In This Our Life

Posted 15 March 2005 in Screening log with No comments

Rating

1942 - US

Director
John Huston

Starring
Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, George Brent

A couple blurbs I read before watching this movie (which, by the way, did nothing to inspire me to watch this movie; Bette Davis did):

A neurotic southerner steals her sister’s husband then vies with her for another man.
(Turner Classic Movies)

A vile woman schemes to destroy her sister’s marriage and her subsequent engagement to another man.
(TV Now)

Neurotic. Vile. Can we find no way to talk about an unsympathetic female character without questioning her mental health or calling her physically disgusting?

Those may be fitting words for this despicable character, but what does it say about the person who dreamed the character up? I wanted to say this is the sort of character only a real misogynist could create, but the film is based on a novel written by a woman. I would like to find a copy of this book to see how far the director and screenwriter fell from the author’s intent, or how complicit the 1940s writer was in perpetuating this distorted image of women.

Equally troubling: what does all this say about the IMDb voters who have given this film a relatively high rating of 7.0? How is this film at all respected? The screenplay is weak, the story meanders, and the supporting actors are almost universally poor. That apart from any feminist concerns of mine. What are other people seeing here?

Oh, this kind of role angers me nearly as much as Davis’ positively simpering turn in The Petrified Forest, also apparently beloved by some. Can women in the golden age of Hollywood only be dolls or monsters? Even the indomitable Tracy Lord was finally made yare.

The film intends to demonstrate the horror of women who try to become men. There is nothing revolutionary about either sister; they are not ultimately meant to be seen as free spirits. Their father (who, incidentally, is probably more stereotypically feminine than anyone in this film, and intentionally so) made the mistake of naming them Stanley and Roy and giving them the personal and financial freedom of a man. Stanley drives her own car (fast) and won’t allow any man to “boss” her. When Craig tells Roy she’s intelligent, she notes, “that’s a trait every man admires — in another man.” The film posits that when intelligence, wealth and a mind of one’s own is crossed with feminine sexuality and manipulation, the product is Stanley: a selfish, revolting, psychopathic monstrosity. What saves Roy from the same fate is her final willingness to marry Craig.

Recommended only for woman-haters and forgiving fans of Davis.

 

Napoleon Dynamite

Posted 12 March 2005 in Screening log with No comments
“Just follow your heart. That’s what I do.”

Rating

2004 - US

Director
Jared Hess

Starring
Jon Heder, Jon Gries, Aaron Ruell, Efren Ramirez, Tina Majorino

Possibly, it’s better than it is enjoyable.

That’s the best summation I could muster immediately after watching this random-to-a-fault film, which has exhausted me to the point of incoherence. Which, indeed, is probably not a word.

I’m ordinarily a fan of ‘quirky’ films, so I did expect to like this. But I think for quirk to work, you have to find a way to make the characters human, relatable and honest… and Wes Anderson and David O. Russell this is not. This is all non sequitur and bizarre physical comedy. The plot, such as it is, doesn’t evince itself until halfway through the film. And ultimately it has absolutely nothing to say: I feel like I’ve watched an 82-minute inside joke.

Also, that it clocks in at 82 minutes seems unreal to me. Felt like three hours.

I do believe comedy is the most subjective genre in film, and I am especially picky. But this one really got under my skin. Still, you may like it. More people than I can fathom seem to.

Stars for originality, but I suppose it fails to satisfy anything I look for in a film.

 
navigation
About TLC
Films: All reviewed | Favorites
Actors: Profiles | Favorites
Directors: Profiles | Favorites
All films by year
2008 Viewing log


Screening Log
The Woman Accused 1933, Paul Sloane
So Big! 1932, William A Wellman
The Awful Truth 1937, Leo McCarey
Conquest 1937, Clarence Brown
It’s Love I’m After 1937, Archie Mayo
The Mad Miss Manton 1938, Leigh Jason
Algiers 1938, John Cromwell
The Gay Divorcee 1934, Mark Sandrich
All This, & Heaven Too 1940, Anatole Litvak
Mannequin 1937, Frank Borzage

Blog

A short digression on Charles Boyer…

Yes, I am endeared. I am, in fact, ensorceled. His inhumanly arched eyebrows, his little winks and half-smiles, and that ability to at once maintain full control of his material while shining the spotlight on his costar: yes, that is talent; yes, this is love. And no, Cluny Brown, it’s not just the cocktails giving you that persian cat feeling… I think we both know too well it has a bit to do with Mr Charles Boyer. Rawr.


A month of...

Pre-Code Hollywood

» The Woman Accused 1933 Paul Sloane
» So Big! 1932 William A Wellman
» Pre-Code Icons Gallery #1: Barbara Stanwyck
» A Month of Pre-Code Hollywood

Previous months
30s Cinema
Maestresses
The Lubitsch Race

Five Favorites

In-transit romances

Nothing better suited to Hollywood romance than three weeks out of time, away from life, falling in love with a stranger, spending days idly and nights actively.


links
Allure
Awards Daily
Bright Lights Film Journal
Cinemaniacal
Cinema Talk
Classic Cinema Online
Collective Contemplations on Cinema
Critical Culture
Criticker
Fataculture
Film Comment
Film Int
Greenbriar Picture Shows
House of Mirth & Movies
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger...
Jump Cut
Mango Grove
Not Coming to a Theater Near You
The Pagan Agenda
Pop Matters
Rants & Musings
Reverse Shot
Self-Styled Siren
Senses of Cinema
Sight & Sound
TCM schedule
They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
Through a Blog Darkly

Netflix
Three on a Match / Female Waterloo Bridge / Red-Headed Woman Dancing Lady The Most Dangerous Game Applause The Divorcee / A Free Soul Street Angel Born to Be Bad 

Friend me