Category Archives: William Wyler

1959 Films, Charlton Heston, Drama, Epic, Religious, William Wyler

Ben-Hur-1959

Leave a comment

Ben-Hur-1959

Director William Wyler

Starring Charlton Heston, Stephen Boyd, Haya Harareet

Scott’s Review #1,265

Reviewed June 9, 2022

Grade: A

One of the many pleasures of watching Ben-Hur (1959) is to marvel at the extensive cinematic brilliance involved by the entire cast and crew.

To say it’s a spectacle is not enough and it’s a must-see.

It had the largest budget ($15.175 million), as well as the largest sets built, of any film produced at the time. That allowed for enormous spending to create one of the most lavish and grandiose films ever made.

I shudder to think of how powerful it was to see this film on the large screen in a movie theater and the sheer mesmerizing quality it had on audiences.

I’ve anticipated viewing the film for years and finally did. Why I waited so long is beyond me. It does not disappoint and the extravagance is immeasurable. I sat back in awe at the many aspects of the film, way before CGI was created, that make it as impressive in 2022 as it was over sixty years ago.

Charlton Heston plays a Palestinian Jew named Judah who is battling the Roman empire at the time of Christ. He becomes involved in a vicious feud with his ambitious boyhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd).

Their hatred culminates in an exciting yet vicious chariot race.

Condemned to life as a slave, Judah swears vengeance against Messala and escapes, later crossing paths with a gentle prophet named Jesus who helps Judah save his family despite his death.

The film made a household name out of Heston and besides its big budget is legendary for its use of homoeroticism and an unspoken love story between two men who are at first the best of friends and who later become bitter rivals.

The film had several screenwriters and if looked at closely there is some uneven storytelling that is largely overlooked by the enormous spectacle of the finished product. Gore Vidal who was openly gay insisted on a homosexual interlude, conspicuously of course, between Judah and Messala.

Giggle worthy to those in the know is that Boyd played his character as a spurned gay lover of Heston’s, with Heston unaware of the underlying romantic angle. This is rumored to be because Heston couldn’t handle it had he known.

This knowledge made me enjoy the subtext of the scenes between the two men even more than I should have.

As if to prove the above point, the written romance between Judah and Esther (Haya Harareet) doesn’t much chemistry and I viewed them more like brother and sister or good friends.

Other scenes of shimmering, muscular men sitting around in towels are further proof of Ben-Hur’s homoeroticism.

These tidbits of juicy intrigue provide tingles but the main draw is the famous chariot scene which is as exciting as an action scene gets in cinema. The outdoor arena, packed with thousands of onlookers, provides a perfect setup for the round-and-round racetrack as dozens of horses are whipped into a dizzying frenzy, going faster and faster.

The peril is prominent as numerous riders drop to their death, mangled into pieces from being stampeded by the horses.

Other sequences like the leper colony and the crucifixion of Jesus are beautiful and astounding.

Director, William Wyler, a heavy hitter at the time with gems like Mrs. Miniver (1942) and The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) easily usurps those excellent films with Ben-Hur.

It won eleven of its twelve Oscar nominations and employed ten thousand extras!

Ben-Hur (1959) is the definition of an epic film. Expensive and expansive, the breathtaking chariot scene is one of the best I’ve ever seen in a film.

Not feeling dated it’s a marvel in exquisiteness and magnificence.

Oscar Nominations: 11 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-William Wyler (won), Best Actor in a Leading Role-Charlton Heston (won), Best Actor in a Supporting Role-Hugh Griffith (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction-Set Direction-Color (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design-Color (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Sound Recording (won), Best Music-Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Special Effects (won)

1968 Films, Barbra Streisand, Musical, Omar Sharif, William Wyler

Funny Girl-1968

Leave a comment

Funny Girl-1968

Director William Wyler

Starring Barbra Streisand, Omar Sharif

Scott’s Review #1,022

Reviewed May 11, 2020

Grade: B+

Barbra Streisand won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her outstanding portrayal of Fanny Brice in Funny Girl (1968). She reprises a role that she made famous on the Broadway stage, bringing her to the big screen.

The role is vitally important and presents a great message, teaching viewers that an unconventional woman with great talents can succeed in show biz, leaving prim and proper starlets salivating with jealousy.

Features the classic tunes “People” and “Don’t Rain on My Parade” as well as the title track.

Fanny (Streisand) is an unhappy Jewish New Yorker, living in semi-poverty and dreaming of the big time. Her mother (Kay Medford) and others in the community try to persuade Fanny to live a normal life far from the hot and judgmental lights of the stage, but she will have none of it.

Finding success on her terms in Ziegfeld Follies throughout World War I, she also finds love and passion with the suave Nick Arnstein (Sharif) following her debut performance.

The story is loosely based on the life and career of the real Fanny and her stormy relationship with entrepreneur and gambler, Nick.

Taking nothing away from Sharif, who is more than adequate, the film belongs to Streisand. Despite being a novice, producers wanted nobody other than Streisand in the role since she had hit a home run in the stage version.

A brief consideration to have Shirley MacLaine star in hindsight seems laughable and unimaginable.

Sharif’s suave and dangerous swarthy characterization balances perfectly with Streisand’s naivety and innocence. The Jewish female and the Muslim male also must have raised an eyebrow or two at the time.

Streisand is a breath of fresh air in a role that could be said to mimic real life and reflects film in 1968 and beyond. Glamour girls were the height of fashion throughout the 1950s and 1960s where looks sometimes usurped talent.

With the lifting of the Hollywood Code, grittier and dirtier roles were to be found for women. Streisand, as Fanny, proves that a self-proclaimed ugly duckling can rise to the top of the cream.

Refusing to get a nose job or otherwise alter her appearance or name, she mirrors Fanny in many ways, inspiring both women and men to be themselves to achieve truth.

Director William Wyler, no stranger to Hollywood success with pictures such as Mrs. Miniver (1942) and The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) knows how to pace and balance a film nicely and how to present a cheery and splendid offering nicely, careful not to make the film too lightweight either.

Comic scenes such as when Fanny upstages everyone and prances around the stage as a pregnant newlywed becoming the talk of the town are the best ones.

The film succeeds when it is fun.

Sharif does his best with a small role, surprising given the importance of the character, but the dramatic moments are not the best scenes. They are okay and certainly not overacted by the stars, but do not work as well as when Streisand belts out “People” on a lonely sidewalk.

The issue is that Streisand is Funny Girl and even prominent actors like Sharif never had a chance. The one exception is Medford who goes toe to toe with Streisand in every scene with gusto and humor.

Funny Girl (1968) may suffer from a few overly melodramatic moments that slow it down, especially concerning the main romance, but the prominent message is one of staying true to one’s colors.

Refusing to be influenced by elders or even her beau, Fanny is to be heralded as an inspiration to all viewers. With delightful musical numbers and zesty wardrobe pieces, the film has a cheery and fun veneer, but more lies beneath the surface.

Whether the intention is a sing-along experience or a deeper meaning, the film has something for everyone.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actress-Barbra Streisand (won), Best Supporting Actress-Kay Medford, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation, Best Song Original for the Picture-“Funny Girl”, Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

1941 Films, Bette Davis, Drama, Herbert Marshall, Patricia Collinge, Teresa Wright, William Wyler

The Little Foxes-1941

Leave a comment

The Little Foxes-1941

Director William Wyler

Starring Bette Davis, Herbert Marshall, Teresa Wright

Scott’s Review #866

Reviewed February 14, 2019

Grade: A-

Candidly speaking any film starring the ravishing and dynamic Bette Davis is worthy of a watch but The Little Foxes (1941) was released during the Hollywood legend’s heyday and the actress elicits a strong character portrayal.

The film is a complex story of Southern scheming and contains enough intrigue to keep the viewer compelled after a slow start.

Filmed in black and white and due to its age the film quality, is not the best the story nonetheless builds in suspense, especially during the final thirty minutes. This culminates in a frantic conclusion with Davis deservedly taking center stage.

Southern matriarch Regina Hubbard Giddens (Davis) is sophisticated and angry. The female member of an affluent family in a time when men rule the roost and her brothers control the family money leaving her with little power.

Living nearby, Benjamin (Charles Dingle) and Oscar (Carl Benton Reid) flaunt their wealth while Regina struggles for every crumb she can get. After the family embarks on a deal to profit from a cotton mill merger Regina schemes to score riches by any means necessary.

The southern setting with luxurious estates and more than its share of cultural and cuisine flavors serves The Little Foxes well with a palpable atmospheric style. With an antebellum, white dress, grits, and brandy featured, the goodness and girth of a proper way of living are featured.

Prominent black characters exist, primarily serving as the household help or various service roles to white folks, for 1941 this was considered progressive for studios to feature minorities so heavily and must be praised for the inclusiveness.

Throughout the run of the film, I felt a push/pull whether I sympathized with Regina or despised the character.

Comparisons to Gone With the Wind (1939) entered my mind many having to do with Regina herself. Flirtatious when she wants to be coquettish to fit her needs, she is a cross between Scarlett and Melanie.

I even began to champion the character at one point and the plight of a female in the early 1900s with the impossibility of being taken seriously as a businesswoman.

The Little Foxes is brazen in that it champions a strong and determined female character. Regina will not merely stand behind any man but chooses to stand on her own two feet.

Cinema in the 1940s is known for branching out female characters as independent and self-sufficient and this film certainly serves as a prime example of this movement.

In the film’s final act there can be no denying the true colors of Regina and any sympathy or comparisons to the characters are ultimately dismissed diabolically. The character is faced with the choice to either do the right thing and save a life or cross the line and let a beloved character die.

When she chooses the latter the scene is pivotal and filled with emotion. She has made an important decision that she can never turn back from.

Director William Wyler shoots the astounding Davis in myriad ways all central to the character’s particular motivations. Appearing determined and driven in some scenes and downright devious in others Davis is masterful at doing so much with her enormous and expressionistic eyes.

The Little Foxes portrays her as a complex and unrelenting character tailor-made for Davis’s talents.

To say that Regina gets away with murder is an unfair statement. Wyler makes it clear that despite benefiting financially the character is forever shrouded in suspicion by her brother and her daughter (Teresa Wright) who decidedly embarks on a new life in Chicago never to see her mother again.

This leaves Regina fearful and lonely in her grand house.

The Little Foxes (1941) succeeds as a showcase for the emerging talents of stalwart Bette Davis as well as a good, solid drama. Schemes, conspiracy, and backstabbing are prevalent themes, but the film also contains a melancholy subtext of loneliness and fear.

Appropriately Ms. Davis is awarded the final shot, a closeup that reveals the star power she had begun to muster as her career was in full swing.

Oscar Nominations: Outstanding Motion Picture, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Bette Davis, Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Collinge, Teresa Wright, Best Screenplay, Best Scoring of a Dramatic Picture, Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White, Best Film Editing

1946 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Dana Andrews, Drama, Fredric March, Harold Russell, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, William Wyler

The Best Years of Our Lives-1946

Leave a comment

The Best Years of Our Lives-1946

Director William Wyler

Starring Frederic March, Myrna Loy

Scott’s Review #858

Reviewed January 20, 2019

Grade: A

Many films emerged during the 1940s that depicted horrific events occurring during the violence of World War II. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) is the first film to focus on the aftermath of the war and the lasting psychological effects placed upon soldiers and their loved ones.

The film may teeter toward the soap opera territory. Still, it is powerful, dramatic, tender, and heartfelt, allowing its audience to experience the challenges of those who serve their country following their service.

Director William Wyler, who also created the similarly themed Mrs. Miniver (1942) again treads into the family drama genre, but this time stages the drama in small-town America rather than outside London.

While Mrs. Miniver focuses on the ravages of the existing war, he chooses to delve into the after-effects that offer more range and complicated situations. The result is a heftier and more cerebral experience.

The story revolves around three United States servicemen attempting to readjust to civilian life upon their return home from the battlegrounds of World War II. Homer (Harrold Russell), Al (Frederic March), and Fred (Dana Andrews) all reside in the same small town of Boone City, USA.

The men were acquaintances but did not serve together in the war as each had a different rank and duties.

Al has the most going for him with a loving wife Milly (Myrna Loy) two children in tow and a stable household. He is promoted to Vice President of a local bank, but despite this achievement is a heavy drinker and prone to anger.

He is enraged at the poor treatment of veterans trying to obtain bank loans and in the United States for hindering veterans’ attempts at rebuilding their lives. His adult daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright) is a prominent character as she begins a flirtation with Fred.

Fred is unskilled and must return to his menial job as a drugstore soda jerk much to his selfish wife Marie’s (Virginia Mayo) chagrin. Homer has lost both hands in the war and wears mechanical hooks for hands rendering him insecure and troubled.

His days as a respected high school football quarterback have sadly ended though he has unflinching support from his fiance, Wilma (Cathy O’Donnell).

The trials and tribulations of many of the characters begin to mount as one character fights with another over a dispute about the meaning of the war. Another character plots to ruin a marriage and embark on a plan to rescue a character from another.

The plots run the risk of being too daytime drama-like except that the underlying point of the troubled veterans is always at the forefront and their challenges to be taken seriously.

A poignant moment is a crucial scene when one character admits that they have “given up the best years of my life”, a frustrated testimonial and proof that war can ravage not only the lives of the veterans but of their loved ones.

Wyler pulls no punches in harboring a clear message to the film. The viewer will undoubtedly ponder the film’s title, “The Best Years of Our Lives” and realize that this is open to different interpretations and not only a positive connotation.

The most powerful aspect of The Best Years of Our Lives is that actor Harold Russell, playing a military veteran was a disabled military veteran. This realism of a man portraying himself and the terrible effects the war had on him makes his character my favorite and highly empathetic.

His Academy Award wins for Best Supporting Actor are emotional and deserving as a win for Best Picture and seven other wins.

Featuring a topic just beginning to gain awareness post World War II, The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) is a grand Hollywood film containing all the trimmings of good classic drama.

Under the surface, the film is dripping with relevance, social commentary, and the psychological trauma that veterans face upon returning home and how some are damaged beyond repair. The rich American-style film remains a worthy watch on the cusp of nearly a century since production wrapped.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-William Wyler (won), Best Actor-Fredric March (won), Best Supporting Actor- Harold Russell (won), Best Screenplay (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Sound Recording, Best Film Editing (won)

1942 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Dame May Whitty, Drama, Greer Garson, Henry Travers, Romantic Drama, Teresa Wright, Walter Pidgeon, War, William Wyler

Mrs. Miniver-1942

Leave a comment

Mrs. Miniver-1942

Director William Wyler

Starring Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon

Scott’s Review #841

Reviewed December 13, 2018

Grade: A-

Released in 1942 amid the horrific World War II, Mrs. Miniver (1942) was a smash hit, winning over audiences concerned with the troubled and uncertain times.

Decades later the film does not age as well as other similarly themed films, but still entertains and tells a good story with an important theme.

The film is nestled in the war drama genre with romance. The film won numerous Oscars the year of its release including Best Picture and star Greer Garson winning for Best Actress.

The story is told from the perspective of an affluent British family and the struggles they face to keep things together during growing peril. The focus mostly remains on an unassuming housewife, Kay Miniver (Garson).

The supporting players do much to flesh out the film with wonderful performances by Walter Pidgeon, Teresa Wright, and Henry Travers as Clem Miniver, Carol Beldon, and Mr. Ballard, respectively.

The direction by William Wyler is astounding and adds to the perfectly crafted ambiance and homey details.

The family lives a comfortable life in a whimsical village outside of London. Quite idealized, they own a large garden and a motorboat on the River Thames.

Along with Kay and Clem, their three children of varying ages and their housekeeper and cook reside with them. Besides the parents, the central couple is son Vin (Richard Ney) and the prominent Carol (Wright), the pair initially disagree on politics, but finally, fall madly in love.

As the soap-opera-style family situations continue the war grows closer and closer to their house.

As Mrs. Miniver progresses, Vin enlists in the army to assist with war efforts, a German Nazi breaks into the Miniver house, a central character dies, and bombs and planes crash.

Through it all, Kay remains stoic and takes the family through challenging situations adding much melodrama to the film. The woman’s journey and resolve to keep everything and everyone intact is at the core.

The film is mainly a family drama with the Minivers and the townspeople experiencing trials and tribulations. In this way, Mrs. Miniver risks being a one-trick pony, albeit an emotional and teary-eyed one.

The rich characteristics and the polished nature make the film more than it ought to be and the superlative cast and production values and the timeliness of the film’s release undoubtedly made it what it was in 1942.

In present times, however, Mrs. Miniver seems diminished in importance and relevance with a sappy and overly sentimental feel, World War II in the distant past, and several other wars come and gone.

Wyler carefully packaged the film to hit every emotion from the bombastic musical score to the proper English characters, to the comic relief housekeeper.

The film is a giant Hollywood production, but perhaps a bit too perfect to age with any zest or reason to watch more than once.

The film might be better remembered for its strong female lead. Told from Kay’s perspective, it was unusual in 1942 for a film (especially with a war theme) not to have the story from the male point of view. Still refreshing in 2018, this quality was downright groundbreaking at the time.

Kay stays strong and proud through the ravages of war that are closing in on her family with unbridled boldness and nary a simpering quality. An early champion for strong, female-driven characters and in a smaller way, Wright’s Carol is also a muscled female role model.

Mrs. Miniver (1942) is a well-crafted film of its time that displays lavish production values and strong characters worthy of admiration.

For a glimpse back into the 1940s capsule, especially for those fans of good, solid drama, the film is a major win. There are no major flaws to harp on, but the overall piece has not aged especially well and other similar films (Casablanca, 1942) are more memorable.

Oscar Nominations: 6 wins-Outstanding Motion Picture (won), Best Director-William Wyler (won), Best Actor-Walter Pidgeon, Best Actress-Greer Garson (won), Best Supporting Actor-Henry Travers, Best Supporting Actress-Teresa Wright (won), Dame May Whitty, Best Screenplay (won), Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing, Best Special Effects

1953 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Comedy, Gregory Peck, Romantic Comedy, William Wyler

Roman Holiday-1953

Leave a comment

Roman Holiday-1953

Director William Wyler

Starring Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn

Scott’s Review #694

Reviewed October 26, 2017

Grade: B+

Roman Holiday, released in 1953, was a box office hit, pleasing legions of fans at the time, in addition to being a critical darling.

The film reaped a series of Academy Award nominations including the coveted Best Actress statuette for a young Audrey Hepburn.

A happy, uplifting story, the film is not diminished by Cinderella in the reverse storyline but rather is a charming, romantic experience immersing itself in pleasing locales of the cultural city of Rome.

Admittedly, Roman Holiday is an example of a film in which I preferred the latter half to the former but succeeds in setting the bar high in the romantic comedy genre.

Our heroine, Princess Ann (Hepburn), has it all glamorous life, gorgeous clothes, and assistants tending to her every need and want. However, she is unhappy and trapped in a rigid life that lacks freedoms or decisions of any kind, to say nothing of the fun she catches glimpses of party-goers reveling in each night from her expansive palace window.

Simply put, she is lonely and unfulfilled.

When she sees an opportunity to escape her life for a night of fun, she snatches it and stumbles upon an American reporter, Joe Bradley (Peck). The two, despite differing backgrounds, fall madly in love with one another.

At first, I found something missing in the film and the chemistry between Peck and Hepburn did not immediately embrace me. As the duo meets, Ann, drunk from sleeping pills, and Joe being the ultimate nice guy and allowing her to sleep in his apartment, the story seems somewhat lagging and lacking a good punch.

The pair drive around the city of Rome on a scooter and act childish and silly, Ann acting girlish because fun is an entirely new concept to her. At this point, the film was reasonable but little more than a farce.

As Roman Holiday plugs along, and especially through the final act, the film sheds a bit of its light skin and becomes much more poignant and meaningful.

Ann and Joe, while in love, realize they will not and cannot embark on a fairy tale ending, which truthfully, would have made Roman Holiday little more than a standard romantic comedy we have all seen before- you know the type- boy meets girl, roadblocks persist, boy whisks girl away and rides off into the sunset together.

Roman Holiday, while not a dark film, goes much deeper than a transparent, predictable ending.

Related to this point is that Roman Holiday contains a realness that sets it apart from many films undoubtedly drawn from it, but unlike this film, leans into contrived or predictable situations.

As Joe and Ann fall in love, the audience falls in love with them. The main plot hurdle- Joe’s temptation to profit off of Ann once he realizes her true identity by way of a sought-after interview- is earnestly done with a lack of any pretension.

Other similar films ought to take note of this.

Certainly, the historic and culturally relevant locales of Rome are a major sell of the film and, if these scenes were shot on a movie set, a lack of authenticity would surely have emerged.

Instead, we are treated to such fabulous location sequences as the Colosseum, the Tiber River, the Trevi Fountain, and Piazza Venezia. Such a delight is the long sequence of Roman escapades as Joe and Ann traverse the city in giddy bliss.

Enjoyable is how Roman Holiday contains no real villain of any sort.

Nowhere to be found are any physical hurdles to the duo’s relationship- no outside forces plotting to keep Joe and Ann apart, other than merely their lifestyles. Ann is in a world of royalty and pampering, but Joe is an everyman, so the chances of living happily ever after are slim to none.

Film lovers intent on discovering one of the early romantic comedies- one could argue that It Happened One Night (1934) was the first- ought to watch a feel-good, Hollywood classic from 1953 that is rich in honesty, good humor, and raw emotion without being too much of a heavy melodrama.

After a middling start, the film finishes with gusto.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Audrey Hepburn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Eddie Albert, Best Screenplay, Best Story (won), Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black and White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

1961 Films, Audrey Hepburn, Drama, Fay Bainter, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Miriam Hopkins, Shirley MacLaine, William Wyler

The Children’s Hour-1961

Leave a comment

The Children’s Hour-1961

Director William Wyler

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner

Scott’s Review #620

Reviewed March 3, 2017

Grade: B+

The Children’s Hour is one of the earliest films to center around an LGBT theme and the subsequent scandals that the subject matter would provoke in the innocent year of 1961-pre Civil Rights and pre-Sexual Revolution.

However, since the film was made in the year that it was, homosexuality was presented as something dark and bad rather than something to be accepted or even embraced.

Still, the film, and director William Wyler are brave enough to recognize the topic- with limitations to spin a compelling film rich with well-written characters and some soap-opera style drama.

The Children’s Hour is based on a play from 1934 and written by Lillian Hellman.

The setting of the film appears to be somewhere in New England, perhaps Connecticut or Massachusetts, though the film never really says the exact area.

College friends Karen (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha (Shirley MacLaine) open a private all-girls boarding school, catering to the affluent community they reside in. They run the school along with Martha’s Aunt Lilly, a faded Broadway actress, who oftentimes hen-pecks the women.

Karen has been dating handsome obstetrician, Joe (James Garner) for two years when he proposes marriage and she hesitantly accepts, which saddens Martha.

All the while, spoiled brat child, Mary, furious over being punished by her teachers, plots revenge against Martha and Karen and embellishes a heated discussion between the ladies into a scandalous lie that she whispers to her grandmother (Fay Bainter).

The grandmother promptly tells the parents of the other students, who remove their children from the school en masse. The lie, of course, is that Karen and Martha are lovers and that Mary has witnessed the two women kissing.

Meanwhile, Mary is blackmailing a fellow student, Rosalie (Veronica Cartwright) over a stolen bracelet. Martha and Karen are then ostracized by the small town.

The Children’s Hour becomes even more compelling when one of the women begins to realize that she does indeed have homosexual feelings towards the other woman and has always harbored anger and resentment as well as feeling “different” from other women.

As well-written as the film is, the fact that the audience does not get to hear what Mary whispers to her grandmother is rather telling and prevents the film from being even more powerful than it is.

Also, the downbeat conclusion to the film sends a clear message that in 1961 audiences were not ready to accept lesbianism as anything to be normalized or to be proud of.

The decision was made to make it abundantly clear that one of the central characters is not a lesbian. Any uncertainty may have risked freaking out mainstream audiences at the time.

Since the traditional opposite-sex romance between Karen and Joe is at the forefront of the film, I did not witness much chemistry between actors Hepburn and Garner, but might have this been the point in achieving a subliminal sexual complexity?

The Children’s Hour and William Wyler deserve heaps of praise for going as far as censorship in film in 1961 would allow them to successfully offer nuggets of progressivism mixed into a brave film.

Incidentally, Wyler made another version of this film in 1936 named These Three. Because of the Hays Code, any hint of lesbianism was forbidden causing Wyler to create a standard story of a love triangle between the three with both Martha and Karen pining after Joe.

What a difference a couple of decades make!

MacLaine and Hepburn must be credited with carrying the film and eliciting nice chemistry between the women, though it is too subtle to be realized if the chemistry is really of a friendship level or a sexual nature.

And, I adore how Wyler decides to make both characters rather glamorous and avoid any stereotypical characteristics.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

1952 Films, Drama, Jennifer Jones, Laurence Olivier, Miriam Hopkins, William Wyler

Carrie-1952

Leave a comment

Carrie-1952

Director William Wyler

Starring Jennifer Jones, Laurence Olivier

Scott’s Review #240

60011689

Reviewed May 3, 2015

Grade: B

Carrie, not to be confused with the Brian DePalma horror classic from 1976, is a drama from 1952 starring Laurence Olivier and Jennifer Jones- two big Hollywood stars of the time.

Shot in black and white, the film tells the story of the self-titled ingénue (Jones) of mid-western upbringing, who travels to Chicago to make her fortune.

Attempting to launch her career, Carrie becomes immersed in a love triangle with Olivier- who is unhappily married and runs a restaurant, and salesman, Charles Drouet, played by Eddie Albert.

Directed by William Wyler, the film has a melancholy tone to it as one of the characters sinks into a world of despair.

The highlight of this film is the performance of Laurence Olivier. He is excellent, as his character of George Hurstwood goes from a successful restaurant manager with an affluent existence to a poverty-stricken, lonely, broken old man.

Olivier is so effortless and believable in his performance as he always was.

I felt, however, that Jennifer Jones was miscast. Attractive, yes, I did not feel that every man would lust after her on sight alone, as was needed for the character of Carrie. Her acting, while okay, is not on the level of either Albert or especially Olivier, with she shares much screen time.

Perhaps Vivian Leigh, Teresa Wright, or Kim Novak might have been wiser choices.

The story itself is compelling and interesting. Here we have a woman- at the turn of the twentieth century- forging ahead in an attempt to make it on her own- almost unthinkable for a woman at that time, taking menial jobs as a sewing worker in a factory to scrape by.

Carrie resists the urge to become a rich husband-seeking gal and believes in marriage and true love. That is why she is devastated when she learns that George is indeed married.

Will true love win out for them? This seems to be the main aspect of the film.

Behind-the-scenes issues may have contributed to the problems that appear onscreen- Wyler reportedly did not want to cast Jones, Olivier did not like Jones, Olivier was injured during much of the filming, and the ending of the film was changed to provide a “happier” ending.

Originally, George was to commit suicide, which might have successfully made the film more shocking and heartbreaking.

Containing beautiful costumes and interesting cinematography, Carrie has positives but might have been much better than the final product ended up being, but for poor casting and real-life dramas that hurt the film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

1938 Films, Best Film of the Year, Bette Davis, Drama, Fay Bainter, Henry Fonda, William Wyler

Jezebel-1938

Leave a comment

Jezebel-1938

Director William Wyler

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #236

220px-Jesebel_movieposter

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: B+

A wonderful showcase for the young and lovely Bette Davis, Jezebel (1938) is a very early film role for Davis that has many similarities to Gone with the Wind, a film that Davis reportedly lost out to Vivian Leigh.

One wonders how she would have made the character of Scarlett O’Hara her own and Jezebel is a journey exploring that possibility.

Directed by acclaimed director William Wyler, Jezebel is set in 1852 (pre-Civil War) in New Orleans. Davis plays spoiled southern belle, Julie Marsden. Julie is engaged to wealthy banker Preston Dillard, played by Henry Fonda.

After a dispute in which Julie selfishly feels her needs are not being catered to, she shockingly wears a red dress to a sophisticated ball where unmarried women are expected to wear white. This causes a scandal that results in Preston dumping Julie and leaving town.

Cocky Julie expects Preston to return to town and grovel for her forgiveness, but when he does return with a life-changing twist, the drama unfolds. Circumstances include a savage duel, longing for love, and atonement.

Fans of Davis will love Jezebel for the sheer excellence that she brings to the screen. Mesmerizing with those soulful, big eyes, and wonderful mannerisms, she exudes confidence and sophistication. Admittedly this is my earliest Davis experience and she shimmers on-screen.

Bette Davis is perfectly cast. Interesting to note are the innocent qualities early Davis possessed. Later afflicted with a hoarse, deep voice and ravaged beauty after years of alcohol and cigarette abuse, Davis in Jezebel is virginal and debutante-looking.

Interesting to me is Julie’s wardrobe choices- her horseback riding outfit, the vixen-like red dress, the virginal white dress, and the dark raven cape at the climax of the film, and various lighting techniques that Wyler used to showcase Davis’s face- almost look like candlelight.

The film itself has several similarities to Gone with the Wind (which is preceded by a year). Julie, like Scarlett, is a rich, selfish girl who likes to manipulate men and both films feature a love triangle prevalent in the story as well as broken hearts. The slaves in both films resemble each other though are a bit more glamorous in Jezebel.

The introduction of the yellow fever storyline and the sick and weak lying around in droves is similar to the wounded and dying soldier scene in Gone with the Wind where the sick and dying lie in pain. The periods, triangle, and southern charms all heavily play in both. It is impossible not to compare the two films.

Melodrama did very well, Jezebel (1938) is to be admired as it is a film featuring a strong female character something lacking in the film then (1938) and shamefully still lacking in film today! Jezebel is a true “ambitious woman’s movie”.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins- Outstanding Production, Best Actress-Bette Davis (won), Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter (won), Best Scoring, Best Cinematography