Love and scandal are the best sweeteners of tea. —Henry Fielding
Showing posts with label joseph l. mankiewicz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joseph l. mankiewicz. Show all posts
03 November 2021
No Way Out
Joseph L. Mankiewicz made No Way Out the same year (1950) that he made All About Eve. This movie (why it's called No Way Out is absolutely anyone's guess) is your standard anti-racist Hollywood fare from 1950. It's a good enough drama, with a sensational race riot in the film's center. Aside from the high drama of the riot (which is filmed very, very well, without showing even a little bit of violence), the rest of No Way Out is quite predictable stuff. The whole thing is tied together gorgeously by Sidney Poitier in one of his earliest screen appearances. (This is 5 years before Blackboard Jungle but must have been filmed just before Raisin in the Sun appeared on Broadway). Linda Darnell is great in this too, and Ruby Dee plays a small (uncredited) role! The real star here, though, is Richard Widmark, who gives a superb performance as a vile racist asshole. The performance is never sympathetic, and Widmark doesn't worry a bit about whether or not the audience will hate him. It's bold and rich work for a script that doesn't quite deserve it.
17 December 2020
Mank (2020)
Mank has a lot of problems. David Fincher's new film has some nice elements to it, but the screenplay (by Fincher's dad) doesn't really build its tension the way it needs to, and so the important scenes don't land when they should. Worse yet, the Finchers have us jumping around in time in a way that doesn't allow the film to build up to anything. We'll be in the middle of an important and emotional scene and – what do you know – we're jumping forward seven years in time for five minutes... only to jump right back to where we left off? These jumps are unmotivated and unrelated to anything thematic. They just seem to be there. The whole thing is quite frustrating.
The tone of this movie is off, too. Mank takes a comical approach to most of its subject matter, but then it's filmed in black and white as if its going to be a serious noir picture instead of a jaunty comedy. Meanwhile Reznor and Ross's score bounces around as if this is Sullivan's Travels. It just doesn't work.
28 September 2020
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947)
Gene Tierney is a delight in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, and even Rex Harrison's usual masculine bravado is sort of charming. Charming, incidentally, is the correct word for The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, a strange, pleasurable fantasy of a film that is impeccably directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, as he moves deftly between romance, comedy, and drama. This is really lovely, and its photography is gorgeous.
14 July 2020
Guys and Dolls (1955)
Am I drunk or did I actually enjoy this as much as I think I did? I wasn't expecting Guys and Dolls to be as fun as it is, but all the principals are excellent, and Vivian Blaine is truly a standout among great performers. There are some really brilliant numbers in this – "Luck Be a Lady" might be the most famous, but "Don't Rock the Boat", "For Some Doll", and (especially) "A Person Could Develop a Cold" are lyrically brilliant. And Michael Kidd!! This was a blast.
05 July 2016
Mankiewicz Post All about Eve
After All about Eve, Joseph L. Mankiewicz directed a WWII spy picture called 5 Fingers, about a British agent (whom I think we're supposed to love) who is actually selling state secrets to the Germans and making a fortune. The film stars James Mason and Danielle Derrieux. This is also apparently a true story.
5 Fingers was not at all what I was expecting from the director of A Letter to Three Wives and that 1963 Cleopatra, I have to be honest. But 5 Fingers is a taught, dark little film noir that has an intensely bleak world-view. It's quirky in its own way – I'd expect nothing less from Mankiewicz – but it's also taught and intriguing and (most strange for a movie from 1951, it seems to me) morally ambiguous. What I mean, I think, is that this film doesn't exactly say that what our (criminal) protagonist does is ethically wrong. This, even if 5 Fingers had nothing else to recommend it, would be enough of a reason to see it.
5 Fingers is no Purple Noon or Les Diaboliques, but it is pretty great for a big studio picture from 1951.
5 Fingers was not at all what I was expecting from the director of A Letter to Three Wives and that 1963 Cleopatra, I have to be honest. But 5 Fingers is a taught, dark little film noir that has an intensely bleak world-view. It's quirky in its own way – I'd expect nothing less from Mankiewicz – but it's also taught and intriguing and (most strange for a movie from 1951, it seems to me) morally ambiguous. What I mean, I think, is that this film doesn't exactly say that what our (criminal) protagonist does is ethically wrong. This, even if 5 Fingers had nothing else to recommend it, would be enough of a reason to see it.
5 Fingers is no Purple Noon or Les Diaboliques, but it is pretty great for a big studio picture from 1951.
23 March 2007
Small Thoughts
A) I had a good rehearsal, or at least sorta good. I pretty much love my cast. They are amazing. It's so weird to spend time with singers. It's a whole other performing art, the musical. I mean, I can't do that. You know? It's also odd being tied down by the music. I need the support of the musical director and the accompanist constantly. I can't even block without them, for the most part. This is a whole new experience. It's very cool. And the cast is pretty damn near brilliant. AND the producer is awesome.
B) I opened a new bottle of gin that my friend Alison got me for doing her taxes. It's called Citadelle. It tastes very different. It's kind of savory. Weird. I need to drink more of it, but not tonight, because I'm getting drunk and it's midnight.
C) I am coming to Los Angeles around May/June, y'all. Mark those calendars. Is anyone dong anything I need to see while I am there? I can work around your schedules. I haven't bought any plane tickets yet...
D) My history teacher pronounces the word "panoply" like "pan-opoly" as though it rhymes with monopoly. That's wrong. I'm just sayin'.
E) I watched a little bit of All About Eve today and found myself laughing out loud. GODDAMN Bette Davis is brilliant in that film.
B) I opened a new bottle of gin that my friend Alison got me for doing her taxes. It's called Citadelle. It tastes very different. It's kind of savory. Weird. I need to drink more of it, but not tonight, because I'm getting drunk and it's midnight.
C) I am coming to Los Angeles around May/June, y'all. Mark those calendars. Is anyone dong anything I need to see while I am there? I can work around your schedules. I haven't bought any plane tickets yet...
D) My history teacher pronounces the word "panoply" like "pan-opoly" as though it rhymes with monopoly. That's wrong. I'm just sayin'.
E) I watched a little bit of All About Eve today and found myself laughing out loud. GODDAMN Bette Davis is brilliant in that film.
Eve: Is there anything else I can do?
Margo: Thank you, Eve. I'll have a martini, very dry.
Bill: I'll get it. What can I get you Eve?
Margo: A milkshake?
11 November 2006
A Few Brief Thoughts on Things I've Seen This Week
Before I go off to the office to compose a lecture for Monday morning...
Running with Scissors is alright. Actually, it's not that good. I mean, I liked it okay, but it isn't nearly as shocking and outrageous as the book, and the film has trouble finding Augusten Burroughs' voice. The book is awkwardly written in the first place, and lacking in an overarching narrative, so I understand why it would be difficult to film the book, but the fun thing about Burroughs' book is how outlandish everything in it is. The ridiculous things that go on in that doctor's house are so funny and so horrifying at the same time. In the book this really comes through, but in the film it doesn't work. I think this is due to cinematography, frankly. The movie is too pretty, and the audience never really gets an idea of the squalor that exists in that doctor's house. I don't know. I was never shocked or surprised in the film, and although it's funny in parts, it's no great shakes. Annette Bening is wonderful as usual, and Alec Baldwin is great, but I think the movie is awkwardly done.
The Queen is a brilliant movie, though. I saw it yesterday and absolutely loved it. Helen Mirren is superb and surely getting an Oscar nomination (she'll probably take the statue home, too.) Michael Sheen as Tony Blair is also really great. This film (directed by Stephen Frears) is a subtle, fascinating portrait of the monarchy and of human nature. I highly recommend it.
I also saw FSU's production of As You Like It. Blech. I think I've decided, after discussion with Roomie, that I hate this play. I think it is probably the most difficult of Shakespeare's plays to direct and though I don't think it's very poorly written, I do think it's boring and over-written. The characters are fun, but the play is no good. The ridiculous deus ex machina at the end, the silly cross-dressing construct: I'm over it. And FSU's production... sheesh. Let me not say too much about it, but I actually think it was worse than Six Degrees of Separation.
And this morning I watched Joseph L. Mankiewicz's The Barefoot Contessa. Mankiewicz followed A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve with this nonsense? Whatever. It was a strange star vehicle with an incoherent plot, like something Gene Tierney would have done, only the star was Ava Gardner. Humphrey Bogart is good (this is the same year he made Sabrina), but the film is too long and too bloated... and frankly, not very interesting.
Am I being unkind this morning? Did I say how much I loved The Queen?
Off to write a lecture...
Running with Scissors is alright. Actually, it's not that good. I mean, I liked it okay, but it isn't nearly as shocking and outrageous as the book, and the film has trouble finding Augusten Burroughs' voice. The book is awkwardly written in the first place, and lacking in an overarching narrative, so I understand why it would be difficult to film the book, but the fun thing about Burroughs' book is how outlandish everything in it is. The ridiculous things that go on in that doctor's house are so funny and so horrifying at the same time. In the book this really comes through, but in the film it doesn't work. I think this is due to cinematography, frankly. The movie is too pretty, and the audience never really gets an idea of the squalor that exists in that doctor's house. I don't know. I was never shocked or surprised in the film, and although it's funny in parts, it's no great shakes. Annette Bening is wonderful as usual, and Alec Baldwin is great, but I think the movie is awkwardly done.
The Queen is a brilliant movie, though. I saw it yesterday and absolutely loved it. Helen Mirren is superb and surely getting an Oscar nomination (she'll probably take the statue home, too.) Michael Sheen as Tony Blair is also really great. This film (directed by Stephen Frears) is a subtle, fascinating portrait of the monarchy and of human nature. I highly recommend it.
I also saw FSU's production of As You Like It. Blech. I think I've decided, after discussion with Roomie, that I hate this play. I think it is probably the most difficult of Shakespeare's plays to direct and though I don't think it's very poorly written, I do think it's boring and over-written. The characters are fun, but the play is no good. The ridiculous deus ex machina at the end, the silly cross-dressing construct: I'm over it. And FSU's production... sheesh. Let me not say too much about it, but I actually think it was worse than Six Degrees of Separation.
And this morning I watched Joseph L. Mankiewicz's The Barefoot Contessa. Mankiewicz followed A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve with this nonsense? Whatever. It was a strange star vehicle with an incoherent plot, like something Gene Tierney would have done, only the star was Ava Gardner. Humphrey Bogart is good (this is the same year he made Sabrina), but the film is too long and too bloated... and frankly, not very interesting.
Am I being unkind this morning? Did I say how much I loved The Queen?
Off to write a lecture...
19 March 2006
Jeanne Crain Is a Black Woman
Elia Kazan made Gentleman's Agreement, which won Best Picture in 1948. It's a sort of overwrought melodrama about prejudice against Jewish people in upper class society. It stars Gregory Peck and Dorothy McGuire. The gist, if I remember correctly, is that Peck pretends to be Jewish for a period of some months as an experiment just to see how differently he's treated by the people he knows and works with. Things all turn out right in the end, after many complications from his fiancée and job, etc, etc.
Pinky, which Kazan made two years later has the same sort of conceit. An extremely light-skinned black woman (the very white Jeanne Crain) returns to her home in the rural South to her grandmother (Ethel Waters) after her white boyfriend proposes to her. This film is sort of about racism, but actually doesn't delve into issues of passing for white too much. It's more about... well actually I'm not too sure what it is about. More than anything, it's a middle-sized Southern melodrama about being who you really are and not pretending to be something you are not. Much wit and wisdom is dispensed by former plantation-owner Ethel Barrymore, who is Ethel Waters' best friend in the film. The racism and prejudice of white people in the South are taken for granted and are part of the film's backdrop, but Pinky isn't really a drama about race. It's the importance of values like honesty, family, duty and responsibility that are stressed.
I found it extremely hard to believe Jeanne Crain as a black woman, but her performance is really quite good and never offensive (at least to me). I've never much liked Jeanne Crain (neither did Joseph L. Mankiewicz, I'm told) but I rather liked her in this. She plays a rather off-putting character for most of the film and she never underplays it so that the audience will like her more. It's good work and she was nominated for an Oscar for her performance. The Academy didn't care for Pinky quite as much as it cared for Gentleman's Agreement, though. Agreement nabbed 8 nominations and 3 wins. Pinky wound up with only 3 nominations and it didn't win a thing.
Pinky, which Kazan made two years later has the same sort of conceit. An extremely light-skinned black woman (the very white Jeanne Crain) returns to her home in the rural South to her grandmother (Ethel Waters) after her white boyfriend proposes to her. This film is sort of about racism, but actually doesn't delve into issues of passing for white too much. It's more about... well actually I'm not too sure what it is about. More than anything, it's a middle-sized Southern melodrama about being who you really are and not pretending to be something you are not. Much wit and wisdom is dispensed by former plantation-owner Ethel Barrymore, who is Ethel Waters' best friend in the film. The racism and prejudice of white people in the South are taken for granted and are part of the film's backdrop, but Pinky isn't really a drama about race. It's the importance of values like honesty, family, duty and responsibility that are stressed.
I found it extremely hard to believe Jeanne Crain as a black woman, but her performance is really quite good and never offensive (at least to me). I've never much liked Jeanne Crain (neither did Joseph L. Mankiewicz, I'm told) but I rather liked her in this. She plays a rather off-putting character for most of the film and she never underplays it so that the audience will like her more. It's good work and she was nominated for an Oscar for her performance. The Academy didn't care for Pinky quite as much as it cared for Gentleman's Agreement, though. Agreement nabbed 8 nominations and 3 wins. Pinky wound up with only 3 nominations and it didn't win a thing.
30 November 2005
Two Reviews: A Letter to Three Wives & The Violet Hour
Last night I read Richard Greenberg's The Violet Hour which was, much to my surprise, a very good play. I don't know why I have been doubting Greenberg. I lie: of course I know, and I'm going to tell you in the next paragraph. I wonder why I say things like that.
Anyway, the thing that kind of irks me about Greenberg (Take Me Out, Three Days of Rain, The Dazzle, Everett Beekin, The America Plan, etc.) is that he writes these hilarious characters with witty banter and obvious gay overtones and then all of the characters in the play turn out to be straight. Perhaps I'm exaggerating. Obviously, the gay characters are front and center in The America Plan, and they ostensibly are in Take Me Out, too, though they are sold somewhat short, to my mind. I first noticed this pattern with a reading of his I went to see at South Coast Rep two or so years ago. It was a new Greenberg play: the title was something about House--I can't remember--there was a lot of fun dialogue but no plot to speak of, strangely enough. I seem to remember that one of the two young male students in the play dies during intermission or something tragic like that. Here's the rub: at intermission it's totally obvious that the two students are in a tentative love-relationship, though it has yet to be fully acknowledged by everyone. Then in Act Two after the boy dies someone asks the other one (years later, I think) if he's gay and he says "no, I wish I were" or some such nonsense. Greenberg was communicating to the audience that the characters were gay and then he turned the tables--and for what? This play wasn't really of consequence, but I feel like Greenberg is rather constantly doing this. Three Days of Rain is similar in this regard, and The Violet Hour follows the same pattern. We think that homosexuality is the "big secret" onstage and it just turns out that it isn't.
I'm not sure what the point of it is: perhaps that homosexuality is just a thing people do and not necessarily a lifestyle. I am contrasting Greenberg in my head to a guy like Jon Robin Baitz who writes witty dialogue worthy of Joseph L. Mankiewicz and boldly writes gay characters, flamboyant and subdued, tortured and put-together. So why does Greenberg feel the need to make his lovely gay characters lovers of women? Whatever it is, it irks me. It would irk me more if Greenberg didn't write so well. The Violet Hour is a fascinating meditation on the future and the past and the choices we make in our lives. It's peppered with witty dialogue and at least three really good roles. There are parts in it for Elizabeth, Kevin, Wahima and me. It's not really my kind of play, but it is interesting and the end is excellent.
*
Tonight after the laundry, I saw Joseph L. Mankiewicz' A Letter to Three Wives. It's a first-rate bitch-fest with Linda Darnell, Ann Sothern, Jeanne Crain, Kirk Douglas and Thelma Ritter. It's no All About Eve, but then few films are. It does have Mankiewicz' trademark witty dialogue and an excellent performance by Linda Darnell. My main problem with the film is the insistence of the writer-director that what a woman needs most in life is the love of a good man. It's not so clear if this need works both ways, but the women bitch at each other and trade snarky comments, and then go home and make up with the husbands with whom they've fought hours earlier. 'Cause that's what's important ladies: having someone to wake up next to. (This theme resounds in All About Eve, too, if I recall correctly.) It was still fun: I dig all of that bitchy dialogue and that Linda Darnell is a knockout.
I may start to really like Kirk Douglas, too. I don't know why I disliked him for so long. He's growing on me.
Anyway, the thing that kind of irks me about Greenberg (Take Me Out, Three Days of Rain, The Dazzle, Everett Beekin, The America Plan, etc.) is that he writes these hilarious characters with witty banter and obvious gay overtones and then all of the characters in the play turn out to be straight. Perhaps I'm exaggerating. Obviously, the gay characters are front and center in The America Plan, and they ostensibly are in Take Me Out, too, though they are sold somewhat short, to my mind. I first noticed this pattern with a reading of his I went to see at South Coast Rep two or so years ago. It was a new Greenberg play: the title was something about House--I can't remember--there was a lot of fun dialogue but no plot to speak of, strangely enough. I seem to remember that one of the two young male students in the play dies during intermission or something tragic like that. Here's the rub: at intermission it's totally obvious that the two students are in a tentative love-relationship, though it has yet to be fully acknowledged by everyone. Then in Act Two after the boy dies someone asks the other one (years later, I think) if he's gay and he says "no, I wish I were" or some such nonsense. Greenberg was communicating to the audience that the characters were gay and then he turned the tables--and for what? This play wasn't really of consequence, but I feel like Greenberg is rather constantly doing this. Three Days of Rain is similar in this regard, and The Violet Hour follows the same pattern. We think that homosexuality is the "big secret" onstage and it just turns out that it isn't.
I'm not sure what the point of it is: perhaps that homosexuality is just a thing people do and not necessarily a lifestyle. I am contrasting Greenberg in my head to a guy like Jon Robin Baitz who writes witty dialogue worthy of Joseph L. Mankiewicz and boldly writes gay characters, flamboyant and subdued, tortured and put-together. So why does Greenberg feel the need to make his lovely gay characters lovers of women? Whatever it is, it irks me. It would irk me more if Greenberg didn't write so well. The Violet Hour is a fascinating meditation on the future and the past and the choices we make in our lives. It's peppered with witty dialogue and at least three really good roles. There are parts in it for Elizabeth, Kevin, Wahima and me. It's not really my kind of play, but it is interesting and the end is excellent.
*
Tonight after the laundry, I saw Joseph L. Mankiewicz' A Letter to Three Wives. It's a first-rate bitch-fest with Linda Darnell, Ann Sothern, Jeanne Crain, Kirk Douglas and Thelma Ritter. It's no All About Eve, but then few films are. It does have Mankiewicz' trademark witty dialogue and an excellent performance by Linda Darnell. My main problem with the film is the insistence of the writer-director that what a woman needs most in life is the love of a good man. It's not so clear if this need works both ways, but the women bitch at each other and trade snarky comments, and then go home and make up with the husbands with whom they've fought hours earlier. 'Cause that's what's important ladies: having someone to wake up next to. (This theme resounds in All About Eve, too, if I recall correctly.) It was still fun: I dig all of that bitchy dialogue and that Linda Darnell is a knockout.
I may start to really like Kirk Douglas, too. I don't know why I disliked him for so long. He's growing on me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




