Airport (1970).

Review #1612: Airport.

Cast: 

Burt Lancaster (Mel Bakersfeld), Dean Martin (Vernon Demerest), Jean Seberg (Tanya Livingston), Jacqueline Bisset (Gwen Meighen), George Kennedy (Joe Patroni), Helen Hayes (Ada Quonsett), Van Heflin (D. O. Guerrero), Maureen Stapleton (Inez Guerrero), Barry Nelson (Anson Harris), Dana Wynter (Cindy Bakersfeld), Lloyd Nolan (Harry Standish), Barbara Hale (Sarah Demerest), Gary Collins (Cy Jordan), John Findlater (Peter Coakley), Jessie Royce Landis (Mrs. Mossman), Larry Gates (Ackerman), and Peter Turgeon (Marcus Rathbone) Written and Directed by George Seaton (#303 - Miracle on 34th Street)

Review: 

I'm sure you are familiar with the disaster film. After all, how many times can you draw from the well of disaster films in a decade quite familiar with big spectacle and stars? Airport isn't the first disaster film ever (obviously), but it surely played a key part in the boom of big-time spectacles involving thrills that would be refined into refined hokum to chuckle with The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and The Towering Inferno (1974), which turned out way better in actual suspense (namely by not putting its characters in peril so late in the film). But wait, we are talking about a movie that somebody somehow really liked, since this made its budget back ten times (on a $10 million budget) and received a plethora of Academy Award nominations (going from Best Picture to Best Supporting Actress...twice! This was the year of Patton and Love Story, remember). But hey, this might seem interesting in its connections with Airplane! (1980). That film was a remake of a film called Zero Hour! (1957), which was adapted from a TV production that both featured Arthur Hailey as writer. A decade later, Hailey would write a book called Airport (1968), one of his numerous novels involving the depiction of a certain profession (such as hotels or the automobile industry), for which this film is adapted from. So, in a decade that saw disasters like earthquakes, meteors, infested animals, what can happen with an airport? If you can believe it, not too much, because this manages to be an interminable experience, proving that big stars cannot hold a 137 minute movie beyond B-movie clichés with all the predictable trimmings for exactly one thrill and nothing else. It is as if Grand Hotel (1932) was being regurgitated, one might say.

This was the 20th of 21 films done by George Seaton, the contract writer-turned-director who many will recognize from Miracle on 34th Street (1947, which he won an Academy Award for), although this film was the biggest one of his career; he never actually shot in Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport due to catching pneumonia, and Henry Hathaway stepped in to direct for five weeks there (he did not want payment for his work), complete with starting with fake snow upon having clear conditions. It is interesting to note this as the second-to-last film produced by Ross Hunter, mostly because of the fact that it reminded me of the fact that he left Universal Studios after this to produce Lost Horizon (1973), and we all know how that worked out. The only reason this is any better than that other film is the fact they don't think to ever start singing. Burt Lancaster even called the film a "piece of junk", and he starred in this film! At least he enjoyed the money that came from starring it to do something better (which is preferable to starring in junk and then getting swindled). Seberg didn't like it much either, but I'm sure the big winners proved to be Kennedy and Hayes, since the former was the only one who ended up starring in the next three Airport films and the latter won an Academy Award for her performance (no, I am not kidding, beating out her own cast-mate Stapleton!). This was also the last film role for Heflin and Landis. The only thing that will likely come out of it fine is the airplane industry, seeing how it is promoted so much in such a corny movie, one that will talk about anything else before thinking about thrills, whether that means trouble with noise pollution, office affairs, and quirky customers - oh, but the thing with a flailing airplane, that's just there for the last 25 minutes. To go through the list of actors is like looking through a view-finder and seeing the various slides to see which one "sticks out" the best, before realizing it is a hunk of junk. Lancaster is a fine actor, but he can't help a silly time get better, stuck between rescue mission and workaholic-ism that would've been in vogue with the 1940s or 1950s more than played here. Martin gets the pleasure of being Martin with a considerable age difference in his romance subplot (while reminding me of how many movies I've yet to get to with him as a lead). Seberg seems more stuck in that coat than anything, miles away from films like Breathless (1960) with confounding astonishment. Bisset is here and there with a supposed role of the mistress that seems quite empty for a film in need of a hole in the head. Kennedy is quite enjoyable, in the sense that a cigar-chomper trying to get a plane moving is probably more exciting than anything else that happens in the film. Hayes plays the stowaway with a few wisecracks that is only noteworthy because it is the famed actress of theatre, film, and TV playing it and nothing else - her being used as a ploy near the climax is amusing though. Heflin, a actor of theatre, radio, and film with star and character roles before his death in 1971, does just fine with the quiet adversarial role that is given very little to really do besides bide his time. Stapleton mounts herself to the ground with panic that could be thought of as camp pantomime, while others are there to point out and say words about, like Nelson (never quite a star, but he was the first James Bond...on television), or Wynter (tall, elegant, and wasted in this film for arguments), or Nolan (various roles in light entertainment or B-fare).

So yes, I have been quite mean with just calling it a turkey, and it is the fact that I did not expect much from it that only seals just how bland my disappointment is at the end of the day. The only plot that really matters involve Kennedy or the plane in the air possibly going down, not so much with the billions of other plots about these folks. But at least when the plane does receive some trouble, it ticks up in interest, which therefore means I did get some silly amusement in seeing actors fumble in cheesy danger, complete with the magic of split-screen photography. Actually, that is my other bone of amusement, because certain scenes feature a shot of someone in a circle cut into a scene on the plane saying their dialogue, as opposed to simply cutting to them just saying it...or just having them heard instead of seen. This is also used with a scene of someone using code words for security (with a diamond cut to see all five guards - nifty?). If things are happening in this film, watch out, because it will probably just stop not long after for something else. With a movie that introduces only one troubled person and nothing else, take a guess at how many people will face danger and lose by the end. Congratulations, you won - oh did you guess zero? If you did, you get credit because that would have made an even worse film. Naturally, there were sequels, and they only managed to get sillier with their progression alongside their choice of stars, which ranged from James Stewart to Gloria Swanson that were all released later in the 1970s (1974, 1977, 1979). Truly, the only thing I learned from this is maintaining an aversion to airplanes for yet another year, with the hope that no one tries to make corny movies like this about the bus industry or worse yet about walking. At that point, one might as well just cover your eyes and look for the hurl bag.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

A Farewell to Arms.

Review #1611: A Farewell to Arms.

Cast: 

Helen Hayes (Catherine Barkley), Gary Cooper (Lieutenant Frederic Henry), Adolphe Menjou (Major Rinaldi), Mary Philips (Helen Ferguson), Jack La Rue (Priest), Blanche Friderici (Head Nurse), Mary Forbes (Miss Van Campen), and Gilbert Emery (British Major) Directed by Frank Borzage.

Review: 

It is easy to say a film is overdue to cover when you can see it any time you like, which is particularly true for this film. It was originally distributed by Paramount Pictures, but somehow it managed to fall into the public domain when its copyright was not renewed. This was a film released in the middle of the career of established director Frank Borzage, who by this point in time was the second director to have received two Academy Awards for Best Director (he started his career in 1916, after having appeared in a few short films) with dramas such as 7th Heaven (1927) and Bad Girl (1931). The screenplay was done by Benjamin Glazer (who also co-produced the film) and Oliver H.P. Garrett, which was based on the novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway. He had written the novel in 1929 that was based on his experiences in World War I, in which he served in the Italian Front (his stint in a Milan hospital with treatment from a nurse that he fell in love with, was dramatized into a film of its own with In Love and War decades later). This is the first of two film adaptations, with the other being released in 1957. This film was released before the advent of a tighter Production Code (hence content like abandoned duty and babies born out of wedlock and such), which means that one has a mix of romanticism and cynicism that proves quite enjoyable.

The film received four Academy Award nominations with Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, and it won in the latter two categories, certainly earning a merit as some sort of prestige picture for its time. In other words, it is the kind of movie that you can look to and highlight from the curious era of the 1930s, just making its way out of the silent era while continuing the trend of adapting notable works of literature with spin for its target audience that just happen to deal with either war, romance, or a bit of both (besides, the Best Picture winner that this film lost to happened to involve drama and coverage of war - the inferior Cavalcade (1933), naturally). In that sense, even if Hemingway wasn't exactly thrilled by the film's tone compared to his book, I'm sure one will find enough to enjoy in a romance rift with energy and tragedy. Featured as our stars are two rising stars that would become famous names in time. Hayes was already an actress by the time she was a teenager (she is known as "First Lady of American Theatre" for a reason), and her debut in feature film with The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931) garnered an Academy Award for her. She reportedly developed a crush on Cooper during production, and it is clear to see a brimming honesty coming from her that makes for a well performance in vulnerability. Cooper had been established as a star with film roles such as The Winning of Barbara Worth (1926) and The Virginian (1929), so it only seems appropriate to see him in a strong brimming kind of film like this, where he towers a bit over Hayes (by at least a foot, although the camera angles certainly help sometimes) that makes for an interesting romantic courtship. He composes himself well in careful charisma like a mighty oak tree, one might say. Not to be forgotten is Menjou, a name actor in silent and sound films (with a select group of lead roles owning to his suave nature that served for a five decade career), playing cavalier with Cooper that works quite well in turning the screws for what is needed without fiddling the mustache in scene-chewing. Philips goes along okay, although it is La Rue who makes memorable effort in a "wedding" sequence in the middle of the film. There were actually two endings to the film, depending on preferences of the theater at the time of release, with one following the novel and the other being more optimistic. Hemingway, displeased already by the altering of tone with his novel into less cynical, was angered by the decision for theater owners. One silver lining is that he struck up a friendship with Cooper that lasted for over 20 years (and he surely must have found it engaging to see Cooper star in another adaptation of his work a decade later). In any case, what we have here is a fine film to see play out for 88 minutes in classic traditional fare for those who like that sort of thing. It isn't great, but it certainly represents a well effort for its stars and director in entertainment, for which one can fit their curiosity for any time they like.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.