Category Archives: Drama

Princess Mononoke (1997)

Posted on by
Reply

“The Forest Spirit gives life and takes life away. Life and death are his alone.”

One of the most beautiful things about Princess Mononoke is the magnitude of the world, and it’s not merely in terms of how director Hayao Miyazaki brings his resplendent hand-drawn landscapes to life.

There’s a level of complexity to the ecosystem that knows few equals, allowing the movie to feel not just like a story but a genuine world we are being immersed in. We begin to experience a grand scope and mythology with so many familiar archetypes woven together for our benefit. Somehow, they manage to transcend any differences in culture or belief.

The Princess in the title doesn’t actually show up for some time. Instead, we meet Ashitaka. He is the protector of his village, and he faces off against a demon-possessed warthog. Immediately, I thought of Legion, a spirit Jesus allows to possess a host of pigs before running them into the gully. In that story, the villagers ask Jesus to leave because they recognize some power is at work. Ironically, there is much the same belief here, although they are far from the Judeo-Christian point of view.

It makes for gripping storytelling when you start from a place of belief and awe. Skepticism never enters the equation, and there is evil in the world just as there is good. Their local oracle pays homage to the great unknown god in a show of deference unwittingly similar to the people of Athens. She knows there are forces she does not understand acting upon the world, and she reveres them.

Ashitaka’s arm is left stricken with a curse even as he defends his town selflessly. This propels him on a journey to seek out a forest spirit in the form of a deer who might be able to bestow his life back to him.

Princess Mononoke is a feudal Miyazaki film and the closest inheritor of Akira Kurosawa’s cinema; it’s darker and bloodier than some of the Ghibli maestro’s movies for a youthful audience, and yet these attributes simply make it feel like an epic adventure in the grandest sense of the word. There is danger and blood and evil, just as there are heroes and grand acts of sacrifice.

I was recently reinvigorated reading C.S. Lewis on his thoughts on Fairy Tales and writing for children. He says:

“Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise, you are making their destiny not brighter but darker. Nor do most of us find that violence and bloodshed, in a story, produce any haunting dread in the minds of children. As far as that goes, I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer. Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let villains be soundly killed at the end of the book.”

I’ve heard Miyazaki compared with Lewis’s compatriot J.R.R. Tolkien, and the differences are so vast as to almost dismiss comment altogether. However, in the broadest strokes, I can see it with Mononoke. A mythic hero like Ashitaka or Strider who gleams with attributes almost preordained to make them heroes. There is treachery as much as supernatural impositions. The struggle between civilization vs. nature–technology allowing for a kind of perversion of the natural world, even as the beasts are prone to violence as they feel humanity encroaching on their forest home.

Tolkien represents it with orcs in their mines, building weapons of destruction. Here, there is Lady Eboshi, a regal leader who leads an outpost of ironworkers. However, far from being a tyrant, she has a degree of tenacity in defending their position and extending compassion toward a grateful troupe of freed women and the ostracized sick. Meanwhile, they’re prepared to use their flintlocks to tame the wild around them and obliterate any human enemies who descend on them.

The story is full of conflicts of interest, and every character desires something different. We are told this is how great stories are made, but Mononoke shows us what it looks like in action with compelling acuity.

The emperor desires for the lady to hunt down the aforementioned deer god, sending some of his best trackers and hunters to bring him the mythic beast’s head. Meanwhile, an unseen warlord, Asano, has been terrorizing the countryside and continues to extort the ironworks before deciding to ambush them at their most vulnerable.

These are mere human concerns. It would be drama enough, and yet Miyazaki’s story is equally concerned with the natural world and the original inhabitants of the land. There are giant wolves, warthogs, apes, and every other creature imaginable.

Ashitaka gets the opportunity to be a mediator between all sides with a kind of stoic clarity that feels almost supernatural. He comes in contact with the wolf girl San, who has turned her back on the human culture and runs with the wolves as one of their own. They both act as these borderstalkers existing between cultural spaces based on blood or allegiance. First, contentious and then drawn together by a mission bigger than either of them.

Princess Mononoke is not just a feast of images but of sound design and scoring. I noticed one dialogue scene where Ashitaka rests in a cave at night, sharing a conversation with a fellow travel companion; there’s the underscoring of Joe Hisaishi, of course, but also the faint sounds of cicadas and birds chirping. Easy to miss but hardly immaterial. It’s this layering that feels so extraordinary in its attention to the full breath of the soundscape. It mirrors the forethought in every frame of the narrative.

Miyazaki and his team have an almost inexhaustible fount of creative imagination. Consider the human toadstool-like creatures twirling and clicking in the forest depths — a cross between mechanized toy soldiers and playful apparitions. There’s the molasses-like ooze of the demonic, a startling visual manifestation of this cankerous evil familiar across the director’s oeuvre. Or the curious nightwalker, which goes from a translucent Godzilla tramping around the forest depths to a transfigured creature of great repute.

We also witness the saving power of water and a rebirth and rejuvenation scene with plants sprouting up again. There were even a few solitary moments, whether it was the deer god appearing or the growth in his wake, reminding me of some of the more delightfully psychedelic faces and foliage in the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine movie. Perhaps it sounds like an almost crass comparison, but I don’t mean it to be. Because there is something so striking and singular about it; magic is in the air, and it affects us profoundly.

The wolves want to eat Ashitaka’s faithful elk Yakul in an early scene. By the end, the world has been remade, and the lion has laid down with the lamb, as it were. It feels like an immaculate portrait of new beginnings and a new creation, even as Ashitaka is reunited with his love as they vow to live on the fringes.

It’s as if Miyazaki knows a world such as this cries out for a happy ending. What makes it resonate is the height and depth of the evil and the disrepair the world was saddled with, as embodied by Ashitaka’s wound. It’s these very realities making the denouement that much more extraordinary. We crave stories with the level of gravitas and satisfaction that the likes of Tolkien and Miyazaki build. When you’re given something such as this, so many other tales pale in comparison. Because they fail to do justice to our deepest human longings — longings not dictated solely by culture, creed, or even faith. If these stories ring true, they run deeper still.

5/5 Stars

The Odyssey (2026)

Posted on by
Reply

Like many, I read the Odyssey as part of my high school education, but what remains are bits and pieces of iconography passed down through popular culture as much as the text itself. To state the obvious, Christopher Nolan’s latest film is an adaptation, and it makes creative choices that a myriad of voices have said yay or nay to for any number of reasons. But choices are necessary for any adaptation, or else it wouldn’t be worth making in the first place.

It took me some minutes to grow accustomed to the story and settle myself. Nolan lays the groundwork of a wife and mother, Penelope (Anne Hathaway), waiting for her husband’s triumphant return from the Trojan Wars. It’s been years, and she still hasn’t given up hope, even as a host of suitors, led by the duplicitous snake Antinous (Robert Pattinson), squat in her dining hall. They have designs on winning her hand in marriage once she acquiesces. To them, her husband is as good as dead, and her son (Tom Holland) is barely a threat to their ambitions. Meanwhile, the master’s most faithful servant is a blind herdsman named Eumaeus (John Leguizamo).

The movie trades in colloquialisms and a moral parlance of Zeus’s law, a simplified expression for what the Greeks would call xenia. In Judeo-Christian teaching, this might be analogous to the exhortation in Hebrews not to forget to show hospitality to strangers, because some have welcomed angels unawares. In the Greek empire of Nolan, there’s a decidedly treacherous bent to it; one must maintain honor at all costs and not give your enemy a reason to undermine you…

It truly hits its stride when Nolan’s penchant for visual ingenuity and grand spectacle is allowed to take over. We have enough exposition to be sent off on an epic adventure as Odysseus (Matt Damon) makes his journey home through fragments of flashback recounted to a surprisingly affable Calypso (Charlize Theron).

The director takes a setpiece most of us are familiar with and grounds it not simply in myth but in a reality we can understand. The horse is buried in the sand as a discarded offering, the men inside betting their lives on their foes letting their guard down. It’s a tense bit of dramatic irony as they slink down into the bowels of Troy, woozy-legged but fit enough to free their compatriots and subdue the frantic enemy at nightfall.

Another indelible image injecting the movie with visual adrenaline centers on the cyclops, a lumbering creature who is both terrifying and oddly sympathetic. A beast injured by these marauders who wander into his home. What makes these moments satisfying is not simply because they involve action; the action defines the attributes of this character and the world around him. It also becomes evident each scenario represents a perversion of the attributes at the center of the movie’s moral framework.

Nolan does his best to make deified gods and supernatural powers into phenomena moderns can understand. However, there are still monsters, an island of malevolent giants, and the enchantress Circe (Samantha Morton in arguably the most unnerving performance in the film). They take our breath away while reminding us of the durable bravery and continual hubris which are two sides of Homer’s protagonist.

Likewise, a detour to the pits of Hades and the underworld has a sense of enchantment we cannot hope to fully comprehend as mere mortals. James Remar is unidentifiable as Tiresias, a soothsayer spitting omens about their fate. The Sirens, Charybdis, and Scylla are present but feel like less of a focal point because, as entities, they no longer feel anthropomorphized in the same way.

But the serpentine scope of the journey must lead to only one place. Eventually Odysseus appears as a hooded beggar to his faithful servant, who never wavered. Then he appears to his son, who failed to find him, and finally Penelope, who struggled so mightily in his absence. Anne Hathaway plays the double edge of strength and grief with a moving aplomb. There is a magnitude and a cost to the choices a world away. They actually mean something with reverberations through time.

The archetype of the returning protagonist offers us the promise of narrative fulfillment. This is the return of the king, the arrival of Robin Hood, Luke Skywalker, or any hero you want humbling themselves and putting on the garments of the lowest to enter the mouth of the lion for a final stand. Catching their antagonist unawares.

We yearn for him to come in and bring justice — to show himself and take back what is rightfully his. Penelope puts herself on the line, offering her hand to any man who can complete her husband’s feat. And of course only one man can master it: Stringing his bow and shooting the arrow pure and true through a line of axes.

It’s an annunciation to go with the music struck with his bowstring, courtesy of Ludwig Goransson. One clear, bold note, but it’s the kind of rousing return the movie has been calling for, and the hard yards pay off as they lock down the weapons in the armory, and the father and husband looks to avenge what is rightfully his.

Perhaps it took the years away and the wisdom gained from his own transgressions to recognize what he must do. It’s true the movie offers a recognition of a breach of Zeus’s law but also atonement — giving up what is most painful and bearing the greatest sacrifice. Odysseus burned the city of Troy and desecrated the altar of Athena. There must be penance. He welcomes self-exile, vowing to ride the high seas with his reunited bride to honor his fallen men while leaving the throne to his rightful unblemished heir.

It’s no revelation, but Nolan has followed up one man who would be a god thanks to the atomic bomb with another who seemingly courted the gods, even if he did not always orient his life around their powers. There’s also a residual cost to war and a complicated relationship with decisions that cannot be retracted.

The sheer scope and scale never ceases to amaze. Nolan’s continued prerogative involves always pushing the cast and himself in the execution of these gargantuan stories. It’s the on-location environs, and the blending of technological expertise with an appreciation for practical effects. Giant IMAX cameras juxtaposed with intimate castle tete-a-tetes.

One does wonder if there will continue to be diminishing returns and where else the man can go in an attempt at larger scale and greater ambitions. Will the man who gave us Memento or The Prestige ever be content making a movie of that size that nevertheless pushes the medium in terms of narrative or performance?

I hope so because Nolan still brings people out to the cinema, and he maintains a faithful following who have come to appreciate his tentpole movies with a touch of the cerebral. He can stretch himself in other ways, and many of us will look on with anticipation. 

For our sakes, I’m thankful he’s making films, whether or not he believes in the gods. Some might observe a chasm between deifying gods and defying them. However, within this universe, perhaps it’s only a matter of perception.

It strikes me how one offers a standard outside ourselves, and the other is so often made in our own image. That hasn’t changed much in a couple thousand years, even as our cultures have. It also fundamentally impacts what it looks like to love our neighbor, thereby treating them as we desire to be treated.

4/5 Stars

Crawford and Borzage Films: Sadie McKee (1934), Mannequin (1937), Strange Cargo (1940)

Posted on by
2

I’ve been dipping back into the work of Joan Crawford and director Frank Borzage, so here are some capsule reviews of some of their films:

Sadie McKee (1934) – Dir. Clarence Brown

Sadie returns home to the playful shenanigans of her former compatriot (Franchot Tone). Her mother is the long-time cook of a well-to-do family, and he is the privileged son. But class need not be a dividing line, at least initially.

There are so many wonderful evolving supporting players in Sadie McKee, with Crawford, the effervescent working girl with a chip on her shoulder, remaining the constant focal point.

She leaves behind her mother to chase after her crush (Gene Raymond) even as (Tone) openly criticizes his instability. She doesn’t care. It’s all the more reason to prove him wrong. On her journey, she’s befriended by the worldly-wise Opal (Jean Dixon). Meanwhile, Akim Tamiroff and Leo G. Carroll show up in adroit side parts as a giddy waiter and a stuffy valet. The movie is stuffed full of such roles.

Edward Arnold might actually be the most delightful of the litter as a gregarious millionaire. It’s a far cry from the corrupt business tycoons he was often remembered for, and he proves himself more than game for a little comedy. He and Crawford have a grand ol’ time playing drunk together as Tone looks on with a level of disdain.

Because his boss takes a shine to Crawford, and why not? But surely she only gravitates toward him for his money? It’s a great convenience after a lifetime where she’s had to scrimp and save every day.

Between moments verging on the social strata absurdity of screwball comedy blended with a couple of show tunes like “All I Do Is Dream of You” and “Old Pal,” there’s a lot of good fun to be had to stave off the Depression blues.

To its credit, the story fits the schema of a conniving melodrama about a gold digger, only to break out on its own. If memory serves, Crawford knew how to play such characters. And yet here, despite what circumstances might suggest, she’s a more complex, even sincere individual. She falls into things and can’t help feeling what she does, regardless of what others say, namely Tone.

Crawford forcefully tears through the formalities of the upstairs-downstairs drama. She has the upbringing and the gumption to push through the door to the kitchen. What first looks to be a standoff, even an insurrection from the bottom up (led by the manservant Carroll), becomes a meeting of the minds and a pact to keep their boozy proprietor alive. She vows to keep her job as a wife, so she doesn’t look like the vamp, and the backroom staff want to keep their jobs as well.

The resolution is conventional stuff, but then again, the road to get there is quite charming. An added undercurrent is the real-life relationship between Crawford and Tone at the time. It can’t help but color the entire storyline from front to back.

3.5/5 Stars

Mannequin (1937) – Dir. Frank Borzage

Once again, Joan Crawford is the quintessential working-class hero, doing anything she can to beat the dregs of a life she has. By day, Jessie’s working in a factory. By night, she’s helping her mother with dinner as they dote over a deadbeat Irish father and an ungrateful kid brother (Leo Gorcey). Her only solace comes with escaping to spend time with her boyfriend, Eddie (Alan Curtis).

She wants him to marry her and take her away from the dead-end life in the family’s abode on the Lower East Side. And with some further cajoling, he does, and they prepare for a delirious life together as newlyweds.

If you read the names on the marquee, you know Spencer Tracy must show up eventually, and he does as shipping magnate John L. Hennessey. He’s a self-made man who’s worked hard for every penny he has, and his workers respect him for his candor.

He spies the new husband and wife celebrating their matrimony. Obviously, Crawford is radiant and eye-catching, but he seems genuinely happy for them, having the waiter bring them champagne and his compliments.

Although it’s not quite as good as Tracy and Young in Borzage’s Man’s Castle, there’s still something electric in seeing two stars together at an early juncture in their career ascendancy as studio contractors.

At first, there was something uneven about Curtis being placed onscreen between them, and how are they ever to get together? It becomes apparent in due time. He’s an idea man, always coming up with something new and never following through on any of it. His wife constantly bails him out. But it’s a thankless place to be in, and the promise of marriage continues to sour.

The final scene is an impeccable bit of dramatic irony — embodying the conceit underpinning the whole story. Because Eddie sees how smitten John is with his wife. He’s not above suggesting they get divorced so she can marry the other man and give Eddie a cut of her newfound wealth. It’s a horrible insinuation. Her eyes are finally opened, and she leaves.

The fates develop the story exactly as Eddie might have orchestrated it, but the motives are important. Jessie winds up marrying John because something real blooms between them. He’s deliriously happy until doubt creeps in.

In the end, his business ventures are sunk, but it means nothing to him compared to potentially getting stabbed in the back by Jessie. He doesn’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. And here they reunite in his office for one final time…

He’s got no money, but she doesn’t know that. She vows to leave him nobly so her ex can’t gouge him further. They both have the wrong idea about the other, and somehow it all turns into a right. Love covers a multitude, and so it is here again. It’s romance in the Borzage mode.

3.5/5 Stars

Strange Cargo (1940) – Dir. Frank Borzage

“So God created man in his own image…Look at me. Do I look like a God to you?”

I have to admit I do miss adventure pictures like these. They take place in a vaguely distant place conjured up on the Hollywood movie screen courtesy of a studio lot. It feels like we don’t have a license to make pictures like this anymore for various reasons. Some understandable and a few regrettable.

Right now, Clark Gable is still an MGM stalwart. Joan Crawford really has some feisty barb to her. You have to be tough in an environment like this. I lost track of what number this is in their ongoing onscreen partnership. All you need to know is he’s a prisoner in an island penal colony, and she’s a local dance hall girl trying to pay her way to the mainland. Her animosity and his cocksure attitude are the perfect tinder to set their chemistry ablaze yet again.

You know he’s going to take it upon himself to escape, and she’s going to get caught up in it. Given the amalgamation of all the different genre elements, it’s difficult to categorize Strange Cargo, although it was adapted from the debut novel of author Richard Sale.

Among the contingent of fugitives is the Christ-like Cambreau, who plays almost like a precursor to the remake of Magnificent Obsession with its brand of cinematic mysticism. He rises up as a quietly providential force among the worldly cynics, the bible-thumpers spewing fire and brimstone, and the He-Man self-assurance of Gable.

The clash of tonalities is perfectly embodied by the Red Dust energy as Crawford goes trampling through the jungle in her high heels with Gable yanking her along. Then, in another moment, they’re warming themselves by the fire as he reads her some love poetry out of Song of Solomon. Look in her eyes, and it would seem like no one ever shared such affirmations, even if it’s done facetiously.

For such a glamour queen at MGM, Crawford shows a willingness to go unadorned as much as the studio system allowed. It’s easy to gain a new kind of respect for her because it feels like new terrain as she’s left adrift with the rest of the men and identifies with this man fighting for her companionship under the bleak circumstances.

The other difficult balance is indeed the spiritual timbre of the film with the very physical nature of Gable, the generation’s idea of a Greek Adonis with his big, broad shoulders functioning as his temple. In many ways, the movie pits the movie star as this kind of temporal image-god against the transcendent message of this Messianic figure.

Borzage’s Catholic sympathies are overt in this one, and it makes for a fascinating exploration. The fact that it was based on a contemporary piece of fiction seems to suggest an openness to these spiritual, albeit unorthodox themes.

However, in some ways, I was intrigued to read that the Catholic Legion of Decency gave the film a “condemned” rating. It does feel like a potential precursor to the criticisms aimed at Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ. In personalizing the God-Man, they almost made him too human for the audience.

One could see how the church gatekeepers were left queasy by a film that’s hardly a hallowed depiction of conventional saints. However, any complaints about the depiction of lust feel slightly ironic given the inclusion of Song of Songs love poetry directly from the Biblical text. Still, Gable and Crawford are fiery enough to make the remonstrations understandable, given social mores at the time.

3.5/5 Stars

Man’s Castle (1933)

Posted on by
Reply

“God chose the foolish things of the world, that He might put to shame those that are wise. And He chose the weak things of the world that he might put to shame those that are strong” – Ira quoting 1 Corinthians 1:27

Man’s Castle has a wonderful set-up for a beautiful gag, although we have to come face to face with the throes of the Depression to truly appreciate it. A man (Spencer Tracy) in a top hat and tails is feeding the pigeons on a park bench. He spies a hesitant young ingenue (Loretta Young) watching nearby. He gives her a smart remark, and she almost cries. She’s soft-hearted and hungry. She just wants to eat the crumbs he’s tossing to the birds.

He’s not a complete curmudgeon and has a change of heart. Blink, and they’re in a fine restaurant. He’s chomping on a cigar, a look of satisfaction on his face, watching her put away a whole plate of food. She may be all skin and bones, but she eats ravenously. This is how we meet Bill and Trina.

But we have yet to mention the punchline. Bill calls on the manager of the establishment casually, then he proceeds to tell the preening man that he’s dead broke…He doesn’t have any money to pay for the food, and yet in a world littered with wealth, what’s one gift of charity? They end up walking out with full bellies without greater implications.

It’s an upside-down world they live in. This is what Frank Borzage gives us. We get down to the humble roots of the temporal world of shantytowns and impoverished working stiffs only for the director to bring his quintessential transcendence to the proceedings. It may come off as high-minded talk for such a meek picture, and yet with Borzage, romanticism can break into any environment within any strata of society.

In such a space, Bill and Trina become an unlikely couple. Bill’s always looking to make a casual buck to maintain his unattached lifestyle. It means light-up signs on his chest, stilt walking, and serving summons to one dancehall starlet, Fay La Rue (Glenda Farrell). The lady is visibly impressed, watching his self-confident shrewdness in getting to her. He’s a man with ingenuity.

Loretta Young has the most voluminous eyes in cinema, and with the fresh-faced garb of youth and what butterfly lighting can do, she fills up the screen with radiance. Trina contents herself with keeping a home for Bill. She takes his demeanor in stride, knowing full well it obscures an affable heart. All she knows is that she’s deliriously happy with their meager slice of paradise.

When you’re dead, you get a hunk of dirt, and while he’s alive, Bill wants to hang on to the hunk of blue up above him in the sky. He could do a lot worse. He is a character of paradox. At his best, he’s like a grown-up kid who hasn’t lost his impishness. He has a buddy in Hollywood lifer Dickie Moore and even finds time to get booted off the stickball team by the local kids.

He’s founded on a gruff, insult-laden shtick, and then he comes right around and pulls out the new stove his girl’s been eyeing. Actions speak in ways belying his words. It’s how he shows his affection. In another scene, he swipes a zinnia when his neighbor (Walter Connally) isn’t looking and drops it in the soup Trina has lovingly prepared.

He makes a whole stink about it, grousing, then half-heartedly belittling while he half-smiles through the other side of his face. He does a little playacting before both Trina and Ira, before slipping the man a dime in the moment. It’s such a wonderful encapsulation of who this man is in a single crystallized moment. Like Whitman said, “I contain multitudes.”

But this is part of what made Borzage such a preeminent filmmaker because his stories can be distilled down to these remarkable moments showing off the acumen of someone well-versed in the syntax of visual storytelling carried over from the silent days. Where the images seem to evoke more than the mere sum of their parts. There is a depth and pregnant meaning to some of the more somber, starry-eyed sequences.

Bill is a kind of begrudging Joseph with Trina, his pure Madonna keeping all these things in her heart. Eventually, they get a common-law marriage presided over by Ira. In the ’30s, it might seem scandalous, but watching it play out is nothing of the sort. There’s not a lot of fanfare, and it means something deeply profound. Bill makes a vow to be with his “Whosit” for life, and whatever he might say to the contrary, there’s a sense he’ll make it stick.

Even when he half-heartedly robs a safe for some quick cash to leave his bride, he’s more concerned with the view outside the window and the wind-up doodad he’s going to take home to his girl. This is what his life revolves around, even as the world can be harsh, disrupting his reverie with a cruel twist of fate.

If you let it, Man’s Castle is the kind of unassuming film with the capacity to break into your own existence and remind you in all humility what it means to live radically in the mundane rythyms of life. It’s not about religious zealots or powerful leaders, but the kind of folk who have much to teach us about what’s actually important. If we look down at them or disregard what they have to teach us, we miss the whole point. Just as seeing this as a little film with a short running time is a grave mistake. This might be one of the biggest, grandest films you have the chance of experiencing.

The final images almost feel like a sculpted piece of marble or an illumination by one of the greats. Bill and Trina are in repose in a cattle car, glowing like saints, lowborn royalty. It’s not so much a gospel movie, even as Borzage is not an overtly Christian filmmaker, and yet the imagery and language of the beatitudes are hard to miss.

It’s an upside-down world where the last will be first. The meek shall inherit the earth, and the passionate forces to save the world can be found in the most common places, be it a manger or a cattle car.

4/5 Stars

Bad Girl (1931)

Posted on by
Reply

“Nobody knows if a person’s good or bad except the person themselves, and they won’t tell.”

Pre-Code has garnered a salacious reputation for the titillating nature of its content and themes, which all but fly in the face of what contemporary society perceives to be Classical Hollywood morality as imposed by Joseph Breen and his minions.

Frank Borzage is a director who was held in high regard throughout the ’20s and ’30s as a popular success and a maker of star-crossed, transcendent romances. For whatever reason, he is very rarely canonized as a great filmmaker. That’s a conversation for another day, but given his penchant for heartfelt romance, there’s an initial inclination to see his sensibilities fitting like oil and water with the uninhibited 1930s.

However, this proves far from the truth. Bad Girl is hardly neutered. It’s drenched in this newfound freedom of the 1930s. The opening shot is a bit of ironic trickery as we watch a wedding procession unfold. This is traditional matrimony playing out in front of us until we realize we’re actually in the middle of a high-end establishment, and these women march forward (without Spencer Tracy’s father of the bride to be seen) for the clientele looking on. Everything falls into place.

Girls dress in scanty clothes to pick up men right off the modeling floor. The men try their best lines only to be rebuffed with a foolproof excuse. The girls are streetwise enough to judge their intentions. Always ready and willing to shoot down a pickup line that’s getting too fresh. Still, relations between men and women are stripped down to their bare essentials with an almost primordial sense of mating and love.

Dorothy (Sally Eilers) and Eddie Collins (James Dunn) fit into this testy Depression-era ecosystem. In fact, she’s aghast when she learns there’s a man who won’t give her girlfriend the time of day. Everything she’s learned about men tells her this can’t be true, and so she takes a friendly bet from her pal Edna (Minna Gobell) that says she can’t get a sourpuss on deck to flirt.

She turns on the charm and whips out her ukulele only to meet with a hard-edged cynic (“Listen, sister, if you don’t want a guy to salute you, take down your flag.”). But pretty soon, it becomes apparent that Eddie’s caustic sarcasm and prevailing meanness are a kind of defense mechanism.

Somehow, it’s this very friction leading to sparks, and some kind of mutual inertia develops between them. Here, already, we have entered the solar system of Borzage, as he draws his two improbable lovers together into the throes of romance. Eddie sees her home one evening to her tenement and subsequently leaves her out in the rain, missing their next date because he’s too preoccupied with his work at a radio shop. Dorothy gives him a mouthful. It stings.

The beauty of their courtship is how the acerbic nature is never fully lost, but they shed some of their claws and fangs in isolated moments, only to be vulnerable with one another. Her demonstrative brother all but disowns her for being a harlot. Eddie proposes marriage, effectively making a fight out of popping the question as he does with everything in his life. That’s just his way as he fumbles clumsily at earnestness.

While I wouldn’t necessarily recommend such a belligerent and bickering foundation for marriage, it lends the movie its get-up-and-go as they look to carve out a humble life together. Because even if we don’t want them to fail, there’s a sense that such a tenuous foundation surely will not last. So many Hollywood melodramas have been cast this way to a maudlin effect.

There’s further drama in their young marital life with a baby on the way and Eddie trying to ensure they have ample money and shelter to make ends meet. Even as their context evolves, the prevailing mood is all Borzage. Love conquers all yet again. It’s spectacular and sprinkled with bits of goodness and human decency.

I’m reminded of fathers of various temperaments pacing the floors of the hospital waiting room. Eddie spends nights out boxing to make extra dough, and not knowing where he’s going makes her teary-eyed. His wife feels abandoned on the eve of her due date. Meanwhile, he’s taking a beating, and in the clinch, he confesses to his rival in the ring that he needs to make it a few rounds more. The other man obliges by helping to prop him up.

This is not the obvious reaction in an arena of brutality, nor in a Pre-Code film. But again, it gets its fire from other places and surreptitiously sheds its spikes in the most propitious moments. They somehow ambush you and maintain this paradox of cynical reality with a heart of gold. Obviously, the title Bad Girl is sensationalized because it’s the height of irony in the hands of Borzage. He takes what looks slightly risque on the outside and imbues it with such a wealth of sensitive affection.

He was a filmmaker made in the silent era, and yet he proves himself to be evergreen because Bad Girl could not be anything other than a talkie.  It’s a film about communication, even the lack thereof. Because that still counts. People like to talk. Gleeful. Angry. Belligerent. Soppy. And by the end, they’ve fired shots, professed love, shared hopes and dreams, and fallen more in love.

I’m still incredulous that Dorothy and Eddie are together at the end of the picture, but I am willing to accede to their conventional Hollywood ending because all roads seem to lead somewhere else. Given the circumstances, it feels like a greater narrative statement to keep them together. Is it unbelievable? Perhaps, but then again, love is an unbelievable force.

4/5 Stars

Miroirs No. 3

Posted on by
2

Christian Petzold is one of my favorite directors working today, and part of this might come from hearing his interviews. Because he’s such a charismatic, hilarious person to listen to. It might be surprising to those familiar with more than a few of his films. Still, his knowledge and love of movies are just so infectious.

Like many of us, he is plagued by the condition of always seeing movies through other movies. And this applies to his own films, too. Except he also has an aptitude for literature and music, while layering in ideas buried deep within the German cultural consciousness.

There is so much to like about his work. How he’s built out his own stock company, including long-term collaborators like Nina Hoss and Paula Beer. He’s distinctly reliable; his movies are always economical and still pregnant with so many worthwhile themes.

As best as I can describe it, they are grounded in the real world with real people, and still, somehow, we witness the kind of mysteries on screen only movies can provide. In the same way, you know, watching his movies, images have meaning, and they are there for a reason. We have mirrors, we have refractions, even dreams.

This movie’s inciting incident comes when a woman (Barbara Auer) overhears a nearby car accident and races to the scene. The young man (Philip Froissant) driving the car was killed instantly. His girlfriend, thrown from the car, lies nearby in shock, but almost without a scratch. It’s one of many uncanny events in the story.

The middle-aged woman, Barbara, comes to her aid. She’s going to fetch an ambulance, but this young music student, Laura (Paula Beer), asks her not to leave. From then on, they form a bit of a symbiotic relationship out of the wreckage.

A red sports car is meant to evoke the car crash in Contempt as much as the iconography of The Graduate. Why are those there exactly? It’s in conversation with film history. Jean-Luc Godard, Brigitte Bardot, Mike Nichols, and Dustin Hoffman. The music does the same, be it Ravel or Frankie Valli.

Miroirs No. 3 is a film that betrays so many elements of disrepair. A fence needing painting, a la Tom Sawyer. A dripping faucet gone kaput. A bicycle with a busted seat and an out-of-tune piano.

There is so much existing on the fringes, unexplained, even inscrutable, with the screen logic of a Hitchcock thriller in the countryside. We have very little background for Laura or Barbara, for that matter. Instead, we are offered the opportunity to watch, learn, and respond in kind.

Barbara brings Laura into her home and allows her to recuperate, doting over her with quiet compassion. At the same time, there is a felt absence around an unseen girl named Yelena and a noticeable dissolution of a family.

Why do the father (Matthias Brandt) and son (Enno Trebs) no longer live with the woman of the house? Instead, they come over and have dinner after a day of work at their nearby garage. It’s awkward and stunted, and then Laura comes in with a special meal, and they don’t quite know what to do or say.

So they eat together in silence before doing odd jobs around the home, like fixing the dishwasher. This is what they’re comfortable with, and it is another expression of care. Certainly, external injury and broken appliances need repairing, but there is simultaneous work needing to be done on the interior of these lives, Laura’s included.

I know Petzold stuck “The Night” by Frankie Valli in his film because he likes The Deer Hunter, and that film features “Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You.” It’s a sprawling working-class movie. The context feels so far away from what he is crafting, and yet there is a shared understanding of how this music can develop these incubated moments of joy amid trauma.

But Petzold also enjoys the act of people listening to music. There are no bits of business or shrouds of performance they can put up. At their very best, the actors are laid bare. It’s small, seemingly inconsequential, but it is a kind of visual exposition for us as understanding builds in an interlude between Laura and Max. Then, the darkness breaks in again, and the light is momentarily extinguished.

Despite this tension, I kept on thinking about what a different perspective Petzold gives to the modern domestic movie. With the likes of fellow auteur Bong Joon Ho, it’s easy to look at the landscape and distrust strangers as the parasites move in. Petzold upends this and makes us think maybe strangers can actually give something to us. Or there might be something deeper in need of excavation and then refurbishment.

At the same time, there are the reverberations of Vertigo and themes related to the remaking of people. One image in the place of another image, in this case, Laura for the unseen daughter. Except Laura has so much to offer on her own, and in many ways, down to the very last frame, this is her movie, thanks to the hypnotic presence of Beer.

It’s easy to call a movie like this minor, but it uses its space sagaciously, and it has bounties in the intermittent passages that a lot of larger spectacles never quite discover. Ironically, they don’t have time.

It feels like Petzold at his very best precisely because it fits in concert with all his work, and in feeling small, it suggests what it needs to in such a perplexing, even exciting way.

Watching Miroirs No. 3 is another stirring reminder of why I continue coming back to movies and why Petzold remains one of my modern-day favorites. If you are new to his filmography, please give his earlier work with Nina Hoss a watch, and if you have the opportunity, watch his interviews.

In the hands of some people, films can come off pretentious, but I appreciate the care and creativity the writer-director puts into every story he writes. There’s a personal spark to them, fully alive and made in the tradition of all his favorite films that came before. Because he is a fan just like us, and he lets this shine through everything he does.

4/5 Stars

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

Posted on by
Reply

Some Kind of Wonderful announces itself in all its ’80s glory with a montage of drums, synths, working-class grease monkeys tinkering on cars, and a pair of teens making out. There’s no doubt it’s a John Hughes movie, and though Howard Deutch was called back after Pretty in Pink to helm this one, the script has many of the same tenets of the earlier picture, albeit gender-flipped.

Keith (Eric Stolz) is a teen from the poor side of town, and if he weren’t so reticent, the way he watches Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson) and her boyfriend from a wistful distance would be creepy. Actually, it is creepy, but we’re supposed to empathize with him.

The other parts of his life are more relatable. He’s the eldest of three siblings. There’s the young brainiac, the annoying middle child, and he’s the moody older brother. His father keeps on hassling him about the college question; it’s well-meaning because his dad doesn’t want him to wind up selling tires like his old man.

Although he doesn’t have many friends, Keith’s closest companion is drumming tomboy Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson), who eschews high school convention, wearing her hair in a bleached pixie cut. Hughes is also having a gleeful time with the Rolling Stones in-jokes.

All around them, the halls are spilling over with eightiness — the hair, the clothes, and the prototypical tough guy scuzzballs. Every school needs at least one. This one (Elias Koteas) looks like a buff Danny DeVito in his Cuckoo’s Nest era.

We soon learn he’s not half bad. It’s the prima donna preps with their coiffed hair, smooth talk, and pretentious narcissism who are really the dregs. What makes it worse is that people like Hardy (Craig Sheffer) have all the toys and the girls — namely, Amanda Jones. Keith will always be subservient to these jerks in the social hierarchy, left to fill up their gas tanks.

And yet his daydreams about Amanda won’t abate. He fantasizes about being with her and uses any excuse just to be close to her. It backfires when he willfully finds himself in detention, although Hughes sidesteps a mini Breakfast Club set-up when she skips out after cajoling her teacher.

Keith is left doing time with the bruisers and weirdos, but it’s a strange camaraderie that builds within their ranks. The trash have to stick together, and it’s a delightful if mostly unforeseen development.

The other crucial relationship is between Keith and Watts because it’s painfully apparent that there is a sexual tension between them. This girl is devoted to him, and yet she allows her feelings to be stepped over as he seeks her advice in pursuing the object of his desire.

They undergo a practice kiss, complete with embrace and all the trimmings, played against Stephen Duffy’s “She Loves Me.” It’s both uncomfortable and a strange portent. We question him for being so asinine. Surely a real person would recognize this is a bit more than friendship. 

If you start poking holes around, you find the problems and some of Hughes usual shortcomings. Keith exists as a fairly blasé male protagonist who represents the writer’s limitations. The female characters feel like they could have been even more intriguing if the story were from their POV.

Watts is all twisted up inside with unrequited feelings and wounded to boot. Amanda is perceived as a preppy person, and yet she’s dealing with an unfaithful boyfriend and petty friends. And it can’t come down to Stoltz because if he was ditched from Back to The Future, he also gave a stellar performance as Rocky in Mask.

But for a film of his that’s very rarely talked about, Some Kind of Wonderful might be my underrated pick of the lot. It has to do with specific moments. The whole trajectory of the movie is building to a party at Hardy’s place.

Keith knows full well that it’s meant to be a set-up to humiliate him in front of Amanda as payback, but he wants to go anyway. He also spends all his college funds on a lavish gift for this girl. It sounds extravagant and crazy, and yet he does it with a clear-eyed lucidity. Nothing else matters, and this girl feels the weight of it all. She wasn’t able to bring herself to dump him, and now she’s swept up by his candor.

They have an uptight dinner date over caviar at an uber-fancy restaurant, and then he lines up some entertainment after hours at a local museum. It’s closed, but he has some connections and gets a little help on the inside. It’s a bit peculiar and pure Hughes romanticism as the two teens walk through the exhibition rooms in an echo of the tranquility of The Art Institute of Chicago in Ferris Bueller. Keith tells her, “This place is my church.”

I’m not sure what to make of these more ethereal interludes. Although by the time we get to Hardy’s party, we’re ready for a showdown. The most uncomfortable detail is how they refurbish Watts’s ride, and she becomes their chauffeur for the evening. Keith shows his obliviousness by effectively taking two girls out for the evening.

Hardy has his own fall from grace as Hughes goes away from a prototypical roughing-up in favor of something more symbolic. Keith wins the competition because he maintains his reputation and calls the other boy’s bluff. He feels as feeble and phony as all the rest. What’s more, Keith’s detention buddies show up and have his back, staking their flag with the indelible line, “This party is about to become a historical fact!”

The movie’s coasting down the mountain. Keith heads out the door with Amanda on his arm after she gives Hardy a couple of cathartic and well-deserved slaps. However, Keith’s so thick in the head he needs her to tell him that Watts loves him…

It’s a bit frantic as Hughes tries to right the wrong from his earlier picture. The movie’s recognition is the open secret of the whole story, and sure, it’s what we want as an audience, but it feels a bit rushed as Keith chases after the girl who always had feelings for him.

Ask me if it all fits together, and I’d say “No,” and yet as a casual watch, it does seem like Some Kind of Wonderful delivers on the ’80s teen movie experience with a few caveats. It makes me want to go out and watch more Mary Stuart Masterson because this is her movie. She stakes her claim to it through a persona brimming with pathos and charm.

3/5 Stars

Easy Living (1949)

Posted on by
Reply

Movies like Easy Living would eventually go extinct with the advent and further proliferation of television. Now these kinds of programs would exist on cable or maybe streamers. It’s 1 hour and 17 minutes with solid stars, fairly impressive production values, and yet it’s certainly filling a niche opposite big-budget fare.

There’s an agreeable nostalgia to watching the dying breed of programmer. It opens and feels a bit like a Leave It to Beaver episode. Pete Wilson (Victor Mature) invites himself over to the home of his friend Tim McCarr (Sonny Tufts) and his good-natured wife Penny (Jeff Donnell). Their place in the story isn’t too prominent, but they give us two things. We see their domestic bliss in contrast to what Pete has, and their friendship primes us to like him.

Because Pete is a star quarterback for the Chiefs football team. Tim is one of his teammates, and they have a shared camaraderie through their profession. There’s also a time capsule aspect of professional football as we enter Hollywood’s version of a locker room from a very particular era.

The salaries are lower, the equipment looks archaic, and there’s only one Black player on the team. Some viewers might be surprised by his inclusion, and it deserves some acknowledgment. “Benny,” who we see getting treatment, is portrayed by none other than Kenny Washington. He not only played alongside Jackie Robinson at UCLA, but he and future actor Woody Strode would become the first men to integrate professional football in Los Angeles (even before Jackie broke the baseball color barrier in 1947).

If I get my dates right, he had already retired in 1949, but his presence comes with a wealth of important context. It’s also a bit more gratifying seeing him catching passes in the scrimmage than watching, say, Althea Gibson in The Horse Soldiers or Satchel Paige in The Wonderful Country. He gets to show off his excellence.

Milling about the locker room, there’s the unmistakable voice of Dick Erdman as equipment hand Buddy. Paul Stewart and Jack Paar make appearances, and the always reliable Lloyd Nolan is the team’s head coach. Anne (Lucille Ball) is a woman in the front office who’s pragmatic and signs the checks — it does feel like a kind of precursor for her work as Desilu studio head. I

t’s almost unnecessary to say she puts on the role seamlessly, though Hollywood had yet to recognize the breadth of her gifts. It would take radio and then television for the American public to realize she was one of the nation’s finest comediennes.

Thinking about it, Easy Living is one of the only films I know documenting this time in sports culture. You always hear anecdotal stories of ball players being bank tellers or car salesmen during the off-season to pay the bills before the days of gargantuan contracts. Here is a film about this kind of life. It’s a hard life for those who don’t have the market value and stability of Pete, and the team’s in a scrap for the playoffs.

Even the most casual viewer might be confused to see the squad practicing with horns on their helmets — as this was the actual Rams squad — though all the exterior and other scoreboards label the team as the Chiefs. For sports fans, it’s almost bizarre. You would think a script coordinator would care about some semblance of authentic continuity.

As much as I’m fond of Jacques Tourneur as a craftsman, you can imagine the milieu is far away from what the Frenchman was comfortable with or even mildly interested in. He’s out of his depth, though it is at its best when he is creating this assumed reality around Mature’s character.

From everything we gather about him, Pete’s in the driver’s seat. He has a gorgeous wife (Lizabeth Scott) who’s ventured out with her own design business, Liza Inc. Scott did well in some smoky femme fatale roles. Somehow, it seems like the film could have conceded to both her and Tourneur’s best impulses by taking on a more fatalistic approach.

As it stands, the drama feels a bit tedious as Mature receives a dire diagnosis about his health, presented to him by Jim Bachus, no less. The next step is figuring out how to forge ahead in football and love before life catches up with him. It’s ultimately the characters and relationships around him that feel the most worthwhile, from the hesitant love of Ball’s character to his friendships with the McCarrs, or even teammates who are given the chopping block.

In fact, all roads seem to be suggesting Ball is better and more understanding of Pete than his wife. Indiscretions aside, you can see the film putting them together, and yet the ending itself feels tacked on. What’s more, it’s disconcerting to watch our hero take back his wife with a few good, hard smacks. It’s a tenuous foundation to build a marriage on.

Since the film never quite feels like out-and-out noir, it would have been intriguing to dig into that darkness a bit more, especially if it was to seal the final act with a more cynical ending. Boxing is a lot easier to twist into a crime picture — we have so many prime examples — but I couldn’t help thinking what Easy Living could be if Tourneur was able to fashion it into something more morose and cynical like The Set-Up.

One last nitpick. Even with the inclusion of a rendition of the song “Easy Living,” it still barely makes up for giving the movie such an innocuous title. Perhaps it goes to show Jean Arthur with a fur coat is greater than Victor Mature with a football. Preston Sturges’ singular writing might have something to do with it, too.

3/5 Stars

Married to The Mob (1988)

Posted on by
Reply

Although he’s not always easy to pin down across his oeuvre, Jonathan Demme’s collaboration with Tak Fujimoto in Married to the Mob elicits a visual style that can most easily be married with their work together in Something Wild. It feels free and easy yet still deeply empathetic through those trademark POV close-ups. In fact, it takes the gangster motif of Ray Liotta from the previous film a bit further.

One of the virtues of Married to the Mob is how it never takes itself too seriously, and it’s this awareness that makes it a pleasure to be a part of. Demme had some kinship with Martin Scorsese, and it’s like he’s readily exploring the other director’s usual milieu without totally giving himself over to the gratuitous nature of it all. Despite an opening hit on a train, plenty of gunplay, and the general immersion in the mob world, he’s not going to fully succumb to it.

Scorsese is fascinated by the dichotomy of the sacred and profane he found in his own boyhood community. However, Demme’s not about to make Mean Streets or even Goodfellas. Instead, he focuses his energies on someone who, in the predominantly patriarchal world, would normally be pushed to the periphery. It seems entirely fitting that he would focus on a mob wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), married into the organization while growing increasingly disillusioned with the lifestyle.

Her husband is one of the local kingpin’s cronies. Their son has been conning all the local kids in their affluent neighborhood out of their pocket change. There are firearms in the junk drawer, and furniture purloined from who knows where. Her husband’s satisfied with the bottom line. She has a conscience and desires a better life for her boy. It all goes back to the influence of one man: His name is Tony the Tiger.

Dean Stockwell, the journeyman who began as a child actor in Classic Hollywood and then famously ran in circles with Dennis Hopper during the counterculture era, left the industry behind only to come back quite spectacularly.

Paris, Texas, Blue Velvet, and even Quantum Leap are hard to forget, and yet, added to the list, you must include Tony the Tiger in Married to The Mob. He’s having so much fun relishing the part of a heavy, and it radiates out of him.

There’s hardly a need to go into the particulars because we’re all familiar with the archetype, and yet when he finally shows up in the movie, there’s something inimitable about him. It’s not what he is but how he does it that matters most.

He has a weakness for pretty girls. He’ll even kill for them, going so far as to knock off a rival. He’s ruthless, and in the same breath, he has a certain moral code of conduct. He believes in family and taking care of those who are loyal to him. Perhaps even those whom he’s hurt. After Angela’s husband is killed, he vows to take care of the man’s grieving widow, although his reach is a bit more hands-on than she would like.

When she gets up and leaves her present life behind, selling all their worldly possessions, and relocating her son to a much humbler neighborhood, it gives the movie something more. This is where it becomes a hybrid rom-com, and Matthew Modine and Michelle Pfeiffer stir up their chemistry.

They meet in an elevator in a grungy apartment building. He’s keeping surveillance on her, and she’s trying to get away from the mob. This is the subtext. She has the forthright honesty to ask him out on a date, and he accepts. It’s easy to suspect his motives, and yet there’s a sense he’s game and obviously smitten once he gets to know her.

This isn’t a rehash of Notorious, where the agent falls in love with the girl even as he belittles her reputation. It’s a lot more innocent and humane than that (although they are still bugging her apartment). We know he must fess up eventually.

Of course, it must hit some inflection point in their relationship. His superior gets involved, she finds out who he really is, and Tony is on the run after an attempt on his life. He carts Angela off to Miami for a weekend as he does his best to dodge his own jealous wife.

Everything must inevitably go wrong for him, but thankfully, it’s just as much about the comedy as it is hammering home the crime drama. Demme never allows us to lose affection for any of these characters, really.

If there’s any mild complaint, it’s only that the movie resolves itself quite easily. But again, it’s not looking to be The Departed. This point of view is not of interest, and so in its send-up, we get something that’s tonally so different and rather endearing.

With each subsequent film I watch of Demme, I’ve been increasingly smitten. Because you start with something like Silence of The Lambs only to feel out the rest of his filmography to find so many countless gems. These are movies with eccentricities, comic verve, wildly phenomenal soundtracks, and an eye for characters (and actors) who would often be disregarded by other directors. Michelle Pfeiffer’s Angela and then Dean Stockwell feel like a case and point in this movie.

4/5 Stars

Claudia Cardinale: The Facts of Murder (1959) and Bell’Antonio (1960)

Posted on by
Reply

With the passing of Claudia Cardinale in 2025, I took it upon myself to watch some of her movies that I had not seen before. Below, I included capsule reviews of two of her earlier performances:

The Facts of Life (1959)

At first, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the picture. I thought it might be a comedia italiana or maybe a crime picture, but one in the vein of Big Deal on Madonna Street (Claudia Cardinale turned up in that one as well). However, the Facts of Murder feels like a more traditional police procedural, mystery story, albeit told in the Italian milieu.

Two events become crucial to the plot. First, a burglary in broad daylight where the culprit manages to flee the crowded scene without being apprehended. The police are called to investigate

In the midst of their investigation, a body is found, a person now dead next door. As the detective notes, lightning doesn’t strike twice in the same place, and yet in this case it has. There’s something rather intriguing about the lead investigator being played by director Pietro Germi (Divorced Italian Style, Seduced and Abandoned).

It took me some time to catch on, but even though it’s not a flashy part, the role does hold the picture together because he must drive the story forward, interacting with all sorts of folks and beginning to decipher what actually occurred.

There are a number of possible suspects, including a doctor cousin (Franco Fabrizi) who, at the very least, is a selfish opportunist. Then there is the spouse of the deceased, who is understandably shaken up and initially sympathetic, though he has the most to gain. There’s also something he’s keeping hidden from the authorities.

Eventually, the police round up the hands that had a part in the theft, but they still have to solve the second part that has eluded them thus far. A film such as this can so often be dominated by the men, and yet there are three performances from the actresses worthy of note

Claudia Cardinale has a fairly small but crucial role as a faithful maid to Eleonora Rossi Drago’s character. And Cristina Gajoni shows up at the end of the picture in a notable part that holds a lot of sway over the story. However, it is the indelible image of Cardinale sprinting down the dirt road after the receding car with tears in her eyes that stays with me.

If her career weren’t so ripe with many memorable films, it could just have easily been a moment she was remembered for. As is, The Facts of Murder was just the beginning of an illustrious career.

4/5 Stars

Bell’Antonio (1960)

My first inclination is that Marcello Mastroianni is technically too old for a role such as this (he purportedly joined mere days before the production started as a favor to the director). Yet, there’s also really no one else to play this role, as it stands as a romantic ideal. Antonio, the title character, is almost a mythic figure in his local community. He comes back to his parents’ home from Rome.

His reputation precedes him with stories of women throwing themselves at him and wives of government ministers left smitten. Whether it’s blown out of proportion or not, we certainly see some evidence of his romantic sway. It’s almost like everyone else wants to prove for themselves if the stories are true, and so they build and play up the mystique. You would think Antonio is the one cultivating his image, but it feels like he wants to be rid of it.

There are these social layers to the movie, also.  We witness men in power, and they have a desire for women who know how to trade in their feminine wiles. The film is transposed from a novel set in fascist Italy, and these scenes bear this out the most obviously (it felt reminiscent of scenes in a later picture like The Cremator).

There is the brokering of social transactions even between families like crusty barons or haughty royalty of generations gone by. Initially, Antonio is vehemently opposed to the union, only to receive a picture of the woman his parents have orchestrated for him to marry. He can’t stop looking at it. She’s remarkable!

In her own way, an aura is built around Barbara as well, just like with Antonio. Thankfully, for the sake of the movie, she is portrayed by none other than Claudia Cardinale. They are eventually wed as the social script suggests. However, status and social economy are, again, predicated on virility or at least the projection of it.

The society seems to idolize womanizers even as much as they condone a narrative of men sowing their wild oats. This includes Antonio’s father. And sadly, we see the hypocrisy of the church within these same power structures invested in the letter of the law and not the heart or posture behind it.

The punchline of the movie is the fact that the church will annul the marriage because they haven’t consummated it and gotten pregnant within 12 months. It’s a catastrophe on all fronts! Compared to how they treat infidelity and affairs, it makes one queasy.

Pier Paolo Pasolini was one of the architects of the script, and if it’s not too presumptuous, it’s easy to see him bleed through. The movie feels like a bleak precursor to the likes of Divorce Italian Style and Seduced in Abandoned because there’s no hint of comedy in the same way as those subsequent satires. Everything is done with the sincerest of straight faces. And yet the way it burns is an indictment against the backward mores of the society we see before us.

3.5/5 Stars