Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953).

Review #2549: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

Cast: 

Jane Russell (Dorothy Shaw), Marilyn Monroe (Lorelei Lee), Charles Coburn (Sir Francis "Piggy" Beekman), Elliott Reid (Ernie Malone), Tommy Noonan (Gus Esmond Jr), George Winslow (Henry Spofford III), Marcel Dalio (the magistrate), Taylor Holmes (Mr. Esmond Sr), Norma Varden (Lady Beekman), and Howard Wendell (Watson) Directed by Howard Hawks (#951 - The Big Sleep, #1352 - His Girl Friday, #1399 - Rio Bravo, #1687 - O. Henry's Full House, #1773 - Red River, #2060 - Bringing Up Baby)

Review: 

Sure, Howard Hawks made a musical. Apparently, Hawks had one more film he owed to 20th Century Fox, so it fell to this. The film is based on the 1949 Broadway musical of the same name (with the book by Joseph Fields and Anita Loos, lyrics by Leo Robin, and music by Jule Styne), which in turn was based on the hit 1925 novel (originally serialized as sketches in Harper's Bazaar) that had been written by Anita Loos about, well, a blonde gold-digger and a flapper. Sure, the film was not going to retain the original Broadway duo of Carol Channing and Yvonne Adair as the two stars, because Fox wanted Betty Grable and Ginger Rogers, but what they saw from Niagara (1953) with Monroe led to them going with her. Hawks stated he did none of the production numbers on purpose, which were staged by Jack Cole, once called the "the Father of Theatrical Jazz Dance"; he ultimately worked with Monroe on several films all the way to his last with Let's Make Love [1960]. In his book Hawks on Hawks, he described Monroe as "the most frightened little girl who had no confidence in her ability", with filming basically relying on the patience of Hawks and Russell, although he said he did have fun on the film. In 1955, United Artists released Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (as based on, what else, an Anita Loos novel) that had Russell in a different role paired with Jeanne Crain that had Cole involved but with Richard Sale as director, which did not end up as a major success.

This is one of those movies that I find myself waffling over how good it is, mainly because my patience for musicals is not nearly as great as I wish it was (I think when I was younger I never really got off the high of Singin' in the Rain). With this movie, it rides well on the shenanigans from a fairly game duo of leading women that make worthwhile friends from the jump that is far more curious than, say, seeing where the actual ending goes. It zips along with a few musical numbers of varying quality (mostly good, but I think we know which one is the most discussed) that has some glamour (along with mostly authentic singing* from the actual stars) for 91 minutes. To be honest, for me, Russell is the more interesting of the two leads when it comes to timing*, because she is quite funny without having to strain at actually having fun with the people around her or the good friendship with Monroe, because they exchange the type of pleasantries and hijinks that is alluringly curious. Monroe is just as fun, a real go-getter with the natural ability to just exude bubbly charm without being swallowed up in ditzy generalizations, which helps when considering the ditzy qualities that actually around with the prominent men in the film (Reid, Coburn, Noonan, although at least Holmes is supposed to be stuffy and Winslow, well, he's a kid). Basically, both Russell and Monroe glide through the film as if they were laughing the whole way through. Hell, they both get to do renditions of "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" (Russell in a wig for a delightfully funny scene near the end and, well, you know the sequence with Monroe in a pink dress), what's not to like? The diamonds may be somebody's best friend, but it's the dynamic between the two in that authentic sense of self that makes it all go together far more than wondering what the fuss about tiaras are about. As a whole, it's basically a movie that freewheels on the charm of Russell and Monroe with a few fine songs and some sparkly glamour to basically ride to the finish line with excitement for those who buy into its charms.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day (obvious choice)!

*Yes, the last musical I saw in theaters was Cats (2019), why do you ask?

*Varied claims say that Gloria Wood and Marni Nixon provided a bit of help with "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend"

The Born Losers.

Review #1860: The Born Losers.

Cast: 

Tom Laughlin (Billy Jack), Elizabeth James (Vicky Barrington), Jeremy Slate (Daniel 'Danny' Carmody), William Wellman Jr. (Child), Jack Starrett (Deputy Fred), Robert Cleaves (Mr. Crawford), Paul Bruce (District Attorney George Davis), Robert Tessier (Cueball), Paul Prokop (Speechless), Jeff Cooper (Gangrene), Stuart Lancaster (Sheriff Harvey), Anne Bellamy (Mrs. Prang), with Ruth Warshawsky (Nurse) and special guest star Jane Russell (Mrs. Shorn) Directed by Tom Laughlin (#1196 - Billy Jack)

Review: 

First, one needs a few facts. Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Tom Laughlin was actually into football first, even playing two positions at Marquette University; seeing a production of A Streetcar Named Desire pushed a desire to act, and he transferred to the University of South Dakota to major in acting. It was in the summer of 1967 that Tom Laughlin got his first crack to do a movie with the character of Billy Jack, which he first thought of in 1954 after seeing the mistreatment of Native Americans in the hometown of his wife Delores Taylor. Over the next couple of years, he would do a handful of performances on television and film, which included his first starring role in The Delinquents (1958). He got his first chances to direct with The Proper Time (1960) and Like Father, Like Son (1961) that saw him write and produce along with star, but neither were particularly successful. Laughlin left the film business for five years to dedicate all of his time to the Montessori preschool that he and his wife had established in 1959 in Santa Monica, California. The school, which had received national publicity from the press, closed in 1965 due to bankruptcy. Perhaps not surprisingly, he returned to film. Laughlin intended to fully produce the movie alongside directing and acting as well. However, he ran out of money in post-production, so he had to see if he could get some funding from who else- American International Pictures, masters of the exploitation circuit. Given the fact that Laughlin decided to hone right into the boom of the biker movie that had been seen with schlock such as The Wild Angels (1966), it fit right in for AIP to fund and release. The movie was shot in three weeks for roughly $160,000, complete with using rented houses and a real motorcycle gang in The Devil's Disciples. AIP intended to distribute Billy Jack (1971), but the studio refused after seeing the final cut, which led to Laughlin making a deal with Warner Brothers (after 20th Century Fox made a deal and reneged on Laughlin). That release did not succeed well, but Laughlin's decision to sue the studio and re-release it himself two years later did work well for him to the point where AIP did a re-release of The Born Losers and riled Laughlin up by having ads that called it the original Billy Jack. 

Remember Broken Arrow (1950)? You know, the movie that tried to feature a balanced story involving Native Americans and someone on the frontier that seemed different from the "Cowboys and Indians" type of Western? In a sense, Laughlin is making a Western with this movie, but the idea that his self-described half Native American who is also an ex-Green Beret is anything special when compared to previous movies is just as silly as it would be for the following feature. This one also took inspiration from real-life events, as it was based on an incident from 1964 where members of the Hells Angels were arrested for raping two teenage girls in Monterey, California. This results in a movie that shows the fuzzy contradiction that encapsulates Laughlin as a director within the character he created: he can make a decent action scene with its setup, but the values that come with his bully pulpit make for moments that are amusing to laugh at rather than actually engage with at face value. In trying to teach some sort of weird pacifism in the face of violence, one simply brushes the anti-establishment stuff with a yawn and a chuckle - to say nothing of the scenes where victims are depicted as actually enjoying their encounters with the bikers because of how their parents raised them. This was the only starring role for James, who actually shows the semblance of "charm" and "engagement with the material", one who surely deserved better things than being in a bikini and having to share time with mono-Laughlin. Slate actually makes a quality villain in the exploitation angle for weird crass influences, even if the presentation of him with his family muddles things a bit (when I think about exploitation movies with bad guys, I don't think if they have kids); one just needs weirdos that love James Dean but dress up with Nazi stuff to raise hell. Russell is there to chew scenery for tears that Laughlin uses to about what you would expect for a movie that dares to have a guest star.

Seeing the 1967 Billy Jack before the 1971 sequel is a hell of a trip, if only because the earlier film is somehow a better movie in execution despite being made to cash in on the exploitation craze as opposed to the weirdo movie that was done later (of course, if you saw the 1967 movie second, the whole argument about quality is even more pronounced); in short, the B-movie is better than the passion project. The exploitation angle is far more interesting to consider than seeing Laughlin in a setup that makes him look like he robbed Marlon Brando but forgot to get the talent factor; you could probably do an entire dub of the movie and have the same amount of charisma as Laughlin (while also making up a whole new background to explain the lily-white weirdo who is our lead). He does better in the action sequence in part because that involves him not having to come up with the attempt of empathy or timing. For a movie at 113 minutes, he also managed to make a movie that is way too damn long, as it lags in the second half (there's a sequence where an astrologer asks them about their birthdays!) before limping to a siege climax that only barely delivers the actual reason to watch - exploitation! Urgency is what is needed, not shots of dead animals. If Laughlin wants to play cowboy-sorry, weird pacifist/asskicker, the best thing one could have done with the character is to take the script from him and have a real discussion over what the hell he wanted to do that wasn't just fanfiction of himself (case in point: shooting the villain between the eyes in one shot). In other words: subtle measures of staging a message within action works way better than throwing everything together and hoping it sticks for some moral revolution bullshit that might actually make an argument for studio system films. In the end, Laughlin may have been a maverick film director who did what he could to get his point across in filmmaking, but it doesn't mean that his failures should be outweighed by his intentions, which is the case with a mediocre movie in the case of The Born Losers. It may prove interesting if you want to spend nearly two hours of your time trying not to make fun of its star/director, so take that into consideration.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Outlaw.

Review #1363: The Outlaw.

Cast: 
Jack Buetel (Billy the Kid), Jane Russell (Rio McDonald), Thomas Mitchell (Pat Garrett), Walter Huston (Doc Holliday), Mimi Aguglia (Guadalupe), and Joe Sawyer (Charley) Directed by Howard Hughes (#1332 - Hell's Angels)

Review: 
We live in an age of relentless promotion, don't we? Whether it is self promotion or social influencing, it can be a bit easy to become cynical about how a film can permeate our attention. Earlier decades aren't free of such statements, particularly when it comes to Howard Hughes, noted business magnate, investor, and engineer who also dabbled in films (he of course was known for purchasing RKO Pictures later in the decade). On the one hand, Hughes had plenty of highlights in thirty years of productions, with Hell's Angels (1930), The Front Page (1931), and Scarface (1932). On the other hand, his career also had films like His Kind of Woman (1951, which had two directors), The Conquerer (1956, known for inferior quality and being filmed 137 miles from nuclear testing), and Jet Pilot (1957, which Hughes tinkered with for four years). It was him who had brought Buetel and Russell for their debut performances, but their contracts to Hughes affected their careers, with the former not appearing in another film until 1951 and the latter was off the screen until 1946. Of course the film itself had plenty of trouble on and off filming. Hughes (who took over for Howard Hawks after he had griped about interference) had designed a special underwire bra for Russell to wear to emphasize her bosom. Interestingly enough, Russell didn't actually wear the bra for the film, discarding it secretly. You might notice the copyright of 1941 for the film, since production had finished in February. Hughes had plenty of trouble in releasing the film because of the Hollywood Production Code Administration. Simply put, they objected to Hughes' emphasis of Russell's features, wanting cuts made. The film was initially released for one week in February 1943 before objections were raised that led to shelving until 1946.

Of course with all that in mind, how's the actual film? It doesn't take a cynical eye to note that despite all of its daring attempts to stoke curiosity, it still comes in a film that is a tremendous bore, a deliberate insult to history that can't even stoke interest in the senses besides occasional glances to see how much is left in the tank (116 minutes, no less). While the film attempts to have back up with established stars in Mitchell and Huston (past and future winners of an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor), one does not really seem to feel too particularly interested in what is actually going on, beyond its attempts at humor and stoking excitement of passion. Sure, Russell does seem like she could be a star of some sort with raw presence, but Hughes does not seem quite the one to do so (this of course could have been said for Jean Harlow when she made her appearance in Hughes' other directorial effort). These are flat lines, ones that only barely register in entertainment no matter who says them. Buetel looks especially lost, looking like he wants to be in some other Western than this. Everybody looks like they are acting in completely different films, and Mitchell and Huston seem no different. In a better film, one could forgive some of the flailing attempts of re-telling legends of the Old West. But with this one, it seems almost intentional to irritate the fact-checkers. Did Doc Holliday ever meet Billy the Kid? Did he get killed in an accident with Pat Garrett? Did Billy the Kid escape death? Who cares?! You might as well have made a fictional composite while you are at it, or find another way to use your time, like social isolation or snarky Internet posting. On the whole, The Outlaw is a film more known for its attempts at promotion that were objectionable for the time rather than the true finished product, and it definitely shows in an aged ridiculous spectacle that flails as a Western in the worst ways.

Next Review - Onward, unless something stops it.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.