TCM TiVo ALERT
For
April
15–April 22
DAVID’S
BEST BETS:
EXECUTIVE
SUITE (April
17, 1:15 pm): A fascinating look inside the cutthroat world
of the business boardroom as allegiances are formed through a variety
of ways, including blackmail and seduction, as top executives at a
major furniture company fight it out to see who will run the company
after the president drops dead on the sidewalk. The dialogue is
riveting and the storyline is compelling. A large part of the film
takes place inside an office, particularly the boardroom,
which normally detracts from
a film. But this is quite
the engaging movie. The film's strength is
its all-star cast – William Holden,
Barbara Stanwyck, Frederic March and Walter Pidgeon are
at the top of the bill.
KNIFE
IN THE WATER (April 20, 1:45 am):
Roman Polanski's directorial debut from 1962 is filled with
suspense and drama and remains one of his finest films. It's a
psychological thriller about an arrogant rich man and his bored wife
who invite a young hitchhiker for a ride on their boat. The wealthy
husband's primary goals on the trip are to show off all his
possessions, including his younger trophy wife, and brag of his
accomplishments. The man and the hitchhiker get into a heated
argument, after much tension, with the man knocking the other off the
boat, and fearing his committed murder. That's not the case, and
what ensues shows that even on his first film, Polanski had
an incredible talent to tell a compelling story. The Polish
government quickly banned the film and Polanski left for
Paris.
ED’S
BEST BETS:
RASPUTIN AND THE EMPRESS (April
15, 6:30 am): A wonderful film from MGM about the court of Nicholas
II of Russia and the evil monk Rasputin, who came to have such a
influence. As Leonard Maltin notes, a good film that should have been
great, an opinion with which I concur. The production was troubled,
the script by Charles MacArthur was never really on point, and the
direction by Charles Brabin and his successor, Richard Boleslavsky
was weak. What the set needed was a driving director, not two who
couldn’t establish their authority. But this was the first – and
only – time all three Barrymores – Lionel, John, and Ethel –
acted together in a picture, and that makes it worth catching.
Lionel, by the way, has the meatiest role as Rasputin, and he makes
the most of it. It’s also the film debut of Diana Wynyard.
KISS
ME DEADLY (April 20, 8:00 pm): This is one of
director Robert Aldrich’s best films, a moody and violent film that
seemingly moves at the speed of sound. Ralph Meeker makes for a fine
Mike Hammer in the lead, playing what my just be the most
unsympathetic and violent private eye in the history of film. From
the time Hammer pulls over to pick up distraught hitchhiker (Cloris
Leachman) who has just escaped from a mental institution, the film
never lets up for one minute as Meeker growls, punches, and kicks his
way from one encounter to the next, using the same nefarious tactics
as his criminal foes and serving as an unwitting accomplice in the
search for the mysterious box that contains “the great whatzit.”
This is a film truly ahead of its time and was a huge influence on
the French New Wave, who even went ga-ga over the way the opening
credits come up on the windshield of Hammer’s sports car. Its
influence can also be seen in such later American films as Repo
Man and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I would
list Kiss Me Deadly as one of my Essentials.
WE
DISAGREE ON ... INTOLERANCE (April 19, 12:00 am)
ED:
A. When we sit down and think about it, Intolerance is
one of the wildest films ever made. This is director D.W. Griffith’s
follow up to The Birth of a Nation, one of the most
intolerant films ever made. And the critics called him on it. So what
does D.W. do? He makes Intolerance, in which he
castigates his critics for their intolerance of his racist views by
showing intolerance through four distinct ages: ancient Babylon,
Calvary, 16th century France, and modern-day America,
with each story depicting a disaster resulting from with a government
edict or a puritanical group that imposes their mistaken beliefs upon
others. He’ll show us. Just for the sheer chutzpah alone,
this film gets an “A.” D.W. is obviously the type of guy who
kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court
because he’s an orphan. So, taken from this point
alone, Intolerance is worth the time. But there’s
more to it other than the overly melodramatic story. This is what
critics mean when they use the word “epic.” Just take a look at
the sets for the Babylonian sequence. They positively towered over
the streets of Hollywood, looking as if an ancient city had suddenly
sprouted up right in the midst of Los Angeles. The credit – or
blame – for this magnificent piece of true Americana slob art goes
to Frank “Huck” Wortman, who served as Griffith’s chief set
builder, carpenter, and all-around “go to” guy. He saved Griffith
money by taking thin wood and covering it over with plaster to make
it look imposing. And it worked - the sets are stupendous. The real
value of the film lies in its interest to students of film history,
and that is why I give it the grade I do.
DAVID:
C-. The sheer arrogance and self-importance of D.W.
Griffith is on full display in this 1916 film that drags on for
almost 3 1/2 hours. Ed is dead-on when he wrote Griffith
made Intolerance as a response to critical outrage
over his intolerant and offensive The Birth of a Nation a
year prior. In Birth, which is about 10 minutes shorter
in length than Intolerance, Griffith makes heroes out of
the Ku Klux Klan. Offended that people were angry about his racist
epic, Griffith made Intolerance a year later to show
his critics that they were wrong about him. He goes so over the top
that Intolerance is one of those films you have to
force yourself to finish, usually not in a single sitting, just to
say you've seen it. It's incredibly long, boring and often confusing.
I don't doubt that Griffith purposely did that as rather than using a
gentle touch, he preferred to smash the audience in the face with a
metal shovel to prove what he "genius" he believed himself
to be. The film started as the current-day American love story and
grew and grew and grew. None of the four stories are compelling and
all are extraordinary heavy handed. For a silent film, there is way
too much "dialogue" in the form of title cards. However,
what saves this from the trash heap is some of the sets –
particularly in the Babylon story – are visually impressive, and
Griffith uses some innovative, though often frantic, camera angles.
If you are a cinephile and haven't seen this, watch it just to check
it off your list. If you're a casual film fan or someone who watches
movies to be entertained, stay far away from Intolerance.
I saw it once and never plan to view it again. I'm not a bad person
and don't deserve to be punished.
No comments:
Post a Comment