if....

Review #2087: If....

Cast: 

Malcolm McDowell (Michael Arnold "Mick" Travis), Richard Warwick (Wallace), Christine Noonan (The Girl), David Wood (Johnny Knightly), Rupert Webster (Bobby Philips), Robert Swann (Rowntree), Peter Jeffrey (Headmaster), Arthur Lowe (Mr. Kemp, Housemaster), Mona Washbourne (Matron), Ben Aris (John Thomas, Undermaster), Robin Askwith (Keating), Robin Davies (Machin), and Hugh Thomas (Denson) Directed by Lindsay Anderson (#1792 - This Sporting Life)

Review: 

Five years after The Sporting Life (1963), Lindsay Anderson followed up his feature debut (after a decade of documentary film work) with if...(1968). Well, actually, there was one other film in between with The White Bus (1967), a collaboration with playwright Shelagh Delaney that was meant to be part of a three-segment anthology film called "Red, White and Zero", but only Anderson's film had received release. At any rate, the film came about after years of development, since David Sherwin wrote the story with John Howlett by the early 1960s as shaped by their experiences at Tonbridge School in Kent. They had tried to approach filmmakers such as Seth Holt and Nicholas Ray to direct, but this did not come to pass; Anderson (a fellow with his own memories of boarding schools such as Cheltenham College) was introduced to Sherwin by Holt and the rest is history. Anderson has acknowledged Jean Vigo's French classic Zéro de conduite (1933) as an influence on the film, particularly with the climax. Malcolm McDowell made his debut as an actor in film with this one, but only because he was deleted from the final cut of Ken Loach's Poor Cow (1967). It just so happened that a couple of months into filming in 1968, Paris had a series of demonstrations from youths that led to civil unrest for a month. Anderson, McDowell, and Sherwin would do two further films together in a triad of films with "Mick Travis" in O Lucky Man! (1973, involving a coffee salesman-turned-star) and Britannia Hospital (1982, involving a critique of the National Health Service), although they aren't "sequels" in any sort of sense.

It never kills for a good satire about the education system, particularly ones of places filled with just boys and people that call themselves men. When taken literally beyond the mix of color and black-and-white images, it is easy to see how the film could have generated some controversy, particularly since it was given an X certificate by the British Board of Film Classification. Well, that and the idea that the only pure acts may very well involve "violence and revolution", which results in a fairly incendiary feature that relies on reputation more so than a definitive piece of great entertainment. It may be violent, but, well, only in its own time when not busy looking upon the differences that come with the terrors of hierarchies in boarding schools (no, not exactly Lord of the Flies, despite what impulse might think first). One supposes that life is a bit cloudy to see in the facets of color when it comes to viewing the absurdities that comes among the age groups with "school tradition" (well, actually the color changes related to the lighting of the school chapel before Anderson liked how it gave texture, but I think you get my inference). The distance between student and teacher seems pretty apparent when it comes to understanding who they are talking to in a changing environment of ravenous energy. It seems more of a casual stink bomb lobbed at the establishment rather than something with great fiery depth that just happens to be carried by an entertaining performance by its lead actor. McDowell has a conniving charisma to him that just draws one in, a figure of devilish delight. Incidentally, the performance done by McDowell led to Stanley Kubrick to cast him in A Clockwork Orange (1971), but the performance that he delivered in that ensuing film was helped by a phone call with Anderson that talked about an "ironic smile" he gave in the earlier film. He handles the crash of amusement that comes in a cast that handles carefully-cut satire with some ease, although for the life of the me the scene that best sticks in my head is probably, well, the climax involving the idea of terror that gets that one perceived blow of chaos through the illusion of order. As a whole, I wish I really liked the film for what it is rather than just considering what it meant at the time of filming, because really it is a pretty good second feature for Anderson, who seems to have loved and loathed British society all in one, which compares fairly (but not mostly) to his previous This Sporting Life. But, as a showing of the potential of its lead man in McDowell, it is one you can't really miss.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

My Fair Lady.

Review #1416: My Fair Lady.

Cast: 
Audrey Hepburn (Eliza Doolittle), Rex Harrison (Professor Henry Higgins), Stanley Holloway (Alfred P. Doolittle), Wilfrid Hyde-White (Colonel Hugh Pickering), Gladys Cooper (Mrs. Higgins), Jeremy Brett (Freddy Eynsford-Hill), Theodore Bikel (Zoltan Karpathy), Mona Washbourne (Mrs. Pearce), Isobel Elsom (Mrs. Eynsford-Hill), and John Holland (The Butler) Directed by George Cukor (#479 - Travels with My Aunt, #974 - A Star is Born (1954), and #1355 - The Philadelphia Story)

Review:
"She is a truly romantic creature. She doesn't just profess good manners--she is really well mannered at all times. She is not driven in her career but she gives full value and she is never indifferent."

If you watch enough musicals, they may eventually seem all too alike from each other. However, if you encounter one with elegance and charm, it certainly will stick in your mind as one for the ages. In an age of musicals and big-scale productions, My Fair Lady certainly belongs in the discussion as one of those classic musical epics. It was adapted by Alan Jay Lerner from the stage musical of the same name that was done by him and Frederick Loewe in 1956 that was based on George Bernard Shaw's 1913 stage play Pygmalion (with one notable difference between the two being its ending, since Shaw strenuously argued against Eliza coming back to Higgins). The original Broadway and West End productions featured Harrison and Julie Andrews in the star roles (with the former winning a Tony Award for his performance), and there have been numerous revivals (with the most recent being in 2019) over the years. When it came time for Warner Brothers to do a film adaptation (after buying the rights to it for over $5 million), Jack L. Warner decided to personally oversee the production himself, and it was he who decided that the lead role was to be played by a star (in this case, Academy and Tony Award winner and fashion icon Audrey Hepburn), as opposed to Andrews. Even if Hepburn had rejected the part, it would have gone to another big star before Andrews (one named floated was apparently Elizabeth Taylor). Hepburn would have most of her vocals dubbed by Mami Nixon (vocal singer for films such as An Affair to Remember (1957) and West Side Story (1961)), however, despite training with a vocal coach and musical director Andre Previn before shooting (the same would be done for Brett by Bill Shirley). Harrison, famed English actor of stage and screen, would reprise his role (after rejections from Cary Grant and Peter O'Toole), doing so while having a wireless microphone on him to do his musical numbers (as opposed to pre-recording them, which he felt he could not do convincingly for his particular range), which was innovative for the time; Holloway and costume designer Cecil Beaton would also be retained for the film.

Made on a budget of over $17 million (with primary filming on soundstages, much to Lerner's disappointment), this is a film of tremendous style and passion, rumbling through 170 minutes with spirit from its main group of actors that make a ravishing experience. One finds plenty of interest in the numerous songs that are catchy and endearing. Regardless of the dubbing, Hepburn pulls in a tremendous performance, convincing with her evolution to dignity and elegance that generates a few smiles and interest no matter what she is doing, whether that means being insulted while trying to sell flowers on the street with an accent or being at an embassy ball and looking the part of a princess.  One cares about her struggles with getting a "proper" accent, as one could expect from such a dignified actress. Harrison proves his own with a strait laced performance, filled with confident bravado that talks his way through songs with capability and a bit of wit to go alongside everything. They together make for a compelling duo to watch interact with each other, both brimming with confidence that we grow accustomed instantly. Holloway accompanies the action at times with charm befitting someone on the corner selling you some wit. Hyde-White lends a straight hand to Harrison when needed, while Cooper gives off sharp noble air and Brett gives off a capably insipid performance to round out the cast. Cukor, who grew up around the theater, executes the film with conviction and interest to make everything resonate with interesting tunes and a story worth being involved with. When it came time for awards, Cukor, Warner and Harrison reaped an Academy Award each, and the film won awards for its cinematography, sound, score, and art + costume design. One can debate the merits between this beating Mary Poppins for Best Picture, but its title star (Andrews) would reap the benefits of being snubbed for this film while Hepburn didn't get a nomination. Regardless of that, this is a classic big-scale musical in an age where the tide was slowly turning away from such things, a great hurrah with everything seeming right at home here, where pace and spectacle go hand in hand with each other in the fairest of senses.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Brides of Dracula.

Review #1280: The Brides of Dracula.

Cast: 
Peter Cushing (Doctor Van Helsing), Martita Hunt (Baroness Meinster), Yvonne Monlaur (Marianne), Freda Jackson (Greta), David Peel (Baron Meinster), Miles Malleson (Doctor Tobler), Henry Oscar (Herr Lang), Mona Washbourne (Frau Lang), Andrée Melly (Gina), and Victor Brooks (Hans) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness)

Review: 
One wonders how to make a horror sequel that will properly live up to the scares delivered by the original, particularly when its title villain isn't even included. The film retains the same director and writer from the first film (Fisher and Jimmy Sangster), albeit with additional help in terms of re-writes from others such as Peter Bryan, Edward Percy, and an uncredited Anthony Hinds. The original idea (titled "Disciple of Dracula", naturally) was a focus on an acolyte of Dracula, who would make a cameo (and likely have just as much dialogue as the character would have in further sequels, no doubt). Lee was not big on appearing in the film in any case (one would have to wait six further years to see him as the title character again and six more years to see Cushing return as well), so re-writes had to be done, which meant including Van Helsing along other things. Even the ending was re-written, in part because of Cushing's objection to the idea of releasing bats through an arcane ritual, seeing it as against his character (one could wonder if there would be quite a cost in getting a whole bunch of bats to fly out at once too), which I admit is pretty correct. You want to know what their solution was? Moving a bunch of sails in a mill in a certain shape after having thrown holy water on him. It can't be called the silliest way to kill the vampire, seeing as I've watched these films go from the obvious way (sunlight) to running water, punctured by a cross from a converted atheist, and my particular amusing one: a hawthorn bush. With that in mind, how is the actual film? Honestly, it is a pretty okay film, considering the fact that its vampire is nowhere near as scary in presence as from before, with Cushing being the highlight as one would expect. It does fine with its runtime of 85 minutes in giving off a careful controlled pace that makes for a few scares without aiming for anything too ridiculous or pale in tone for too long. Sure, it can be silly at times (particularly when it comes to its lead vampire trying to romance others), but one can still have a nice time with where it aims to go without being frustrated at wanting something else on screen. Cushing sure can drive a film forward with calm energy, being as usefully entertaining as one should see from an actor like him, where cliches can do no serious harm. He can talk about vampires or some other force of nature any day of the week, really, and one can follow him anywhere. Monlaur does okay, generally being a mild contrast to the calmly grim presence of Hunt and Jackson, with each doing just well at keeping the film afoot at times. Peel is nowhere near as scary or as interesting as Lee when it comes to a vampire that can be so alluring yet so deadly, especially when it comes to his eyes, but at least one can watch him try to act against Cushing without reaching vigorously for the remote. It's an average affair all around, but it keeps its foundations mostly secure without going completely off the deep end and giving some interesting moments to go along with it. The passion that drives these films seem authentic, where seeing one of these kind of films doesn't make the next one irritatingly familiar. It doesn't compare greatly with its predecessor or its successor, but this film could prove just fine for anyone in the right spirit for some old fashioned (yet neatly crafted) horror from the folks at Hammer from a time long since passed yet highly welcome here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.