The Curse of the Cat People.

Review #2094: The Curse of the Cat People.

Cast: 

Simone Simon (the ghost of Irena Dubrovna Reed), Kent Smith (Oliver Reed), Jane Randolph (Alice Reed), Ann Carter (Amy Reed), Eve March (Miss Callahan), Julia Dean (Julia Farren), Elizabeth Russell (Barbara Farren), Erford Gage (Police Captain), and Sir Lancelot (Edward) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture, #725 - The Day the Earth Stood Still, #921 - The Haunting, #1407 - West Side Story) and Gunther von Fritsch.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Cat People (1942). That was the film directed by Jacques Tourneur with a script provided by DeWitt Bodeen, with Val Lewton having brought them both in to serve in their roles on the film as producer for RKO. The title may have been a bit more grabbing than the actual surroundings of the plot when it comes to "cat people", but it was worth a watch for those who favor patience in their horror films. Now here we are with a film that is strangely termed as "psychological supernatural thriller film" but let us just erase the doubt and say hey, it's a light horror film. Lewton imported certain aspects of his childhood into suggestion for the story of the film, as evidenced by his upbringing that saw him raised in Port Chester, New York after his family had moved from Russia. Gunther von Fritsch, an Austrian-born director (who had served in the US Army Signal Corps and did training films), was tasked to direct this one, his first (and perhaps only notable) feature film. However, he did not go to a satisfactory pace (i.e. only getting halfway through the script in filming) for what was meant to be a shoot of under three weeks. As such, Robert Wise, previously known as a sound and music editor at the studio after starting work there in the 1930s (which included Citizen Kane (1941), most famously), was brought in to direct the rest of the venture, which also serves as his feature film debut. Wise would direct for RKO until 1949, with two of his productions being under Lewton with Mademoiselle Fifi (1944) and The Body Snatcher (1945). Lewton wanted to call the film "Amy and Her Friend", but RKO (after screening the film) insisted on the cat title to cash in for suck-I mean, customers (a sequence of teenagers chasing a black cat up a tree was edited into the film on their request). 

Even more so than the previous film is one that is a film that is not great in any one field, but this is one that lacks any real particular great moment to really hold their hat for. It is a bait-and-switch in most senses of the world, because it doesn't have much to do with cats or curses, seemingly more interested in the world of seeing the horrors of a kid that may or may not be on the verge of going under the sanity train because of her lack of connection to others around her. Smith, Randolph, and Simon return from the previous film but don't exactly have as much to connect with, as the film really is Carter's to focus on, which goes fine. She handles the material presented to her with curiosity and dignity that you can see from someone meant to endear as a fellow explorer of strangers. Dean and Russell in theory would make for an interesting pair in family drama (a senile woman who may or may not be right about her daughter being who she says), but you only get glimpses. It barely even feels worth it to have Simon there, because she has very little to really do besides saying they are from "great darkness and deep peace". Bottom line, family drama, child with ghost, pick one to spend time further on. You might say the film has its own degree of ambiguity like the earlier film, but you are not seriously going to tell me that I actually am supposed to care to guess if the "ghost" is really present to our lead or not. The original tried the whole "maybe it's in her head, maybe it isn't", but I played along with it being real because the idea of watching a build of things you "see" or "hear" only to have a fake out sounds like the lamest idea imaginable when you are here for the idea of horror. With this film, I'm not playing the game of guessing and I'm not playing the game of trying to see if the film will do something more involving that the middle-ground stuff. It is merely fine, nothing more, one that will either seem moody or average, or...well, pallid. This is the kind of film where you have folks telling a brief rendition of "The Headless Horseman" to go with a climax that involves a kid being confronted with a grumpy woman...and a ghost appears right onto the woman, so the kid gives 'em a hug. I think the ending of the previous film, involving the revelation of one never lying to them, just works better in closing the whole thing rather than the mild warmth here. It is a film all about the fantasies that come with children with wandering imagination more present than what you fear, where a child that you are raising needs positive interaction and lessons from those around them rather than playing into fantasy. 70 minutes is mildly acceptable for those who have the curiosity for a mildly enjoyable film that may or may not stoke even further look into the world of Val Lewton and company.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Body Snatchers, hell yeah.

Olivia (1951).

Review #1990: Olivia (1951).

Cast: 

Edwige Feuillère (Mlle. Julie), Simone Simon (Mlle. Cara), Marie-Claire Olivia (Olivia Dealey), Yvonne de Bray (Victoire), Suzanne Dehelly (Mlle. Dubois), Marina de Berg (Mimi), Lesly Meynard (Frau Riesener), and Danièle Delorme (Une ancienne élève) Directed by Jacqueline Audry (#1650 - Gigi (1949))

Review: 

Once again with Audry, we have the telling of a passionate yearning of a young girl, this time wrapped in tragedy. Admittedly, this is the kind of material I should have seen coming from her, because she liked to specialize in trying to make her mark in the confines of sophisticated melodramas that liked to see literary adaptations. But Olivia is an interesting work to find. The movie is adapted from the novel of the same name that had been written by Dorothy Bussy. Bussy wrote the short novel based on her experiences as a student at Les Ruches, a girls boarding school in Fontainebleau, France that was founded by Marie Souvestre (her most famous student was Eleanor Roosevelt), although the manuscript was kept from publication for many years due to a discouraging response she got from a close friend. At any rate, it was published in 1949 (originally written in French but later translated to English). The screenplay was done by Pierre Laroche, who wrote for a number of his wife's films, while Colette Audry was credited with an adaptation credit. It was not the first publication that dealt with teenage interest with teachers, far from it: Claudine at School was written with debatably autobiographical elements by Colette in 1900, and I'm sure one doesn't need too many reminders of Mädchen in Uniform (1931). The film was known in America as "The Pit of Loneliness"; a re-mastering of the film was done in 2019, complete with a re-release that thankfully can be seen in the way intended (certain trimming was done in censorship back then).

As you might expect, the film grips at one's attention at what is implied rather than actual events, one with a watchful eye in its camera angles more than anything. In a place filled with only women and girls, factions rise up among the devoted. Most of all, it is the story of someone trying to figure out exactly what one's love is when it relates to another woman. At 95 minutes, a movie with plenty of subtext to go around will work for those who accept what the film wants to show in its ambiguities (as opposed to simply calling a more subdued Madchen in Uniform). The film even opens with a quote from "Olivia" that says love has been the key matter of her life forever along with a wish for the Gods to have not let her profane such a memory. This self-realization is one we can all share because we all have had that moment of having a great memory in love that we wish to have never turn into nothingness in affections. Feuillère and Simon are the two distinct forces that hold a certain kind of spell over these people, and one of them spends most of their time writhing in bed. Feuillere essentially dominates the landscape when it comes to definable qualities of the film, one who towers in charisma that you can easily spot as important when trying to decipher the film in the things that are left unsaid. Marie-Claire Olivia is best known for this film because of how she only made a handful of appearances to go with her changing her name before release to have a last name of "Olivia". Her whirlwind of impulses and foibles work more or less to where you anticipate, which means a decent performance in enthusiasm and tension. The camera sweeps over the proceedings with worthy curiosity, one that suits the staging drama set out by Audry without becoming a maudlin mess. As a 19th century tale of awakenings and frustrations, it makes for a decent idea to spend one's time in the pit of yearning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Outrage. Also...

Cat People (1942).

Review #1898: Cat People.

Cast: 

Simone Simon (Irena Dubrovna), Kent Smith (Oliver Reed), Tom Conway (Dr. Louis Judd), Jane Randolph (Alice Moore), Jack Holt ('Commodore' C. R. Cooper), Steve Soldi (The Organ Grinder), and Alan Napier ('Doc' Carver) Directed by Jacques Tourneur (#998 - I Walked with a Zombie)

Review: 

Oh yes, there was plenty of horror schlock to go around in the 1930s and 1940s, but one cannot forget about the ones besides the studio fare of the era. In 1942, an era of B-movie horror at RKO Radio Pictures began reaching theaters, with Val Lewton being tasked to do features for the studio; he had been hired after previously serving as story editor on films for David O. Selznick. Granted, they were not the cheapest type of horror film of their time, because even the Poverty Row studios like Producers Releasing Corporation made horror films too, but Lewton's run of producing horror B-movies made a distinct mark on horror cinema. It all started with this film, with Lewton picking both the director (Jacques Tourneur) and writer (DeWitt Bodeen), and each contributed to the script treatment, which had cat-related literature as research, with wither Tourneur or Lewton responsible for the modern setting as opposed to a period piece. One other part of the film crew was Mark Robson, who served as editor before cultivating a career of directing films in his own right. The film, reusing sets from films such as The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), was made for roughly $141,000. The film was a fair success for RKO despite mild reviews, which led to a semi-sequel with The Curse of the Cat People (1944) that saw three of the main four actors from the previous film return while Lewton served as producer and contributed script details (attempts by him to not use that particular title failed), and it happened to be the debut feature for a future famous name in Robert Wise. A remake was done in 1982. Lewton would produce eleven films for RKO from 1942 to 1946 before the death of Charles Koerner (executive vice president who supported Lewton while also being known as the guy who fired Orson Welles from RKO) along with Lewton's ailing health led to him not having employment with RKO. Lewton did produce a few features afterwards, but he died in 1951 at the age of 46. Among the notable horror films that he did were the aforementioned Cat film alongside I Walked with a Zombie (1943) and Isle of the Dead (1945). Tourneur had started his directing career with films in his native France in 1931, but it was these films that rose him into eventual status at RKO in the 1940s before he added freelance work to his output that saw a variety of genres to go with horror, most notably with Night of the Demon (1957).

Eight decades have been kinder to the film, which was a moderate success with audiences while having a decent if not spectacular reaction from others (i.e. not as hyperbolic as Freaks). In fact, the reputation of the film has perhaps been a bit overstated depending on the perspective of who is evaluating it, which either rests on being a sophisticated classic or just a good B-movie. I think it is merely pretty good, not exactly outclassing the creature features such as with Universal of the time but instead going for something a bit different in creativity. At any rate, the power of imagination is what matters most for the output of the RKO run with Lewton and company. Tournier himself described the film as "very poor" (in terms of the script and story progression) and "very childish" while also not being happy with Simon's acting. At any rate, it is the examination of "the Other" that matters most, where it is not only a movie about someone who may or may not be a cat but also a tragedy of how one loses their bearings in mind and with people. Superstitions and legends matter most to those who have the words to back it up, basically, whether that involves panthers or something else. It is a 73-minute movie with the most careful of touches that lives and dies on how you treat the road to seeing if someone is a cat-person or not, one that treats it seriously without veering into ridicule territory (RKO tried to push for more shots of, well, take a guess, but the filmmakers did play it carefully in shooting). Oh sure, you could save yourself the time by peeking to see whether the title is going to be what the title is, but sometimes it is the imagination of where the truth lies that is more useful to consider. With that in mind, Simon is serviceable up to a point: one can see the vulnerabilities present in a withering role like this and give her credit while also thinking that she pulls it off a majority of the time in shaky grace rather than an absolute one. Smith, tasked with being the ordinary fellow in a movie with the most careful of all tensions, does exactly what is required, one with striking causality towards how he treats Simon and Randolph when paired with either that makes for the tension needed. Conway is harder to peg down, mostly because he isn't exactly just the doctor character playing exposition nor one who has as much time to corral against Simon, but his last sequence does show exactly what would hope to see from a moderate actor. One of the most striking things to linger from the film is a moment that lasts for less than a minute: the first jump scare. Imagine if you will, a quiet little scene with growing tension, one that has you curious in your seat, things move carefully, and then bam, a loud noise strikes out of nowhere, with this one being the sound of an incoming bus. The jump scare became more of a thing in the 1970s with slashers, but it's always interesting to see where horror tricks can come from, especially when done right. As a whole, I think it is a pretty good movie, maybe not exactly the kind of movie that is great in any one area, but it would prove just right for a night out with the proper mindset of patience.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.