THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1946): Starring John Garfield and Lana Turner

Close to ten years ago I listed The Postman Always Rings Twice as my favorite film of the 1940s.  I haven’t changed my mind.  From a period when the Hollywood Code was still in effect, this film pushed the envelope as much as any blockbuster could.

The film stars Lana Turner as Cora Smith and John Garfield as Frank Chambers.  Cora and Frank have an affair while Cora is still married to Nick (Cecil Kellaway).  Then Cora convinces Frank to go along with a successful plot to murder Nick.  While prosecutor, Kyle Sackett (Leon Ames), is fairly certain Cora and Frank are behind the murder, successful lawyering by Arthur Keats (Hume Cronyn) keep the pair out of jail – even after the two have decided to turn upon each other.  Cora ends up instead charged with manslaughter and receives probation, and Frank is never charged.  The two then make up. While taking a drive together with Frank at the wheel, they are involved in a car accident resulting in Cora’s death.  Frank ends up on death row for the murder of Cora.

James M. Cain wrote the novel The Postman Always Rings Twice in 1934.  In content the novel was somewhat of a shocker when released.  The plot featured adultery, sexuality, murder and two extremely conscienceless protagonists.  Still, we’d have forgotten Cain’s novels without Hollywood.  Cain was a naturalist, and he portrays events in a realistic manner.  However, the characters are forgettable on his pages because Cain didn’t understand how to purvey emotion.  It took movie producers, directors and actors to bring this emotion out.

Tay Garnett directs the 113-minute movie released in 1946.  Outside of assisting on televisions series like The Untouchables and Bonanza, directing this film would be his only true claim to fame.  No other movie he directed has had lasting value.  And as far as The Postman Always Rings Twice is concerned, it had to be a difficult plot to film to direct.  Remember that Hollywood remade the novel for film in 1981 with starring roles going to Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange.  But even without concerns of movie censors and with two prominent stars as leads, the remake failed to deliver anything more than an average production.

Garfield and Turner, manage to breathe life into their roles.  What’s surprising about the film is that barely anyone remembers John Garfield anymore – one of the best actors of the 1930s and ‘40s.  Lana Turner, who seems totally unsuited for the role of a devious murderess, probably plays her best role.  Garfield plays a drifter and Turner plays the role of the discontented wife of a man who owned a cheap diner.  The movie is stark and without any reference to riches or glamour.  However, it has lasted because it’s not a typical Hollywood film and had a great cast.

© Robert S. Miller 2015

March 29, 2015

LIFE OF PI (2012): Hollywood and Religion

Life of Pi contains three distinct divisions.  The first portion shows Pi Patel growing up in India where his father runs a zoo.  We see a curious youth attempting to understand the world, Pi’s impractical though caring father who aspires to see his son live by reason alone, Pi’s mother who though subservient to Pi’s father is more supportive of her son’s dreamy nature, and Pi’s brother who is a companion without ever understanding what Pi is seeking.  Pi reads Dostoyevsky and Camus, converses freely with priests, gurus and imams to learn about the world’s great religions, and falls in love with young girl named Anandi.  When the zoo runs into financial troubles, Pi’s father decides to move his family and all of the animals by ship to Canada.  A catastrophic storm ends these dreams by sinking the ship and Pi with a handful of animals is the only person to escape by lifeboat.

The lengthiest portion of the movie then begins as Pi sails in hopes of finding land.  Pi also discovers one of the animals improbably hidden under the lifeboat’s tarp is a Bengalese tiger nicknamed Richard Parker.  The tiger originally feeds itself on the other three animals aboard.  When this food runs out, Pi finds a way to manage the tiger’s behavior so that the animal does not turn on him.  The voyage across the Pacific Ocean also gives Pi ample material to contemplate the universe.  After many adventures and tribulations, Pi’s boat eventually lands on a Mexican beach and Richard Parker, the tiger, disappears into the jungle and we never see him again.

The third portion needlessly added on (also adding 20 minutes to the 127 minute film) shows Pi making up a story of the shipwreck because authorities do not believe the real version of his survival with a tiger.  Here an adult Pi explains to a Canadian journalist how his adventure makes one believe in God.  Although arguably true, the director Ang Lee in adapting Yann Martel’s novel for film felt the need to hammer this message into the viewer’s head rather than let the viewer interpret the story for his or her self.

Whether sympathetic or unsympathetic, Hollywood has effectively fielded religious questions.  The best movies with religious themes have generally dealt with hypocrisy.  Night of the Hunter has probably been the best of such movies.  It had a strong if disturbing storyline and its star, Robert Mitchum, knew how to act.  Lesser films (though probably better known) include the remake of Cape Fear.  Elmer Gantry, a great film generally touted as an exposure of hypocrisy is actually more ambivalent towards its subject – though the novel by Sinclair Lewis was anything but that.  Burt Lancaster portrays the lead character as a likeable huckster rather than sinister fanatic. 

The best positive movies I’ve seen regarding religion would include The Mission made in 1986 and Of Gods and Men, released in 2010.  Not surprisingly, the later is a French film never released in Hollywood.  Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (also never released in Hollywood) is worth viewing - though almost upended by its violence.  Others like the Academy Award winning film Chariots of Fire, while serious about the theme, are unsurprisingly dull.

Life of Pi is typical of another kind of religious movie – films that seek easy religious resolution that are often too syrupy to enjoy.  Doubts arise in these films as soon as anything goes awry.  Then God provides signs that there is something more there.  Usually the struggle and resolution is too contrived and the miracles too convenient.  Outside of the acting and special effects never replicated on television, the plot of Life of Pi would be better suited for a televised episode of Touched By An Angel.  Despite hardships that Pi faces when crossing the ocean, we are never for a moment in doubt that his childlike belief throughout will remain intact.

The film’s religious message is mainly a mishmash of different ideologies holding onto messages of peace, love and leaving one’s fate in the hand of God while never speaking of struggles or differences in theology that have caused thousands of years of bloodshed.  It appeases individuals more attuned to New Age theology than genuine religious thinkers tortured by doubts and who are fighting complacency.  What saves Life of Pi from being another Avatar is characterization during the middle scenes and an authentically portrayed ordeal at sea.  The moviemakers never make the mistake of romanticizing the tiger’s ferocious nature, and always display the storms at sea convincingly. 

Pi is the only human character that counts in this film.  The rest are supporting cast.  Gautam Belur and Ayush Tandon plays Pi as a child, and Irrfan Khan as an older adult.  Suraj Sharma plays the young adult Pi - the one mostly appearing on the screen.   Besides Suraj Sharma’s acting, the film’s other attributes include outstanding visual effects and a wonderful appreciation of the beauty of our world. 

February 22, 2015

© Robert S. Miller 2015

AMERICAN SNIPER (2014): Controversial Iraqi War Film

It probably serves no purpose to discuss American Sniper with the ideologically pure.  They’ve decided going into the theaters whether they were going to love or hate the movie.  One camp decided you can’t criticize the film while still being supportive of the U.S. soldiers.  The other side has declared American Sniper jingoistic.  Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone Magazine went so far to pen an editorial entitled, ‘American Sniper’ Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize.  Taibbi’s smugness is notable since Peter Travers, Rolling Stone Magazine’s long time movie critic, gave the film an extremely favorable review.

For those capable of independent thought, there is room for debate about this movie.  American Sniper is the 38th movie that Clint Eastwood has directed since 1971.  The quality of his films has been wildly inconsistent, but many of his films have been hugely popular.  He has been best in directing westerns such as High Plains Drifter or Unforgiven.  Many of his more recent films such as Letters From Iwo Jima and Gran Torino have been in my opinion sermonizing and too melodramatic.  Even potentially better films like Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River have been badly marred by Eastwood’s inability to tell a complete story.

American Sniper owes a great deal to other films.  Its plot is similar to the underrated Enemy at the Gates released in 2001.  American Sniper deals with a cat-and-mouse game between an American and Iraqi sniper while the earlier film dealt with a Russian and German sniper during World War II.  The movie American Sniper will most likely be compared to is The Hurt Locker, the 2008 film directed by Kathryn Bigelow.  Both movies deal with life-and-death decisions made by American soldiers in Iraq who have difficulty dealing with civilian life.  In sentiment, American Sniper shares the same sympathy for the American soldier fighting in foreign wars as did The Deer Hunter released in 1978.  While American Sniper does not improve on any of these movies, it is an intense and powerful film.

Chris Kyle, a real life U.S. Navy SEAL, is played by Bradley Cooper.  Chris marries his wife (Sienna Miller) right before he’s sent off on the first of four tours of duty in Iraq.  Unlike Chris, his brother Jeff (Keir O'Donnell), who also serves in Iraq as a soldier, becomes disillusioned with the war.  For his part, Chris becomes extremely good at his job.  Chris becomes known as a legend in Iraq for his ability to shoot enemy combatants before they can kill or maim American soldiers.  It is estimated that he killed 160 individuals during his tour of duty – most of which he killed as a sniper on the top of buildings assigned to protect American soldiers on the streets below.  However, he sees many of his comrades wounded or killed.  Many are killed by a mysterious enemy sniper named Mustafa (Sammy Sheik) who apparently had been a gold medal winning shooter in the Olympics.  During his final tour of duty, Chris finally is able to kill Mustafa and then decides to return to civilian life.  (As an aside, I was told that there was no real life Mustafa.)

Like so many other soldiers, Chris has problems dealing with civilian life.  He’s alarmed by sudden noises, sits around and watches a blank television screen, and at one point overreacts and almost kills the family dog.  Chris seeks counseling and begins to adjust to life by helping out wounded vets.  We learn in the closing moments of the film that one disturbed vet ends up shooting and killing Chris.

Bradley Cooper is tremendous in the lead role.  In fact, he’s the only character in the movie we get to know in any depth.  Still, the actors playing the soldier all do a good job playing their limited roles.  Unfortunately, the role played by Sienna Miller as the wife left at home shows little depth and detracts rather than adds to the film.  Most of her lines concern telling Chris that he needs to seek help. 

While the battle scenes begin to blend into each other, every scene is tense with anticipation.  There is little time during the 132 minute film to relax, and it gives us a good idea what it must be like for soldiers in actual combat.  Yet like so many American war movies going back to World War II, we learn practically nothing about what anyone but the Americans are thinking or feeling.  We only see glimpses of foreign men, women and even children trying to blow up American soldiers.  The reasons for why the Iraqi War is being fought are never discussed.

Though American Sniper is not a great movie, it is nevertheless an important one.  No one predicted that it would be as popular as it is.  It has been smashing box office records and been heavily attended by American soldiers and their families.  The movie has even served a purpose is starting a discussion about the Iraqi War.  Whether we ever have a truly intelligent discussion remains to be seen.  But only someone with a completely closed mind who seems assured that they know all of the answers would say it was “too dumb to criticize.”

January 24, 2015

© Robert S. Miller 2015

PLAY IT AGAIN SAM (1972) – Woody Allen and Bogart

Woody Allen wrote the play and screenplay for Play It Again Sam.  Despite it being directed by Herbert Ross, this is Woody Allen’s film.  It contains similar plot and subplots that we already had seen in Take the Money and Run and that we are going to see again in Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters and a number of other Allen films. If I give it a bit more leeway, it’s only because this movie came so early in Woody Allen’s career.

Woody Allen plays a character named Allan, a neurotic writer who only seems to make a favorable impression on one particular woman – Linda (Diane Keaton), his best friend’s wife.  Allan bungles every other relationship he has including his own marriage.  Allan, by the way, is a Bogart fanatic and wishes above everything else to be like his idol.  He has imaginary discussions with Bogart who tries to advise Allan on how to approach relationships.  Nine times out of ten, due to his own personal clumsiness, Allan cannot heed Bogart’s advice.

Perhaps because Linda is almost as neurotic as Allan, somehow the two end up having a one-night stand.  Linda and the guilt-ridden Allan are now in love while Linda’s husband, Dick (Tony Robert’s), suspects that something is truly wrong in his marriage.  Like Bogart does at the end of the Casablanca, Allan goes to the airport and convinces Dick and Linda that they belong together.

I agree with Roger Ebert’s assessment that Play It Again Sam may seem too predictable.  Ebert forgives Allen because Ebert feels the movie is so ultimately funny.  If I forgive Allen, it’s only because no other talent has been able to come upon the scene that can duplicate what Allen has done.  

Even at this late date, Woody Allen is one of the most original of talents in the movie industry.  While his approach to film is due to his experience in Broadway rather than Hollywood, anything creative in the movies is a step above what we are mostly presented.  Allen good naturedly makes fun of himself. When the rest of the movie industry takes itself all too seriously, what Woody Allen has provided is extremely refreshing.

Unfortunately, when you do the same thing over and over, even with the kind of talent Woody Allen has, it begins to grow old.  Woody Allen will never be Bogart.  His movies will never demand of his viewers to do the impossible.  It’s only possible to see so many of his films.  Allen still is capable of making good movies as evidenced by Midnight In Paris, which came out in 2011.  If that film had been made at the same time as Play It Again Sam instead of in recent years, the critics may have rated it much higher.

December 29, 2014

© Robert S. Miller 2014