise of the movie, but in narratives like these it almost works as a short cut to manipulation. I mean, who would dare have a heart cold enough to not care about this stuff? It's as if the movie is guilting you into liking it.

But, the movie kind of earns it by dealing with the implications of the main characters' situation, and the impact on the supporting characters, who are all three dimensional, even Reagan's lovable drunk. Unlike, say, LOVE STORY, where without the death, you'd have nothing.

Romancefest 18: Funny Girl

FUNNY GIRL is my second Barbra Streisand movie of the month and I have to admit -- I can see why she has such rabid fans. I mean, she's amazing. Right?

Look, she belts out these songs like she really means them, like the world's going to end if she doesn't get the point of the lyrics across, using not only her voice but her face and her whole body to slam the point home.

As if that's not enough, she's funny.

It feels kind of dumb and obvious to say this stuff. I mean, I've lived my entire life with Streisand as a mega-star. Still, she's not the kind of artist I'd be exposed to unless I go out of my way to educate myself, which I guess is part of the fun of setting up arbitrary goals like my quest to watch 28 romantic films in 28 days.

FUNNY GIRL tells the true (but heavily fictionalized) story of Fanny Brice, who rose to stardom as a headliner in the Ziegfeld follies during the early part of the first half of the 20th century. As played by Streisand, a lot of attention is paid to the fact that Brice was not a traditional beauty, but made her way in the entertainment industry anyway, partially thanks to her gifts as a comedian and singer but also thanks to her determination and innovative approach to her medium.

The romance in the film comes from the relationship between Brice and professional gambler Nick Arnstein (Omar Sharif). To be honest, the romance is the weaker part of the film. I was more interested in Brice's rise to stardom, and although I've admired Sharif in other flicks, including one of my favorites, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, he's kind of wasted here as an uninteresting love interest. Still, it is touching how Brice approaches the relationship warily, never quite buying that a worldly gentleman like Arnstein would be interested in an unconventional girl, and it is fun to watch Brice open up as she becomes more sure of herself.

It's funny, again, watching this movie, I thought about context -- there are images, lines, songs, that are so famous, most people know them completely out of context. One of those things is that "People who need people" song. Heard on its own, it seems schmaltzy. Seen in this movie, as Streisand sings it, insecurely attempting to open up to Sharif, it works beautifully.

I feel like a broken record when I say this, but the film suffers from being about a half hour too long. It seems like the more movies I watch, the more I think everything should be about a half hour shorter. It doesn't matter if a movie is 2 hours and 30 minutes, like this one, or just 2 hours, somehow they all seem like they could be cut by about a half hour. Well, maybe not all. I mean, I watched RAGING BULL tonight and ALIEN last night, and it would suck if those flicks got cut by 30 minutes.

But FUNNY GIRL? It could be tightened up here and there. First, cut every second Streisand isn't on screen. There aren't many of them, but the ones that exist suck. Then, cut half of every scene where she doesn't sing.

Romancefest 17: The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

It occurred to me while watching THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR that it was the first romance of the month I have seen that had any fantasy elements. At least, any fantasy elements integral to the plot -- sure, some of the movies I've seen this month haven't been entirely realistic, and a couple, especially the musicals, have indulged in flights of fancy, but plot-wise, they've all been grounded in reality. Nothing happens in any of the other movies I've watched this month that couldn't happen in real life.

So, that set THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR apart. It's a ghost story, after all. It stars Gene Tierney as the widowed Lucy Muir. It's the turn of the century when she leaves London, where she lives with her in-laws, to move to the seaside community of White Cliff where she buys (or rents?) a cottage overlooking the ocean, despite warnings from the realtor that it's haunted.

Muir refuses to be frightened away even when the rumors seem to prove themselves true. It's not long before the ghost of the title shows up -- a sea captain named Daniel Gregg (Rex Harrison). He's not a captain in the refined gentleman sense. Imagine Robert Shaw from JAWS, and you have an idea of what this guy's like. Of course, despite his rough edges, Robert Shaw from JAWS is a total badass with a load of killer stories from his adventures at sea, and Captain Gregg is no different.

The ghost of Gregg and Mrs. Muir come to a mutual understanding -- she's not going to be scared off and the house and the independence it stands for mean a lot to her, so they agree to put up with each other and even eventually become friends, going so far as to collaborate on a book about the sea captain's sensational and controversial adventures.

They grow so close, in fact, that Capt. Gregg eventually suggests Mrs. Muir should meet some men who are actually alive -- after all, it's not fair. Capt. Gregg can never have a satisfying relationship with Mrs. Muir, and she deserves better than a dead dude. It's not long before the douche baggy childrens' author, Miles Fairley (George Sanders) sets his sights on Muir and moves in for the seduction, complete with painting pictures of her. Fresh!

Anyway, eventually Capt. Gregg sees he's outlived (no pun intended) his usefulness and takes off, casting a spell on Muir to convince her that he was just a dream so she can find happiness with Fairley.

To the movie's credit, and setting it apart, again, from the other films I've seen this month, I had no idea how the third act was going to resolve itself in a satisfying way. In true Hollywood fashion, once "The End" showed up on the screen, the ending seemed like an obvious foregone conclusion, but as the minutes ticked into the third act, I had no idea what was going to happen. And, the last shot was beautiful, when it arrived.

Also, the supernatural/fantasy angle allows for neat metaphors that actually work better than literal truth. Lots of the movies I've seen this month have unattainable loves, but they're never REALLY unattainable. I mean, in WEST SIDE STORY they could have just gotten over their differences and hooked up. In SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS, they could have solved a lot of problems by just boning and not worrying about it. In this flick, the lovers simply can't be together because one is DEAD. This is the real deal! Super-duper impossible = twice the romance.

On one hand, this is attractive to Mrs. Muir. She's so independent and seemingly has so much to prove that it's kind of cool to be in love with a guy who she doesn't actually have to worry about really existing. After all, actual existence is messy. On the other hand, she loves him so much and the relationship is so perfect, anything in reality pales in comparison. So, what's a woman supposed to do? Thanks to the supernatural angle, this is not a movie where she could simply "get over herself" and solve all the plot problems.

Interesting note: this marks the third movie featuring Natalie Wood I've seen this month. Only, this time, she plays Mrs. Muir's daughter. Mrs. Muir's 9-year-old daughter. I have to admit, it's a little creepy to watch the hot/crazy bath tub scene from SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS one day and then watch 9-year-old Natalie Wood in MRS. MUIR the next day.

But, at least I don't want to bone a dead guy like Mrs. Muir. Now that's creepy.

AND SO ROMANTIC!

Romancefest 16: Swing Time

I can't believe I've made it this far in life without seeing a movie starring the legendary duo of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

Reading up on SWING TIME, I keep seeing again and again that it's considered the best of their many collaborations. It's a delightful romantic comedy with lots of great singing and dancing and some memorable tunes, most notably "The Way You Look Tonight."

Astaire stars as a dancer and semi-professional gambler who wants to raise enough money to be worthy enough to marry his fiancee. He travels to New York with his bumbling sidekick, Pop (Victor Moore) to try to strike it rich. There, he meets young dance instructor Penny (Ginger Rogers). As the two of them strike up a money-making partnership, taking the night clubs by storm, Astaire's character starts to fall in love with Rogers' and decides maybe he doesn't necessarily need to rush back to his fiancee, after all. Meanwhile, Rogers isn't sure about Astaire's intentions and is courted by a tall, dark, handsome and exotic band leader (Georges Metaxa).

This set up leads from one set of gags to another, interspersed with sweet romantic singing and dancing interludes. The real joy of the movie is in the dancing, of course, famously shot in long takes showing the dancers' full bodies to avoid any camera tricks. But, the movie also works as a pretty funny farce, as both Astaire and Rogers, as well as their background players, prove to be adept comedians, and the screenplay is wittier than it has to be. For instance, I liked the way Rogers was dared into kissing Astaire, and then bashfully backed out at the last second, awkwardly blurting, "Do ya like my dress?"

It's the balance between class, sweetness and humor that makes this movie work. Somehow, Astaire and Rogers are both down to Earth and kind of magical at the same time -- there's nothing funny about their dancing, but there's nothing serious about the plot. Even the sweetest scenes work as long set ups to punch lines, like the scene where Astaire plays "The Way You Look Tonight" while Rogers is washing her hair. She's so swept up by the romance of the moment, she forgets she has a head full of shampoo. But, somehow, the moment still ends up being beautiful. On one hand, the plot contrivances creak along pretty loudly, drawing attention to themselves, but on the other, seeing the whole thing work itself out is kind of part of the fun and innocence of it all.

As for the supporting cast, I especially liked Victor Moore's performance as Pop. It's kind of a one note comic relief role, casting Pop as a kind of oblivious clown, but somehow Moore makes it realistic. I guess it's the understated way he says things -- he's never manic, more befuddled and just kind of going along with things. I liked his devotion to Astaire and his chemistry with Helen Broderick's character.

The notion at the center of the film is the idea that Astaire and Rogers love dancing together so much, their lives would be basically meaningless without each other. Sure, they'd still have lives to live, but there wouldn't be any point to dancing if they couldn't dance with each other, and not much beauty in living if they can't dance. This works as a metaphor for the working relationship of the stars of the film, but also as a metaphor for every relationship in general -- if you find someone things really seem to work out with, why bother trying to work things out with anyone else?

Romancefest 15: The Sheik

We go way back to 1921 for this one -- the first silent film of the month: THE SHEIK, starring the appropriately named Rudolph Valentino.

Most people these days probably couldn't pick Valentino's image out of a line up or name any of his movies, and they'd be hard pressed to give any biographical info on the guy. But, he was famous enough in his day that most would be able to at least say, "Wasn't he a matinee idol or something?"

Yes, he was. He died young (31) but had about 5 years of intense fame and huge stardom, and apparently THE SHEIK was his biggest hit. I'd never heard of it until it popped up on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" list.

Watching the film, I realized most of the silent films I've seen have either been comedies or horror films, both of which hold up really well throughout the passage of time. What's funny is funny and what's scary is scary. I've seen a couple dramas, but never an overblown romance like THE SHEIK.

I guess my point is that it doesn't hold up that well -- it's about an hour and a half long and tells a story that could be taken care of in about 30 minutes. Valentino stars as the title character, The Sheik, but I found his co-star, the female lead, Agnes Ayres, much more appealing. It seemed like the movie came to a stop every time she was off screen and then came back to life again as soon as she returned.

Ayres is a wealthy, but eccentric, English woman who, despite warnings from her peers, decides to embark on a desert adventure in Arabia with only one guide. She's instantly kidnapped by the title Sheik (Valentino, still) who had previously fallen for her after spotting her in the city on the evening before her departure. He takes her back to his camp to woo (and/or rape) her, but she spurns his advances. Eventually, he lets her go, but she's immediately kidnapped by Omair the desert bandit (Walter Long) who also wants to woo (and/or rape) her. So, it's up to Valentino to get his army together and rescue her.

The sheer amount of people, and horses, and camels, running around in a desert setting back in 1921 is pretty impressive. But they're at the service of a pretty weak plot. The one potentially interesting angle of the story is the cross-cultural relationship, but even that's rendered null and void at the last moment as Valentino's Sheik is revealed to be an Englishman ADOPTED by the previous Sheik.

One image that will stick with me: after Valentino lets Ayres go, as she's resting on the side of a sand dune, she idley doodles love notes into the sand with a stick, professing her love for the Sheik. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie isn't so memorable.

Still, this is the kind of movie other film experts tell you that you HAVE to see at some point, so I guess I can cross it off the list.

Romancefest 14: Body Heat

Like most film fans, I went through both a screenwriting phase and a film noir phase. During both of these phases, the title BODY HEAT kept popping up. It was a great screenplay, it was a modern example of film noir. Still, I never got around to seeing it.

I did see DOUBLE INDEMNITY a few times, though, which BODY HEAT is largely inspired by.

BODY HEAT, written and directed by the great Lawrence Kasdan, stars William Hurt as somewhat sleazy lawyer Ned Racine and Kathleen Turner as Matty Walker, sultry wife of a Florida millionaire (Richard Crenna).

The two kick off an affair that is largely driven by lust and what appears to be great sexual chemistry, only to eventually hit on the idea of knocking off the annoying husband who seems to be in the way, run off together, and get a fortune in the process.

The most intriguing passages of the film involve the attempts by Racine to keep his crime a secret after it has happened -- his DA buddy (Ted Danson) and his cop buddy (JA Preston) seem to suspect him, so it's a careful game of cat and mouse for a while, with Turner's character annoyingly and menacingly not being quite as discreet as Racine would like.

Rounding out the cast as an expert in explosives is a young Mickey Rourke, already brimming with the energy he was later to become famous for.

The movie is a master of setting -- there are constant references to how hot it is outside, and almost every scene includes a fan, an air conditioner, or visibly uncomfortable, sweating actors. Also, the interior scenes usually have bright sunlight intruding from windows, rendering the rest of the interior dark. This is contrasted against the "heat" of the love affair between Hurt and Turner's characters, which was clearly the inspiration for a lot of films, ranging from almost every direct to video sex thriller to popular hits like BASIC INSTINCT.

It was interesting to watch this one right after SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS, because both of them seem to clearly be about the danger of lust, not love. Sure, the word "love" is uttered a few times in this movie, but you don't really buy that either character really means it. Same thing with SPLENDOR -- without the need to bone, the couple in that movie wouldn't have had much in common.

Romancefest 13: Splendor in the Grass

This is my second Natalie Wood movie of the month and my second Elia Kazan movie since yesterday. Originally I wasn't going to watch SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS this month since I've seen parts of it before, but I took a second though and realized I'd never sat down to watch the whole thing, and decided to go for it.

I remember catching it on one of the movie channels in college, already in progress, and being impressed with the frankness of the sexual relationship between the two teenage characters. I remembered them being insanely horny and the whole movie being about this intense relationship. Upon second viewing, the second half kind of moves away from that aspect and into other things, and the really heated up scenes aren't quite as hot as I remember (Natalie Wood's bath tub melt down not withstanding).

Still, SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS is not exactly the tale it pretends to be. Based on the title, taken from a Wordsworth poem, we're supposed to believe the movie is about looking back on good times and being glad about them instead of regretful of missed opportunities. But it's clear that this movie is about gender, sex and generation gaps.

Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood star as a high school couple constantly on the verge of having sex, but always holding back because of what they think others might think of them. It's late 1920s Kansas. Beatty has an oil tycoon father (Pat Hingle) who suggests Beatty get his frustrations out on a more slutty girl. Wood has an overbearing mother (Audrey Christie) who programs her daughter to think that only "bad girls" have lustful thoughts about men, while "good girls" resign themselves to the fact that they have to put up with sex after marriage simply to have kids -- not to enjoy it, or anything.

Both kids seem on the verge of insanity, and Wood eventually ends up in a "rest home." This is where things get a little murky. It's difficult to tell from today's stand point what we're supposed to think, exactly. It's hard to pin down the film's point of view. It takes place in the 1920s, it was made in the 1960s, and I'm watching it in 2010. How much of it is about 1920s attitudes and how much of it is about 1960s attitudes? Or, were those attitudes basically the same, if you are brutally honest? Are we supposed to believe these characters are a result of their environment and up-bringing, or are they the result of a writers' 1960s attitudes?

Here's the thing: on one hand, the movie is admirable for daring to deal with teenage sexuality, focusing in the first half on the dangers and frustrations of constantly making out. There are actual scenes where the kids discuss these issues with their parents. The film actually dares to admit women have sexual feelings, as well as guys. This was unheard of at the time.

On the other hand, in exploring these ideas, the plot seems to reinforce the same misguided ideals it should be railing against -- the audience is eventually asked to view the early scenes of sexual frustration as "the good old days" and view the present, where Beatty has settled down on the farm and Wood is on the verge of marrying a guy she's clearly not in love with, as the responsible alternative.

One thing I like about the movie is that it helps to dispel the myth that people were more innocent back in the olden days and you didn't get things like teenagers having sex, or abortions. If a writer in 1960 was writing about kids in 1920 going through these things, you can be sure it's nothing new.

Could it be -- lust is human nature?

Duh.