The Naked Edge.

Review #2232: The Naked Edge.

Cast: 

Gary Cooper (George Radcliffe), Deborah Kerr (Martha Radcliffe), Eric Portman (Jeremy Clay), Ray McAnally (Donald Heath), Diane Cilento (Mrs. Heath), Hermione Gingold (Lilly Harris), Peter Cushing (Mr. Evan Wrack), Michael Wilding (Morris Brooke), Ronald Howard (Mr. Claridge), and 

Sandor Elès (Manfridi St John) Directed by Michael Anderson (#717 - Logan's Run and #1393 - Around the World in 80 Days)

Review: 

Admittedly, there is a bit of appeal in wondering what the fuss is about with the poster and a certain fact. The film is based on the 1955 novel First Train to Babylon, as written by Max Ehrlich. Joseph Stefano wrote the screenplay adaptation, and if you've seen the poster, that was the writer behind the screenplay adaptation for 1960's Psycho, likely his most famous accomplishment (in general, Stefano was involved more with television writing and occasional producing, such as the original The Outer Limits). Perhaps not surprisingly, the poster, and the last line of the film itself, as told to us by voiceover, do a gimmick similar to that film in not wanting audiences to be seated "during the last 13 minutes" (for a 97-minute film, but naturally it works to tell people to really hold in that break). Of course, now that one has that out of the way, this was the final film for its star in Cooper, who died of cancer on May 13, 1961, a month before the release of the film, which wasn't exactly a hit. He had worked with Anderson before with The Wreck of the Mary Deare (1959); the film was shot in London and at Elstree Studios in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. 

The runtime is a funny one to have a "don't seat folks for the last couple" trick to, particularly for a film that seems to drag its tension out as much as possible. Really this is the kind of movie where people get suspicious of folks because of having the most amusing choice of words for phrasing, as evidenced by a scene where our lead is telling about raising money for a venture that came out because he "made a killing" on the stock market. One could possibly make a few edits and make it a comedy about a guy who does increasingly outlandish things with his wife that thinks he may be guilty (such as say, asking her to join him on the edge of a cliff - actually, that's in the film). The intro with a stabbing and the time spent with Cushing in the courtroom stuff does appeal to the most basic curiosities of mine, at least. Of course, Kerr was actually a pretty good actress in her own right to match up with Cooper (who was 20 years older than her). She makes those worries and doubts seem workable for something that really would've floundered under the weight of such amusing ambiguity with a lesser actress involved. That isn't to say that Cooper doesn't pair well with Kerr, but I think one can be forgiven for stating that there are times where a weary-seeming Cooper is not so much acting as it is a man trying to push through being tired. Cooper is worrisome enough to make Kerr's queries and fears over what really may be possible (or not) worth watching, although the best scene is with Cilento in terms of force and grace. Portman is at least adequate in the middle. The eventual ending is probably not ideal in the actual rundown, particularly with portions involving a struggle, but that doesn't sink the film completely at least because if one gets far enough to appreciate the film beforehand with its look in terms of cinematography (as shot by Erwin Hillier and Tony White) and bubbling dread, then one can't be too off. As a whole, it isn't exactly the finest hour for its stars or its director, but it has a nice look and probably enough ambiguity to seek out once if the curiosity factor is there enough to go in as cold as possible for its mystery, which for me just manages to make it over the finish line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Innocents (1961).

Review #1911: The Innocents.

 

Cast: 

Deborah Kerr (Miss Giddens), Peter Wyngarde (Peter Quint), Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose), Michael Redgrave (The Uncle), Martin Stephens (Miles), Pamela Franklin (Flora), Clytie Jessop (Miss Mary Jessel), and Isla Cameron (Anna) Directed by Jack Clayton.

Review: 

Admittedly, there are films that work best when considered for how they can cultivate atmosphere through dedicated execution, which generally happen in horror. Of course, some horror films get an interesting reputation through whosever eyes are viewing it. I was a bit curious about this film, if only because sometimes I worry a movie gets a good reputation in horror when it comes to ghost stories, real or not. This was the film to be adapted from The Turn of the Screw, an 1898 novella written by Henry James. However, it also utilizes text from the 1950 screen play (called The Innocents, which had Beatrice Straight and Peggy Feury as the star in separate theatre runs) that had been written by William Archibald. Archibald wrote the original screenplay for the film, but Clayton hired Truman Capote and John Mortimer to do re-writes because he wanted a script a bit more ambiguous on whether the ghosts were real or not. This was the third film script that had Capote as a writer. Most will know him as the writer of novels of fiction and nonfiction such as In Cold Blood (which he was in the middle of writing when approached by Clayton) but he did occasionally write for films, which included Beat the Devil (1953) and Terminal Station (1953). Mortimer was brought in to deliver a Victorian polish to the dialogue, but the film is generally thought of as having the spirit of Capote (he later described reading the novella as one without a plot). This was the second of seven films directed by Jack Clayton, who had worked a variety of studio jobs such as tea boy and editor before getting his chance to direct. The next adaptation of the material was in The Nightcomers (1971), which acted as a "prequel", and there have almost been as many television adaptations (four) than films (five).

Sure, it is possible to read a certain kind of repression and Freudian elements in a story of psychological terror. Oh sure, you could ask yourself if the ghosts are real or not, but I'll just go with the idea that they are, if only because I did not come to a ghost movie to watch a movie without a ghost (you can play the ambiguity card for only so long). However, it is the question of whether the kids are in danger or not that ends up being a really good question to think about. Besides, the movie is pretty good regardless of how you choose to view it, headlined by a tremendous performance by Kerr and an efficient pace at 99 minutes. It makes for an elegant and unnerving film, straddling itself in seeping paranoia that makes things not exactly what they seem. It has the touch of uncertainty that would be rivaled in films such as The Haunting (1963), if not topped. The cinematography was done by Freddie Francis, who had won an Academy Award for his work in Sons and Lovers (1960) before becoming a director the year after the release of this film. He helped to dissuade Clayton's annoyance at 20th Century Fox insisting that the film be shot in CinemaScope, a bigger aspect ratio than the usual standard. Francis used the wide space for shadows to make for an uneasy movie by doing things such as painting the edges of the lenses and bright lighting, and all of this works out to the advantage of the movie, although one of its sticking points ends up being a singing of "O Willow Waly" (which is actually sung by Isla Cameron) that happens from time to time. There are three key actors here: Kerr and the two children with Stephens and Franklin (Wyngarde doesn't speak, Redgrave is only in one scene and Jenkins provides some support). Kerr does tremendous here, vulnerable in all the right aspects when it comes to Victorian standards that generates interest in how one views her perspective in terms of what is seen and what isn't seen from the doubts exhibited. Stephens (known for this and Village of the Damned before becoming an architect) and Franklin (screen debut) do well, pulling one into the idea of innocence that imprints well on your mind that dawdles on the little things, such as how they interact with Kerr, such as the little embrace Stephens does with Kerr or the little moment Franklin shares when arising from bed late on a windy night (with Kerr tossing and turning) - whether they are just kids being kids or possibly possessed is up to you to squirm over. Jenkins proves quite fretful enough to support the core cast, wavering in the right points needed while Wyngarde makes a quiet terror anytime he looms for moments on screen. The climax is delicately handled to the right touch of what is needed from the source material while also circling back to its opening (writhing hands in a dark background) in the right execution. As a whole, the movie is quite eerie and effective in telling a good ghost story with a dance of ambiguity that results in a generally effective piece of looming terror fit for the patient horror eyes, one where not every explanation is needed to make the pieces fit right. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

An Affair to Remember.

Review #1394: An Affair to Remember.

Cast: 
Cary Grant (Nicolò Ferrante), Deborah Kerr (Terry McKay), Richard Denning (Kenneth Bradley), Neva Patterson (Lois Clark), Cathleen Nesbitt (Grandmother Janou), Robert Q. Lewis (Himself), Charles Watts (Ned Hathaway), and Fortunio Bonanova (Courbet) Directed by Leo McCarey (#085 - Duck Soup and #1350 - Love Affair)

Review: 
Do you ever feel like you're watching the same film twice? Honestly, the only things that really need a remake are films that were clunkers the first time around, not movies that were good enough once already. But hey, maybe one really did want to see another version of a love affair with the same director and nearly the same script 18 years later. At least this time around I knew what to expect when it came to the climatic point of the film, since not only had I seen the original only two months ago but it happened to be prominently referenced in another overrated tearjerker that I saw years ago in Sleepless in Seattle (1993). Of course this particular film happens to be longer at 115 minutes, with the second easiest difference being that it has a steeper fall in its second half than its predecessor after it leaves the boat. This is a film that has the luster of starpower to try and hide its mediocrity that makes it quite a frustrating film to sit through, because one knows that it is going to be completely fine and nothing else, complete with CinemaScope to hit that final shiny mark to play for its audience (this of course is not meant to be a iconoclastic jab at films of that era). Grant and McCarey had done two previous films with each other, while Kerr and Grant were in their second of three collaborations with each other. As was the case with numerous McCarey films, improvisation was something to be encouraged when on camera, with some improvised lines finding their way into the film. The movie does seem to flow better when it focuses on just these two together, with a slow-but-fruitful chemistry that makes a majority of the film fairly palpable. One always has a fine time with Cary Grant when it comes to seeing him on screen, seeing how he never really seems to age too particularly as a leading man in terms of charm that is hard to resist to smile with. Kerr, a versatile actress if there ever was one (having been nominated six times for an Academy Award) catches up with Grant fairly well in elegance despite having to deal with silly stuff such as having to sing with a kid's choir or the end scene. Denning and Patterson, constricted in roles that firmly neutral in romantic chemistry that seem more fitting somewhere else, prove okay. Nesbitt provides a quietly sweet presence for the moments that bridge an interesting first half before it gets sluggish. Maybe one has more patience for its contrived turning point, where a lover suddenly hit by a car decides to not tell the other about their condition until that big scene at the end where Grant puts two-and-two together (any longer and he would've needed a picture book) that leads to an intended tearjerker scene that just makes me roll my eyes. There is passion present here, but there must've been a better way to do all of this (let's go full absurd and just have the lead go into a coma or fall into a manhole with alligator captors while we're at it) than the same thing again. I can't get mad at it being average for doing things again with a capable duo to back up material just like before, so I suppose that the nicest thing I can say is that this is a film comprised of fair and clunky attitudes about romance that will prove adequate for those who want an average crowd-pleaser for their time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.