I’m going to try something new in this review – 3 films, well 2 films and a TV episode all titled – Cape Fear. For sometime I’ve been thinking about the relationship between these horror films. Having also read that the Martin Scorsese remake in 1991 was pointless really, I need to see this for myself to understand what is actually going on here. Has Scorsese wasted a cast and crews time and a film companies money, not to mention the audience who went to see etc. I’ll finish on a more comedic note with The Simpsons spoof Cape Feare which combines the best of both films. I’m one film in – the original which I shamefully saw in about 9 parts on YouTube whilst working at a summer camp a few years ago.
The 1962 original released as part of a cycle of horror films that attempted to emulate Psycho (1960) which reshaped the genre forever, what a was expected from the genre and its very form. What followed was a series of cheap knock-offs so to speak that tried to replicate that magic for the next few years. With time for the industry to react one of the first films out using A-list actors with well established careers, such as Deborah Kerr‘s The Innocents (1961), and the cult classic of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). However Cape Fear has more in common with film noir, or the first shoots of neo-noir after it ended a few years earlier with Touch of Evil (1959). Take some of the best bits of The Night of the Hunter (1955) and repackage it into a more audience friendly film that has also become a classic.
Taking the Charles Laughton noir of a preacher who works his way into a community, marrying a Jail birds widow, in order to get his hands on the money which the dead husband has hidden. Memorably played by Robert Mitchum, whose physical presence transformed the role and the film into that of almost folklore horror. Seeing America through the eyes of an English director who gave us his vision of a country deeply rooted in its religion that could be so easily be corrupted. The Mitchum character of Harry Powell becomes Max Cady, again not long released from prison has a one track mind, not money, he has plenty of that. Its more like a destiny that he has to fulfill coming to the home town of successful lawyer and family man Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck) who had to testify against him on an attack charge against an innocent woman. After first meeting Cady we know he’s not a family man, not meant to live around law-abiding people. He’s not a gentlemen who stops to pick up papers for woman on the stairs. He’s to be avoided, even before we learn his back story.
The Cady’s live in reasonable comfort, a small lawyer whose life is about to be turned upside down, about to take him and his wife Peggy (Polly Bergen) and daughter Nancy (Lori Martin). I couldn’t help but start to draw comparisons with this to the remake, what were the new relationship that brings Cady to town. It’s more complex for sure in the remake. Back to this more straightforward film that doesn’t waste time establishing whose the good and bad guys. However it’s the law whose hands are tied, Cady’s being doing more than marking the days in his cell before being released. Reading up on the law and planning his revenge. Starting his war of terror against Bowden and his family, taking aim at the teenage daughter – Nancy whose awareness of the male gaze and sexual power is about to blow wide open.
Cady is not just a deranged criminal out for revenge he’s a sexual predator too, making Nancy his next victim. This could be where Scorsese got a bit of tunnel vision, along with changing taste and the loosening of censorship which allowed for a more adult version of the film. Nonetheless the original filmed in cheap/standard black and white adds another layer to this dark film that gets more intense scene by scene. Tying Sam in knots with nowhere to turn but to lead him into a trap on the houseboat along the Cape Fear river. The sexuality is all coming from Mitchum, even middle-aged has a decent body that added to his domineering on-screen presence. If anything I found the ending lackluster, instead of what the audience wants – and Scorsese gives us. We have the law winning out, the courts of justice putting Cady back behind bars before a swift and happy ending. It feels after all of that struggle the good and civilised in Bowden wins out, his primal desire and wishes earlier on in the film to shoot him are repressed to allow him to drag him to a prison cell before a having another trial. Hopefully leading to reform, something I really can’t see happening to Cady, whoever plays this disturbed character.
Onto the remake now, which after hearing it was pointless, I’m starting to see why after just finishing it. I first watched it at University, thinking it was a great thriller, I even used it as part of my research for thrillers and suspense. What the hell was I thinking, more to the point what was Martin Scorsese thinking. It wasn’t even a film he wanted to do, it was an assignment given to him by the Universal, for reasons I just don’t understand, I don’t think he does either. Probably hoping to get his next project The Age of Innocence (1993).
Lets take a look at the film on the face of it, a remake of the 1960’s classic thriller which saw the Bowden family being tormented by the deranged Max Cady that still remains at the core of this film. However 30 years have passed and the script admittedly needed altering in some respects. There’s far more sex on-screen, along with the usual depiction of Scorsese penchant for violence. Making it a good match, but then the same can be said of lots of directors. He’s a director for hire here. The main difference is Cady played by a hammy Robert De Niro whose clearly having a ball, glad to be working with his old pal Marty one more time. The crime committed now is, aggravated assault, essentially rape when you get to know the character. He’s come back to get revenge on his old lawyer Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte) who we learn buried evidence that could have allowed Cady to go free. That facts are made clear early on away from Cady who is beginning his campaign of fear.
Originally Bowden was a witness to an assault committed by Cady, now we see that the lawyer has used his professional power to alter the course of Cady’s life. I couldn’t have seen that working in 1962, only a few years from playing Atticus Finch (Peck) couldn’t betray that upstanding heroic image. Whilst Mitchum could’ve easily played that role to the extreme without getting as hammy as De Niro. We spend more time with the daughter now named Danielle (Juliette Lewis) who is more sexually aware. Whilst the wife is pretty much unchanged, reacting instead to the plot as it unfolds. If anything she is more traumatised by the films events. So the father and daughter get the thick of it.
A memorable addition or “nod” of approval to the remake, is the inclusion of three of the original cast Peck, Mitchum and Martin Balsam each having a few scenes. Was this more a ploy to bring in the older audience to see three older actors once more, or to say that the film is not being made without their blessing. I think its more the former with a bit of promotional casting. Mitchum first appears as the detective who wants to help but is forced to not suggest to seek alternatives. Whilst Peck is clearly having more fun in his cameo as Lee Heller who is Cady’s defence lawyer. Whilst a clearly bored Martin Balsam the original detective plays the judge who rules a restraining order in Cady’s favor. The aging actor clearly underused and wondering what the hell he is doing on set.
The law is clearly not in Bowden’s side throughout, doing all he can to protect his family, being screwed at every turn by a criminal who has read his books, including the Bible and Sexus (just for added smut). There are times when you are on the Bowden’s side, then you think, haven’t we been here before, only in black and white and not for as long. Drawing out the scenes and adding new ones that only drag out this practically scene for scene remake. The religious overtones are very heavy and clearly a directorial stroke, which makes the work his – overtly.
Ultimately it’s a hammy overreacted, waste of film that sees an accomplished director scraping the barrel with sacred material that shouldn’t have been touched. He should have looked back to Dead Calm (1989) which had the boat thriller in the bag in every way. We have actors who are doing their best, whilst some are just glad for the bigger paycheck and a few days work. Lastly Scorsese only makes you think about the original more overtly with the lazy use of the original score by Bernard Herrmann, conducted by Elmer Bernstein who simply conducted it for the “new” soundtrack. There’s no attempt to be really a unique film that is about the same basic premise, its the just the same just sexed up.
Now I want to watch the far superior Simpsons parody which focuses in the best elements. The second episode of season 5 – (yes it’s that old), a longtime favorite of mine. I remember getting it on video – the murder mysteries tape. Makes me feel old just thinking about it. It’s been a while since I last saw the episode until last night. It was still as fresh and spot on with the jokes that came thick and fast. Midway through the golden age of the now long running animated sitcom, which has now become the longest running of its kind too. Cape Feare was also the third time that Sideshow Bob (Kelsey Grammer) appears in this now iconic role. Assuming the Max Cady role directly from the Scorsese’s film gave us a year before. It’s a cheeky spoof that is more entertaining that the thriller which is 6 times as long.
I think the focus was on the more recent film still fresh in the public consciousness, which is understandable, leaving the original alone. Taking the best bits of a pointless film and making fun of the rest in 20 minutes of animation. We already know that Bob has it in for Bart (Nancy Cartwright) who has twice already found him out, once for robbery, and for attempted murder. Now it’s time for revenge. There’s no need to build up that history between the two except in a few short scenes. The blood written letters and the parole hearing before Bob’s released, using his charm to gain his freedom.
Already the Simpson family are on edge, the letters and now the cinema scene which is ensures we are in for a scene for scene spoof. Of course there’s more common sense at play, the harassments taken seriously by the police instead of going down the private detective route – which leads to the fishing wire and teddy bear set-up which isn’t taken seriously. Ultimately they’re referred to the FBI who put them into the Witness Relocation Program giving them a new identity and opening titles. It’s all played fast a loose. Yet the law is on the families side, moving the spoof quickly on, there’s no time to discuss the need to use a gun or to kill Bob, it’s about hiding.
The finale is more family friendly with a Gilbert and Sullivan homage, making the most of an earlier scene in the car journey. The houseboat is loose on the water, just not out of control as Bart uses the performance to buy him time. He’s too clever to result to deadly violence to see his enemy (not Moe Szyslak (Hank Azaria) and his panda’s). The episode delivers some of the finest moments not just of the season but a collection of jokes that are better than the expensive thriller that tries to outdo the original.
So ends my first 3 (2 and a spoof) film review, attempting to find a relationship and history. I’ve chosen an easier trilogy (of sorts) to begin with a film, a remake and a spoof. I can see how it a classic (before it was more common) to remake a film. Seeing that it was sexed up, add some violence and some cheeky cameos to draw in the audiences. Whilst a controversial cartoon plays fast and loose, appropriate the events of a recent film and make fun of it, so is the nature of a spoof which in the case of this film is more entertaining, than the remake.
I decided to take a chance and catch a French horror film the other night. A carefully chosen film from Film Fear, the pop-up channel from Film Four over the Halloween week. Now being difference from the average horrors that were on during the week Les Yeux sans Visage/Eyes Without a Face (1960) stood out for me for a few reasons, one being foreign (not of the English language) there maybe something more going on here. Also released around the same time as Psycho (1960) and Peeping Tom (1960), a time when horror was starting to see a resurgence. So I sat down, excited by the foreign nature of the film, ready for the mess, the gore, the madness of the plot.
What started with so much potential, driving through the outskirts of Paris where a woman – Edna Grüber (Juliette Mayniel) is making sure that she wasn’t being followed, has she done something wrong, is the obscured figure in the back seat of her car going to attack her before we leave her. Instead this is a female corpse whose dragged into the river, dumping the evidence of a supposed murder is lost or carried away so she can’t be connected. Before cutting to a lecture by the esteemed Docteur Génessier (Pierre Brasseur) on the fight to stay useful and the use of transplantation in that eternal struggle to obtain immortality. The science is rather flawed if you think about it, draining the of all the patients blood, whose donating the organ/body part to the receiver, which should allow for a more successful acceptance of the new piece. Now this is utter nonsense for anyone with an ounce of sense. You need an exact match of blood types etc to avoid organ rejection. Here is a man who ignores the laws of science in order to succeed in his real plans which are still unknown at this point. All we know is that he’s respected in his field, he can follow his dreams with no resistance. This is our civilised mad professor, leading a double life, a trope of the horror character. Along with a string of missing young women in the capital something is definitely going on with this man and woman.
So how are these elements connected – the death of Génessier‘s daughter, whose body has just been found, complete with very distinctive disfigured features – only the eyes are left in tact. Out of pure curiosity I wanted to see the disfigured face of the girl more than anything. The build-up is enough to draw you into this world. Could all of the girl who have gone missing turn up only to be impossible to identify them. Somethings definitely going on that isn’t being explained.
Of course as soon as Génessier is at the funeral do we start to see where this is all going, with Edna Grüber at his side, she is showing signs not of grieve but horror at what is going to happen. Well at least she is. The doctor is ready get on with his life, or is that his plan to resurrect his daughter, Louise’s life. It’s not the most complex of films when you think about as we return to his home/laboratory/theatre, the reveal of the daughter on-screen is equally frustrating as the dead daughter whose identified earlier on. Her face hidden from view, either buried in a pillow or by the camera’s choice to not yet revealing that side of her. Whose more afraid the cinematographer or the audience by this forced reluctance to show her face. Again I wanted to see how badly scared she was, what actually caused this disfigurement. My attention was increasing by this withholding of information. Beautifully portrayed by Alida Valli who have to wait to see her face, hidden by a delicately crafted mask she wears for most of the film.
It’s all clear now within that scene the motives of her father, his medical research and the lengths that he will go to restore his daughter her former state, able to function in life again even if she has to take on a new identity. Her life is no longer in her hands, the young woman has fallen to depend on her father and his assistant who lock her away from the outside world. The missing girls in town all start to make sense now, with a decision that doesn’t really work for the film, having Edna lure the young women back, a decision that plays against the predatory male we usually assume in films and reality to be behind most missing persons. For me this is not as creepy, a middle-aged woman, subtlety checking out the faces of women to potentially bring back. Maybe this is as conscious decision to play against this type’s supposed to make this film more interesting and darker, a woman leading a woman is fresher than the heterosexual reading you usually have in films. However it didn’t really feel that much darker than it was intended.
What really lets the film down is the clinical take on Frankenstein’s Monster, OK this is the 1960’s science has moved on. The aim of the films is to repair/restore a woman’s face/beauty. Not to create life from lifelessness, there’s still an element of that in there, taking a face from a living person to give to another. It’s a brutal act to steal from one to restore another, a medical rape really no consent from the patient is given. The surgical scenes today are tame, especially since the first successful face transplant and even to a lesser extent Face/Off (1997) which is more revealing in the detail, some 1990’s technology and block-buster nonsense to explain what is going on.
Of course both are pure fantasy, yet the later is braver in the depiction of the surgery that is carried out on-screen. You could say that the 37 year gap between the two films is unfair to really compare them both. Maybe it was the budget that restrained what we saw, we may have been better off without seeing anything or to re-stage/edit the surgery in Les Yeux sans Visage/Eyes Without a Face so there is more horror. Its too cold and clinically restrained to be truly the horrific an experience it really is, this is a horror at the end of the day!
Lastly I felt the ending was really deserving more, as Louise fights back against all the deaths that have been carried out in her name. To ensure she has her beauty, it shows she wants a better quality of life, even if she has to go to a plastic surgeon who has to carryout numerous operations to give her some quality of life again. Instead she lashes out and rightly so against those who have held her back for so long. I came away feeling let down really on a few levels, maybe I was expecting too much from a French horror which I thought would be darker, bloodier and creepier than a possible American take on the film.
Notably the film that practically killed Michael Powell‘s career dead, a film that scared the world just before we were shocked by Psycho (1960). You could say it was a matter of timing with Alfred Hitchcock‘s film that altered the language of film forever. So why am I returning to this film? It’s a question I’m still asking myself, Peeping Tom (1960) is one of those film I was originally recommended to me at university. It’s a film about the desires of film-makers really if anything else, equally about those who watch them and the power that the medium we have come to be in awe off in the last 120 years. The power of the medium from a side-show attraction to a multi-billion dollar business with a fully formed language that depicts all aspects of life from the mundane, the daily to the fantastical. Yet to understand the power and the darker limits of the medium, we usually avoid them.
The camera as a tool captures all that it sees, it never lies until, unless the image before has been manipulated. In some cultures it’s believed to take part of your soul if it looks at you. Part of yourself imprinted and shared with the world. Projected on a scale that we could at first not fathom, the power of the image over an audience is a spell yet to be broken. Today we can capture and record images at the touch of a button and a bit of memory on a phone. These images still can have the power to scare or even humiliate. Film is a medium that goes beyond just another creative expression it has the power to tell the truth or even manipulate. This is just a basic description of the power of film.
So why return to Peeping Tom I still find I am asking myself, it felt like a test more than anything to see if I could still be provoked by it, a film that is as much gripping as it is perverse, it’s as much terrifying as its addictive. It’s a film of emotional contradictions that is both in love with the medium yet fears how far we can push it to the limits of decency. Filmed using stock used for pornography it already attached the dirty aesthetic of being something to be either a fetish or adored. It took a while to find a healthy balance. It is a film that at the time of release had the same reaction of Marmite – you either love it or you hate it.
It has become a film about film in a fictional realm where the gaze is lethal. Making the actions in Rear Window (1954) look tame in comparison. When a murders observed from a distance, now the act take place involving the camera. It records the act, the reaction of the victim as the violently die on-camera. Very few people have died on camera – ignoring war-time footage, Death is a very private moment in a person’s life. We see murder take place 3 times over the course of the film. We are first trapped behind the camera-mans gaze as he carries out the first murder, we’re trapped indirectly, unable to look away at this blend of horror-pornography. It’s only the fact that Powell’s credit the beginning of the film that we are in for more of a horror than the adult blue film this could become. We don’t really know what has happened this early into the film, We only know that Mark Lewis (Karlheinz Böhm) has committed the act, but how or why is still a mystery.
We learn that he is an outsider socially when he returns home, catching the attention of birthday girl Helen Stephens (Anna Massey) and is allowed into his world where we learn he in living in the shadow of his father, whose home-movies are research into human fear. We also have the classic German villain, made only 15 years after the end of WWII there are still tensions, a man not to be trusted, luring Helen into his world, I wonder if she is next, I really had forgotten how this film plays out. I could only remember the film studio murder, built up with Vivian (Moira Shearer) being lulled into a false sense of security, The act’s captured twice, once for us, another for Mark, part of his own film (or documentary). A film maker with dark motive and drives that we still can’t understand.
Mark is very much a product of his fathers up-bringing, wanting to complete his work. When the police begin to investigate the second murder he doesn’t run and hide; he wants to film it all. As if he enjoys the investigation, not caring if they find him. Its only when he’s made aware of his problem does he begin to unravel before us. Realised by Helen’s mother (Maxine Audley) a blind woman whose remaining senses allow her to see what is blind to the others. There was a part of me that thought that Helen was another victims, which really would have been a betrayal to the audience, innocent to what was going on, even inspired by her new friends hobby.
Peeping Tom is not a film for the passing fan of Powell and Pressburger who have given us numerous delightful and powerful British films. It’s quintessentially British in tone which makes it fascinating, how can something so dark come out of this little Island. Well look back at the duo’s work together, they’re drenched in the darkness Black Narcissus (1947), the psychology in the film that drives the sisters to the brink. We’re pushed to the limits of what cinema can do, what the medium can do in terms of content and the ideas it can convey before becoming something that is not fit for consumption. It’s a fine line which Powell walked, his inner drives of what it means to be a film-maker, how far do you push the medium to get the results you want. Lastly its shows us up as voyeurs, who all congregate in a dark room and stare. Instead of the loners who use a telescope or long-lens camera. We are in a sense as bad as those loners, except our habit is accepted as the norm.
- Peeping Tom (1960) and the Voyeuristic Gaze (kissmybloodyaxe.wordpress.com)
- Peeping Tom (1960) (mercurie.blogspot.co.uk)
- Peeping Tom (1960) – #58 (criterionreflections.blogspot.co.uk)
- Peeping Tom (1960) (movie-tourist.blogspot.co.uk)
- Peeping Tom – 1960 (jacklfilmreviews.blogspot.co.uk)
- #58: Peeping Tom (criterioncollection.blogspot.co.uk)
I first watched Marnie (1964) when I first discovered Alfred Hitchcock devouring them nearly on a nightly basis, wanting to watch them all with eagerness. When it came to Marnie however I felt somewhat let down by it all, it wasn’t the standard thriller, the wrong man on the run from the police, it was something different, Something with the master of suspense was trying after the huge success of Psycho (1960) which he would never come close to topping or really meeting. He came close to that with The Birds (1962) which has the effect of staying with you, nature turning on humanity, a villain who can’t be locked away by the police as we usually found. The journey was one not only of making others around you believe your story, but to convince them to run as-well, to understand the enemy to quell or restore order.
I have also been troubled by a provocative statement by film critic Robin Wood
If you don’t like Marnie, you don’t like the movies of Alfred Hitchcock and if you don’t love Marnie you don’t love cinema.”
Quite a statement right? I think he was trying to make a point which I am only just understanding beyond the flippancy of its power. He understands the film on another level, something the average film-lover or goer might not get. He wants us to enjoy and read the film on another level a level is may well have been intended for. Now some films aren’t meant to be read on another level, they are what they are. Some have hidden depths, some simply make you laugh, other grab your attention. Others such as this really do take some time and real attention to understand them. Something I am starting to get with Marnie. I’m not saying its all clicked, that would be presumptuous of me.
We started with Vertigo (1958) to understand the director, the man, Hitch who idolizes the blonde, his desire to make them as he desires. Controlling them sexually, lost in the image and the idea of them. 5 years later we aren’t trying to make-over a woman in another image, we want to understand Marnie Edgar (Tippi Hedren) who we meet as a leaving after another robbery at work. Making herself over from one image to another. Creating and living in multiple guises to hide from the men she hurt financially. It was only 4 years earlier that Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) stole from her boss to help her lover out. There is no lover here as yet, wanting only to support her lifestyle and her mother. A figure that recurs in many of Hitchcock’s films, a parent who never loses complete control over the destiny and of their off-spring, always there to guide them in ways the child is never aware of.
It’s well-known now that Tippi Hedren was the last of most actress to suffer under Hitch’s films, controlling her options, obsessing over her to the point she wanted to leave during the making of The Birds torturing her in many ways. It becomes more clear in Marnie the object of his affections, the damage of the previous film’s used to the actresses/models advantage. Playing the part of a psychologically damaged woman who hates the affections of a man. Something which Mark Rutland (Sean Connery) is curious about, he is the on-screen Hitchcock able to carry out his own investigation into her mental state.
There is more than an insatiable fear of male affections as we discover early on, the sight of red, induces her and the audience to have flashes of red. Overwhelming her for some unknown reason, the psychological becomes cinematic in its experience, the flash of red before her and our eyes. A fear of thunderstorms leaves her in a child-like state, vulnerable to Mark who makes his move and wants to know more about this beautiful and fragile woman who has come to work for him.
Psychology has left the confines of the psychologist and is has becomes something for the laymen to investigate, making Spellbound (1945) look tame in comparison. Reaching out more into the public realm. We have a psychological thriller, not just one that uses it to induce the thrills and suspense, its taken to another level that we can all start to consider, that is if we allow ourselves. Which is where this film can and does lose its appeal to the main-stream, when you get too technical and book-smart you can leave your audience behind. You have to be careful how you do it to keep them on-board.
So with Mark acting as a psychologist and lover he also becomes part-time private investigator who finds out about her past, a past which he is eager to understand and hopefully break her from this awful mindset that has allowed her to take on job after job to fund her lifestyle. You could even suggest that he raped her, something which is easy to infer on the face of it. Overpowering her on their honeymoon cruise, she’s stripped of her clothes and forced upon, which implies rape. She also lies there and does allow it to happen. I’m not condoning rape for a second, more understanding the construction of the scene, the character is overcome by the force of her husband and allows him to make love to her. Making her passive and a victim, or more a victim of her state of mind. We don’t actually know what happened after those few moments. Waking up the next morning in separate beds. Her mental state could have made the rape possible and then left not to be mentioned again.
I am beginning to see this film in a new light now, which you can see in the text above, there are layers to this film beyond the ideas of psychology being discussed. The special effects are by now looking tired and out of date, something which he never moved much away from. We do however have some interesting high angle shots throughout the film, looking down upon Marnie a fragile woman who needs to be healed to function, to love and be loved not just by men but her mother. They say that your childhood shapes your adulthood, this is very much an extreme, something which audiences back at the time of release may not have been able to accept. Now its common place, these principles of psychoanalysis are a part of western culture. You could say Marnie was ahead of its time, let down by dates special effects and heavy dialogue. There is still very much a classic Hitchcock in terms of style, nothing is left to chance, he is trying new things out and they pay off such the robbery whilst the cleaner share half the shot. When you comparing to Psycho it does pale, as he is trying something new after all the audience wanted was to be wowed and scared once more. This was a step to far for the director one which is now overlooked in the mainstream, repeating viewings and patience are needed to understand and appreciate the film and the woman or women of Hitchcock.
- Marnie (1964), the Hitchcock I hate: Or poor Bruce Dern and other musings (classicforever.blogspot.co.uk)
- 65. Alfred Hitchcock’s “Marnie” (1964): Unusual Hitchcock—where marriage is preferred over jail by a strong-willed woman (moviessansfrontiers.blogspot.co.uk)
A few years ago I attempted to watch Play Misty for Me (1971) I was really off, it didn’t last more than a few scenes. It had really aged, the titles, the music, the look of the whole thing was cheesy, a relic to be forgotten from the 1970’s. A decade that would go on to see Clint Eastwood flourish and grow as a director and other like him have incredible freedom with their work. I just put this film to the back of my mind like a bad night in town, messy and nothing you want to dwell on.
Then over the following years I began to read and hear more about this film, maybe I should give this “horror” a second look and even that took sometime to squeeze into my busy viewing schedule. Until recently I took the bull by the horns and got it ready to revisit and sit myself down for the entirety of the film. So here I am now, what are my thoughts on this I must admit dated thriller that does precursor the “bunny boiler” genre which got its name thanks to Glenn Close‘s culinary skills in Fatal Attraction (1987). The stalker sub-genre was born…kind off. You have to admit for Eastwood a man of action this is quite a departure, there’s not a gun in sight which is another brave move by the director who also stars, something he has been able to juggle on countless films since.
Ok with the history of the film in place, lets turn to the plot which is pretty strong on the whole, radio d.j. Dave (who has been getting the regular calls from a fan, requesting Misty be played, just a regular fan who knows what she wants to be played, sounds innocent enough…right? It’s after he meets Evelyn (Jessica Walter) by coincidence at a bar, which turns into a long night with no strings attached. We have a slight idea of who she could be from the caller at the station. There’s no way of knowing until we see her a few days later just turn up out of the blue. Trouble is definitely afoot for Dave who is having problems with his girlfriend Tobie (Donna Mills) who is trying to sort her head out.
The focus is on Evelyn who builds up this fantasy relationship between her and Dave which we can see is clearly not right. Becoming intrusive, overly caring, just walking in whenever she wants. Evelyn is very much today a caricature of the obsessive woman turning into comedy at times today. Still the effect she has on Dave is enough for the film to hold up, the fear that she inflicts upon him is enough for me to want to see what she does next which shows the film works on some level. The scenes of violence also lean towards comedy today which also shows how much this film has dated. It’s the moments of tension that hold this film together. There’s even a homage to Psycho (1960) which Eastwood just about pulls off. The role of the possessed is reversed here. It’s a brave move which almost pays off, the villainous role of the male is given to a female which is even today rarely seen in main-stream film.
On reflection its a half decent film by then first-time director Eastwood showing what he can do both behind and in front of the camera. So you have to give him his dues there. The film struggles to hold up completely, but can be seen as a landmark in his career at least. You could say it was a trail-blazer; allowing other actresses to play the part of the villain and better too.I can see what he is capable of even at this stage of his career. I am well aware of his later work which has seen him become a much respected director today. We all have to start somewhere I guess.
- PLAY MISTY FOR ME (1971. United States) (highteadreams.wordpress.com)
- Play Misty For Me (1971) directed by Clint Eastwood (mylawyerwillcallyourlawyer.blogspot.co.uk)
- PLAY MISTY FOR ME (1971) (lecinemadreams.blogspot.co.uk)
- Classic Throwback: Play Misty For Me (Clint Eastwood, 1971) (thefilmemporium.blogspot.co.uk)
- Play Misty For Me (1971) (bleedingdeadfilmreviews.blogspot.co.uk)
I’ve been looking forward to catching The Place Beyond the Pines (2012), if only to see Ryan Gosling in action, always making an impact whenever he is on-screen. Well this time here is shorter than I expected. A brave move by Derek Cianfrance who worked previously with Gosling on Blue Valentine (2010) who spreads the impact of a month in the life of Luke (Gosling) over 16 years, how the actions of two men affect all those around them.
Even though Gosling gets top billing his time on-screen is fleeting in comparison to Bradley Cooper who really impressed me in the first straight role I’ve seen him in. With Luke with have another man who can handle himself, after the stunt driver from Drive (2011), independent and dangerous, with a heart deep down. His heart is in the right place, even if his fists isn’t. On leaving the circus as a stunt biker he wants to provide for the son his only just discovered. Being told by his only friend Robin (Ben Mendelsohn) to channel his skills to rob banks. Something that will later lead to his demise 45 mins into the film, muck like the ill-fated Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) Psycho 1960) killed off in the first half hour. This could both divide or bring and audience closer to the narrative as police officer Avery Cross (Cooper) on patrol intercepts Luke in the only scene they share together, passing on the baton of the film from one to another.
Becoming about Avery and his recovery from the shooting that takes out Luke so soon. Surrounded by family who have not had him around since the arrive of his own son. Wanting to return to work, a world that has a few corrupt cops led by Deluca (Ray Liotta) and Doc Crowley (Luca Pierucci) who go to the home of Romina (Eva Mendes) who Luke was trying to provide for. The off duty cops search the house for cash that was stolen. Invading their privacy and grief, whilst at the same time acting as a wake-up call for Avery a by the book cop, which smells heavily of Serpico (1973) playing out for a good half our before a sneaky deal is broken leading into the last third of the film.
A third which really takes sometime to get used to, as we move to the next generation, the sons of the men who we first met in the 1990’s, both 17 years, both from fragmented families. AJ (Emory Cohen) and Alex (Alex Pulling) meeting in high school, just by coincidence (well not really being in the same neighbourhood), one with a father who’s hardly in his life, having taken to drugs, whilst the other is beginning a life of petty crime, not really knowing who his real dad was. It feels like a little contrived at first putting them both together. Handled so well allowing the past of their fathers to catch-up and come full circle, the past was never really dealt with, a man was killed in the line of duty, not something that could have been avoided. It’s Alex who really has to deal with his past as he learns more about his dad, finally vengeance is being sought and delivered. Having been on hold all his life, closure is at hand. Leading to a confrontation that reminded me of Miller’s Crossing (1990) where scores were settled and lies were hidden.
I could say the film is original, but it’s not when you break it down begging, borrowing from other films to allow this otherwise fresh film alive. Maybe it’s a clever way of progressing the story. It shows the harsh reality of family life living with crime, from either side of that world, the police and criminals and those who are directly affected by their actions. Resolutions are sometimes left lingering if we just carry on and don’t deal with how they can change us. Was it worth the wait really when Gosling was killed off not even half way in? Yes and no, he was the main draw for me, yet his departure allows things to continue, they maybe partly recycled elements from other films which I can forgive to an extent too.
- Film Review: “The Place Beyond the Pines” ★★★★ (4.5/5) (cinephilefix.wordpress.com)
- The Place Beyond the Pines (criminalmovies.blogspot.co.uk)
I rarely ever revisit a film and talk about it. Usually watching it for the pleasure, sometimes there’s a need to understand what was earlier lost on me. I have a few lined up which I need to reconsider, not really seeing them for what they are. An underestimation of what they are about. So the first in a series of reviews I begin with one of the very first I watched about 3-4 years ago. Having already seen North By Northwest (1959) and Psycho (1960) which I found to be more engaging than Suspicion (1941) which was darker in tone than the lighter North by Northwest with Cary Grant. I think I was caught up in the upper-class world that the earlier film took place in when Johnnie (Grant) begins to court Lina (Joan Fontaine a shy and reserved woman who falls for his charms. Who wouldn’t, its Cary Grant, who was Alfred Hitchcock’s go to actor at the time.
However the average man in Grant has a far darker side that starts to reveal itself when they marry and move into a world if debt and doubt. Living in a house that has yet to be paid for and a husband who won’t take a job. The life of a playboy, emphasis on the playing with his friend Beaky (Nigel Bruce) who is in his own little world.
Whilst Lina and Johnnie are squarely in reality with a different set of morals. One living by his wits to get the money he wants, whilst the wife wants stability and safety in her life. Its Johnnie who is control of everything here, helped very much by Grants charismatic performance that steals the show. Leaving both the audience and Lina in the dark as to his true intentions. Lina and the audience develop a very different picture from that of the gambling man. Who could even kill to get what he wants. We never see any deaths on-screen, more a suggestion of what could be. The power of Hitchcock has travelled across the Atlantic and slowly being honed up to become what we see in his later films of. It’s not so much what we see but what we don’t, that power of suggestion. Even the dramatic imagery of a death is just in the imagination.
I think what made me come away from the film so disaffected was the ending that after such a climax, on the open road became a happy ending, very much in the style of films at the time. On thinking about it there is still room for what happens after we leave them on the coastal roads. Will there be another argument, which leads to a death. Who knows. That is the power of Hitchcock which was very much misunderstood at the time. I now hold the film in a higher regard, not as strong as other works of the decade such as Shadow of a Doubt (1943) which really questioned what we really know of people’s past and the true drives.
- Suspicion (1941): Cary Grant a Killer? (classicmoviesdigest.blogspot.co.uk)
- The General McLaidlaw Portrait in Hitchcock’s “Suspicion” (1941) (theartofilm.blogspot.co.uk)
- Suspicion (1941) (spoilers) (thebooknutsblog.wordpress.com)
- Suspicion (1941) (retroactivecritique.blogspot.co.uk)
- Archive for the ‘Week 26: ‘Suspicion’ – 1941’ Category thehitchcockproject.wordpress.com)
- MOVIE MADNESS #156: SUSPICION (1941) (moviesoothsayer.wordpress.com)
- Hitchcock-a-thon: Suspicion (1941) (foldingseats.wordpress.com)
- Suspicion (1941) (dawnschickflicks.blogspot.co.uk)
- Suspicion (1941) (marksteudel.wordpress.com)