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.