Kilimanjaro is a snow-covered mountain 19,710 feet high and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Close to the western summit, there Is the dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude.
Those are the words which are spoken at the beginning of The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952), words which are by and large the same as those which open the Ernest Hemingway short story of the same name. There’s something of a paradox in the fact that the above quote is slightly abridged, whereas the story brought to the screen greatly expands upon the author’s original text. Hemingway is said to have been displeased with the end result, allegedly because Casey Robinson’s script folds in elements of so many of the author’s other works, and perhaps partly because the fleshing out that occurs shifts the emphasis of the narrative. It alters the ending too, quite radically in fact, and I’m of the opinion that it is for the better. Hemingway aficionados (and I count myself as one) may find that hard to swallow, but I shall try to work my way through my reasoning as we go along.
Harry Street (Gregory Peck) is a writer, but what is more important is that he is a dying man. He knows this, he can hardly fail to do so as he’s laid up in camp with the poison from an infected leg wound slowly pumping its way round his body. He’s being tended to by Helen (Susan Hayward), a rich woman whose company he needs and desires even as he spurns her attention and her affection. Not unnaturally for a man whose future is limited, Harry spends a lot of his time casting his mind back. The primary focus of those reminiscences is on the women in his life. While there does appear to be a degree of spitefulness or baiting to his revisiting the memories of his late loves and then telling Helen about them, the overriding sense is one of wistfulness, a kind of regret for opportunities not so much missed as elbowed aside in the ongoing quest for artistic success. Hemingway’s story, partly on account of its brevity, only touched on those memories, sights, sounds and flavors of a time that cannot be recaptured. However, where Hemingway drew attention to the words never written and the tales never told, the movie (while not actually ignoring those omissions) has Harry lamenting the loves he let slip away.
Harry’s flashbacks to those earlier days take in interludes in the USA and on the Riviera, but the bulk of the time is devoted to his stays in Paris and Spain, and to the woman who captured his heart, became his muse and then whose loss consumed him. Cynthia Green (Ava Gardner) is first encountered in a bar in Paris, dancing and laughing and stealing Harry’s heart in the half minute or so available to her. Then later in some improvised jazz club, in an atmosphere laden with intellectualism and melancholy, swept along by a slow and sultry saxophone, they embark on the affair that will define them, sealed by the simple expedient of lighting their cigarettes off a shared match. It’s a beautifully shot scene, Henry King’s painterly mise en scène bathed in Leon Shamroy’s blue and golden hues evoking a smoky eroticism that is both heightened and tempered by the gently charged flirtation of a woman merely “trying to be happy” and a man who has maybe found the essence of his own truth in that moment.
Those sequences charting the course of the relationship between Harry and Cynthia constitute the heart of the movie, and they are at best only alluded to in Hemingway’s story. Some of the description that Harry imparts via voiceover is directly lifted, but the events and their development and integration into the story is the work of Casey Robinson, an impressive piece of work in that it skillfully draws in strands of other Hemingway writings and captures the flavor and spirit of the author. For this viewer it not only works, but works well. Between them, King, Robinson and Darryl F Zanuck manage to turn what was a fine short story into a movie that adds new layers and nuance.
Then there is the ending, which is where the biggest departure from the source material is to be found. Hemingway wrote a lot about life and death, his whole attitude to hunting and bullfighting being closely tied to his feelings on this. His story sees Harry pondering the work he will not now complete, of what he had thought of doing but never actually did. And then he dies and his final thoughts take him up the peak of Kilimanjaro to commune with or perhaps even in some sense become that leopard referred to in the opening lines. He is then in his last moments a man making peace with his restlessness and his creative spirit, dreaming his way to the high ground.
The film takes a different path, presenting Harry with a salvation that is more comprehensive, more human. His creativity remains intact simply due to the fact that he is saved. What I feel is more important though, and it’s a big part of what I prefer about the movie, is that the higher plane achieved is not that conjured within the dreams of a dying man, instead it is a tangible one that can only exist in the living. It is a rediscovery of life, the will to live and the purpose of that life, coming about largely through his spiritual reconciliation with the women, both in the past and in the present, who have shaped his work and his character. Where the story on the page suggested fulfillment attained through death, the movie offers a vision of fulfillment won through living.
In the lead role Gregory Peck grows into the part, the character of Harry proving to be a complex one, and not an especially admirable one in many respects. There’s a good deal of self-regarding pomposity to him and Peck gets that across well. It’s that central part of the film, however, that solid dramatic core, where he explores the part in greater depth. One sequence in particular stands out for me, coming after the traumas of his sojourns in the Riviera and in Spain, where Harry finds himself back in Paris, and to be specific back in the bar where he and Cynthia first glimpsed each other. As he sits and thinks of those distant days, he turns around and fancies he sees the specter of Cynthia dancing from out of the mists of his past, laughing and full of joie de vivre. And the blend of emotions that chase across his features – hope jousting against regret and despair in an uneven contest – strike right to the heart of the man at that point.
The real strength of the movie, in terms of performances anyway, derives from Ava Gardner. Her role is essentially a riff on Lady Brett Ashley, the character she would go on to play for Henry King in his adaptation of The Sun Also Rises a few years later, albeit with less of the emotional bruising present. In her own words, Cynthia represented the first role she understood and felt comfortable with and that she truly wanted to play. That desire to have the part is always in evidence in her unaffected and naturalistic playing, and the inherent truth of that performance seems somehow appropriate for a character in a Hemingway adaptation. Susan Hayward was the other big star name and she too was well cast in a role that drew on her strengths as an actress, that characteristically tough resolve built as a shield around her vulnerability. In support Hildegarde Neff, Leo G Carroll, Torin Thatcher and Marcel Dalio all do creditable work.
I think I first caught The Snows of Kilimanjaro as a TV broadcast some time in the early to mid-1980s. I liked it well enough then, even if all aspects of the movie didn’t resonate with me to the same extent as they do now. I held off getting any home video version for a long time as the movie spent years as one of those dreadful looking public domain staples. Eventually, Fox released their own official version, one which is generally very pleasing to view. Hemingway purists might feel put out at the changes made to the story, but I feel the efforts of Zanuck, Casey Robinson and Henry King (helped along by the scoring of Bernard Herrmann) work and the result is a movie that stands up on its own terms, and brings out themes and ideas that the brief nature of the original material did not allow.
Riding the High Country 
I think a lot of movie adaptations forcibly distort the source material by changing a neutral or sad ending to a “happy” one, but if it’s done *well,* why complain? 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed. I think that, in this case, the ending of both the story and the movie has the protagonist attaining what he was striving for. The difference is in what he was looking to achieve, and how that ultimately comes about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 1963, the leading Hollywood composers were granted a rare moment in the sun — a nationally televised concert at the Hollywood Bowl. Considering the occasion (and the outdoor acoustic), most of them presented their most recent and most grandiloquent work: Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, How the West Was Won, . . . Herrmann’s choice, the fragile “Memory Waltz” from this film, stood out for its restraint. An LP was issued of the concert, and at the time it was just about the only Herrmann music on records.
LikeLike
That’s interesting. The score in this movie doesn’t have that edgy quality I tend to associate with some of his other work, especially those compositions for Hitchcock. There’s more subtlety and, as you say, restraint, but it suits the mood of the film.
LikeLike
The prelude, at least, is highly charged. Doubtless, the intention was to hype the African Danger angle, which was important to the box office if not to the thematic subtleties that you have interestingly pointed out.
LikeLike
Fair point, I was thinking more of the score further into the narrative.
LikeLike
I’ve seen the film and read the story and do not relate to any of these people. The film does capture Hemingway’s pseudo-intellectual pose, which may be well done, but it is also unlikable. As an aside, Hemingway was a suicide, and so was Harry. This is something that runs throughout the writer’s family.
LikeLike
Hemingway did indeed take his own life, and I think that is something to bear in mind when reading him and makes one think how he felt about those weighty matters of life and death, and how they colour so much of his writing.
The character of Harry Street though did not take his own life, neither in the text nor on the screen. He dies as a result of his injuries, and perhaps his own carelessness on the page. And on the screen the character faces deep despair at a few points, but that’s as far as it goes.
LikeLike
I was interpreting Harry’s screen life and death, as he is presented as someone self-destructive, almost bipolar.
LikeLike
I find the screen version of Harry grows in a natural way, from callow youth through to self-absorbed artist in Paris and Spain. Then after finding and losing Cynthia, he falls into a period of real desperation from which comes an awareness of his own failings, gradually turning to a kind of cynical self-loathing. Some of that is directed outward onto Helen, but it’s his brush with death, and the reassessment of his past and the roles of the various women who walked through it by his side that draws him back. He is saved by the arrival of the plane and the actions of Helen leading up to that, but what matters most is that his revisiting the past has allowed him to shift his focus, to be honest with himself and see the truth within that he has spent a lifetime chasing after. That self-destructiveness was a symptom of the sickness he carried for a long time – Helen’s devotion and his own frank appraisal of his life provide the cure.
LikeLike
The Hemingway curse, suicide, and alcoholism. Ernest’s father committed suicide, and so did his sister, Ursula, and granddaughter Margaux. Another granddaughter was born and named Gregory, but lived as a woman calling himself, Gloria. Mental disturbance permeates the Hemingway clan and Ernest’s work.
A personal note. I was in Manhattan walking with Micheline Lerner, one Alan’s eight wives when Errol Wetson stopped us and introduced Margaux. She was tall and beautiful. I thought he was a nothing. Not scientific, but dead on. On the other hand, Micheline thought I was adorable.
LikeLike
The King/Shamroy “partnership” is one of the most fertile and remarkable in film history. Shamroy won two of his four Oscars for his work with Henry King (“The Black Swan” and “Wilson”) They were some of the very few Hollywood directors and cinematographers that fully understood Technicolor’s potentialities at a time when it was often used in a campy fashion. King I think is a very underrated director, at least in his home country.
LikeLike
Xavier, I agree that King was not as appreciated as he ought to have been in his own country, and I don’t believe that has been reversed even now. I’d like to think he is better regarded though and that his stock may rise higher in time. Personally, I admire his work greatly and I think he handled some important and complex themes with both maturity and sensitivity, as well as achieving a strong visual aesthetic.
LikeLike
A very thoughtful piece Colin. I was just reminiscing about the film yesterday actually as I was listening Bernrd Herrmann’s wonderful ‘Memory Waltz’ from his score. Not seen the film since I was young and I did find the fragmented and episodic nature of the film a bit dampening overall. But it has been decades, definitely time to try again. Thanks.
LikeLike
You know, I think this is the type of movie that we may respond to more as the years pass. Frankly, I always liked it but I find I certain themes have more power now, of course they don’t really – they are what they always were, but a few more decades of living has me perceiving them in a different way. So yes, do try it again when you can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the one and only time I saw this film was probably that broadcast in the 1980s to which you referred, Colin, so my memory, like Sergio’s, is a rather distant one. But I DO remember finding the central character, like Hemingway himself, somewhat self-absorbed. Like Sergio again, I found it a rather ‘dampening’ (good word) experience.
BUT, as you say, with the hindsight of age perhaps I would enjoy the film more now and certainly your eloquent writing makes me feel I should seek it out. After all I have found that experience with other films, that is finding new enjoyment years on.
LikeLike
It leads back to that matter of characters going on a journey. Over the course of the movie, Harry’s journey is one that leads away from the self-absorption which was at least partly encouraged by his uncle. The first stage is triggered by his relationship with Gardner. The next stage comes as he works toward an acceptance of Hayward for what she is rather than punishing her for the person she is not. The result is full emotional maturity, a spiritual salvation that is mirrored by his physical rescue.
LikeLike
Well, what you have written, Colin, has got me to put in an order for a copy. I’m hoping it will be the Fox release.
LikeLike
The Fox edition is the one to get for sure. It has some nice supplements too.
LikeLike
My problem with all the Hemingway adaptations of the 40s and 50s is that they’re just not Hemingway. They don’t capture his existentialism. And they’re like the raw whiskey of Hemingway watered down with soda pop. No Hollywood studio of that era would have dared to offer audiences a genuine Hemingway movie.
I can fully understand people who disapprove of Hemingway’s existentialism but without that element you just don’t have Hemingway.
It’s a pity because Ava Gardner and Susan Hayward are just so good in this movie. Gregory Peck probably could have pulled off this role but in the 50s there was no way he was going to be allowed to reach inside himself to find the necessary inner darkness. It would have tarnished his image. I found this movie to be very disappointing.
LikeLike
I don’t really get that though, certainly not in this movie. The core of the story remains and the expansion, which I reckon captures the tone and attitude of Hemingway very well, adds a lot of depth that the fairly brief text lacked.
I know from some other conversations I had outside of here that I’m not alone in finding the movie improves on the story. I’m of the opinion the altered ending is one of those improvements since the story as written sees only a partially completed journey for Harry Street. His dying is portrayed as his fulfillment. The film’s take, which I don’t think ought to be characterized as the simple “Hollywood happy ending” some would have us believe, leads to a fuller, deeper resolution of Harry’s existential crisis. He essentially reaches the same point, but does so in a way that lends far greater weight and meaning to both the resolution and all that leads up to it. Along the way, I’d have said the character’s inner darkness does get a good work out and I’m not sure how much further it could have gone without altering things again.
LikeLike
It’s always tricky with adaptations, deciding how far an adaptation can depart from the source material and still be considered an actual adaptation rather than a movie “inspired by” that source material. If you treat The Snows of Kilimanjaro as merely a movie vaguely influenced by Hemingway it’s not too bad.
I admit I’m inconsistent. If I didn’t like the source novel (or short story) then I don’t mind how far the movie departs from it. But if I loved the book then I get upset if the movie departs from the original even a tiny bit.
LikeLike
I do agree totally about Ava Gardner’s performance. And that cigarette-sharing scene is superb. Almost as erotic as the cigarette-sharing scene between Garbo and John Gilbert in Flesh and the Devil.
LikeLike
I very much liked the way the action was mirrored when Peck met Hayward on the bridge. It was a clear signal of his desire to recreate the magic which he had not so much eluded him as been squandered. A little like James Stewart would discover in Vertigo, that attempt to recapture or remake what has been lost is a fool’s game. Harry’s lesson is learnt in a less traumatic fashion of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly support your view of this very beautiful and moving film and what you wrote on it. And honestly, my preference for the movie over the original story may be even stronger than yours.
The comment I read just before this bring up the same argument over fidelity to literary works that comes up again and again, and it has here before. My view of this, and it’s much like what you have expressed before, Colin, is that a movie does not owe fidelity but should be judged on its own. They are different works. But if it not faithful–and many attempts at faithful adaptations have seemed like pale copies– the adaptation can be compared in some ways, specifically, if it replaces the original with something different that is comparably good, not as good, or better.
So let me put this in context by first saying that I too am a devoted admirer of Hemingway. While still in my teens I read everything he had written that was then published and was mostly captivated. Of the novels, it was especially true of THE SUN ALSO RISES, which I read through in a single afternoon. And the short stories were also especially memorable–50 stories, some of them rightly prized like “The Killers” but many others still underrated, and the only one that to me is overrated is “The Snows of Kilimanjaro.” Coming back to this story again after many decades while also knowing the movie has only made me feel this more strongly.
There are several reasons for this. First, the present Africa scenes are well-written in a familiar Hemingway manner with his characteristically brilliant dialogue, but the italicized stream of consciousness is not and also takes one further to the deeper flaw, that the protagonist, plainly modeled on Hemingway himself, is completely self-absorbed; the women, past and present, only count as part of his experience, because they are or were in his life, not for who they are as themselves. So he cannot really be critiqued for how he treats them or his attitude toward them. He is a protagonist simply romanticizing his own death, but not engaged with life, which Harry Street in the movie, for all his flaws, actually is–he may treat his relationship with Cynthia carelessly and at crucial moments insensitively, but he is profoundly in love with her, and he comes genuinely to appreciate Helen at the end and to find renewal with her. You treated all of this eloquently in what you wrote, as well as the change in which he lives instead of dies. That is what the story is now about. The infection is a good metaphor for a kind of sickness of soul that his handling of his life has led him to, and coming to terms with both past and present is seen to cure this, and lead him to salvation and to the hope of something better, especially within himself, for all that he has lost. I know a lot of people believe this was some compromise but the whole movie is constructed in a way that builds toward it. And the treatment of the two main women especially supports it. I especially liked your use of the phrase that “spiritual reconciliation” that conveys this perfectly and I’ll throw the thought out here that the word “spiritual” is never far away in the work of Henry King, especially his best movies. It is such an important element of his work–he’s one of the directors who genuinely leans to a religious subtext.
This is not in Hemingway, of course. When the previous writer says “They’re just not Hemingway” (about this and other 40s and 50s adaptations) he is right about that. But this is not a Hemingway work; if you only want Hemingway, read him. It is a Henry King work (meaning a work of King and all the gifted collaborators who have been mentioned). It originated with Hemingway. That’s all. And that could also be said of Hawks’ TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, in which one sequence of about ten minutes duration near the beginning owes something to his novel of the same name.
So the real question is what have King and his collaborators created? And that is something very beautiful and again, spiritual, like THE SUN ALSO RISES, which also departs from the novel in the same way though it does follow the narrative line much more closely. And again, that’s a Hemingway novel I love but the movie stands on its own–just think of the novel’s famous last exchange between Jake and Brett; it’s there in the film, but followed by another scene, less bitter, more reflective, in which the two characters make allusion to God. That’s only in the movie and in a subtle way gives the whole a different meaning.
The screenplay of SNOWS does evoke Hemingway in its own way, but it always takes it its own way. King said that–and I think he is right–Casey Robinson’s writing is so good that there are scenes in which his dialogue is so well combined with Hemingway’s that you cannot tell where one leaves off and the other begins. That is quite an accomplishment.
But most important in making the movie what it is, the beginning of an aesthetic experience as well as a satisfying narrative one, is that the film takes the protagonist and replaces his romanticization of himself with something truer to what being a complex human being is. What I believe hurt the story is that Hemingway sees himself so much in Harry, and when an artist does this, they do it better when they are dispassionate and can see themselves as they really are. He could do this when characters are at a little more of a distance from him. Not as well as F. Scott Fitzgerald, in my opinion, and Fitzgerald, who can be as readily praised for his command of language, is more willing to model characters on his experience and be thoroughly unsparing about it (TENDER IS THE NIGHT, “Babylon Revisited” to name some outstanding examples). But Hemingway could do it too.
In the story “Hills Like White Elephants” a man and woman are captured in an interaction in which, very subtly, the man is trying to persuade/pressure her to have an abortion. Hemingway presents it all straightforwardly, passing no judgement, but in the way he does it, more sympathy does fall to the woman.
The movie THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO does something like that. And it is important to observe here that far from making us pull away from a character because of their failings, weaknesses, limitations and mistakes, a good work of art actually has the effect of making us more emotionally invested in them and to care about how things will resolve, whether tragically or more hopefully. Perhaps this is because most of are aware that we too have failings, weaknesses, limitations and have made mistakes. That is part of what being human is.
At least I believe most people feel that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of food for thought in that, Blake. I’d like to respond to much of it but I’ll confine myself to just a few points raised.
Firstly, Henry King needs, or deserves, a reappraisal. I’m not sure why but his work simply hasn’t been given the regard it ought to have had. That spiritual aspect is there and it is of interest, to this viewer anyway. it’s an area that always draws my attention whenever I come across it in films and especially when it is done with intelligence and/or subtlety.
That final point you make registers strongly too. There is something powerfully attractive about filmmakers or artists generally who can approach human frailties and limitations dispassionately and with a generosity of spirit. I agree that these things make us human, and if art cannot address these features, then it’s not worth the name.
LikeLike
a movie does not owe fidelity but should be judged on its own.
It’s important to make a distinction between being faithful to the letter of the original (which means following the plot of the original as closely as possible) and being faithful to the spirit of the original.
My feeling is that if you’re not going to be faithful to the spirit of the original then you shouldn’t promote your movie as an adaptation. You shouldn’t trade on the author’s fame if you’re going to make a movie that bears no resemblance to the spirit of his book. You should be honest enough to change the title and the credits should say “inspired by” rather than “based on” the book in question.
That’s why I detest Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly so much. Aldrich clearly despised Spillane and despised his work but he was still happy to trade on Spillane’s fame. There’s something fundamentally dishonest about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not to overstay my welcome, but I had wanted to add a few notes more specifically about the aesthetic aspects, especially because of some good earlier comments, along with your piece, that touched on this.
First, the Technicolor photography–exceptional, and I’ve seen original 35 prints of it and am only glad there is now a good DVD from the studio (it is a mystery why such a high profile film fell into PD the way it did). Your evocation of the “blue and golden hues” is exactly right–that is in fact something that is especially definitive of Leon Shamroy, both on his own and with King. I really appreciated the comment of Xavier Lechard about their collaboration and their work with Technicolor, going back into the 40s. It was exceptional. I’d only want to add that on some occasions when he did not have Shamroy, King also got similarly great results with Charles G. Clarke, especially in MARGIE (1946), very subtle in mood and never gaudy though on the surface it is a light, period subject (but there is always so much that King finds and expresses even as he does the surface well). Clarke also shot CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE (1947, stunning) and later CAROUSEL (1956, artful as well) and effectively did some second unit/location shooting for some King films photographed by Shamroy, THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO being one of these.
Rozsaphile also made a very sympathetic comment about Herrmann (God! I envy you seeing the concert you mention). Sometimes people feel it’s enough to jump from the two Welles films on to his work with Hitchcock but he has some great works in between, especially at Fox, where Alfred Newman, one of his few peers as a film composer, valued him and gave him these assignments. Another one of the most outstanding is THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR (1947), and SNOWS is also especially memorable, not only the “Memory Waltz” but the main romantic theme that comes in with Cynthia, and on which the waltz is based, very passionate and romantic. Also, at RKO there was ON DANGEROUS GROUND (1951, Nicholas Ray), which both the director and Herrmann himself especially favored. For the record, Rozsaphile, when I said one of his few peers along with Newman, the other composer among the first three I’d name is Miklos Rozsa.
Just on a musical note, that in the Harry/Cynthia meeting, the “slow and sultry” alto saxophone you perfectly described, is played by jazz great Benny Carter, who is seen in the sequence as he plays.
One thing wasn’t in your piece and I want to add it, Henry King’s way with flashbacks–you can look at the imaginative way they come in with MARGIE and TWELVE O’CLOCK HIGH too among others. He is a real master of this, always avoid conventional dissolves and wavy lines and those things. THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO does every flashback and return to the present with a straight cut, at times with a striking musical overlap like the guitar after Cynthia leaves Harry. This is very modern. King had a great relationship with his regular editor Barbara McLean so I’m sure they worked together to go toward this effective handling of time in their films, with great effect when the past takes over in the narrative.
I guess you said enough about Peck, Hayward and Gardner, so just a note of appreciation for the way you have taken up for Gardner (in MOGAMBO, BHOWANI JUNCTION and THE SUN ALSO RISES as well as in this piece), once so underrated as an actress and only prized for her beauty though she was a great actress and always so soulful–the part with Cynthia does carry the deepest emotion in SNOWS. But Hayward is one of the few actresses I put on that same level and does make her part of this great too for the reasons you say. As for Peck, at least five of his six movies with King are his best (I do think BELOVED INFIDEL misses)–he was King’s favorite actor and King was his favorite director. His heroes/protagonists in these movies always seem in some way strong and stalwart going in and then reveal the different flaws that they have in the course of the narratives–and this is the kind of persona in which Peck’s talents are really most fully realized. So, three great leads.
As for King himself, I support you and Xavier. I believe he is still underrated. Maybe not as much as he once was but too much for a top tier director. He won’t be fashionable now. His films are slower than many, very deliberately so–rather than being ponderous, he takes the time to get the most out of it, and his greatest films sustain the pace that they have beautifully and movingly for me. He was a really great artist, not inhibited by being under that long contract to Fox because Zanuck valued him and generally gave him his choice of projects. So these films meant something to him. Among all of them, I consider THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO among the very best, in the top six for sure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m a major Ava Gardner fan and I loved her in Bhowani Junction (which I think is an under-appreciated film). I liked her in Mogambo as well although the movie itself was very disappointing.
And I adored Gardner in the criminally underrated Pandora and the Flying Dutchman.
LikeLike
Gardner is usually a big asset to any movie. Personally, I find Mogambo a hugely satisfying film, beautifully filmed, rich and mature with Gardner and Gable bringing out the best in each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just found myself comparing it to Red Dust. It’s not that Mogambo is a bad movie but I liked Red Dust so much more.
LikeLike
I’ve not seen Red Dust in many a year, but it never stayed with me the way Mogambo did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if I prefer Red Dust because that was the one I saw first?
LikeLike
Maybe because it was pre-Hays Code with Harlow?
LikeLike
Well yes, being a pre-code movie gave it a huge advantage over Mogambo. And much as I love Ava Gardner she can’t quite match Harlow’s performance.
LikeLike
I’m struggling to think what the pre-code aspect could add that would make the movie seem better.
As far as I’m concerned, Mogambo has depth, maturity, and a real sense of generosity in the way it approaches the human frailties of its characters. These elements are key, they separate great movies from merely entertaining ones. This is of course partly due to Ford, who was one of cinema’s great artists and humanitarians, and to the understanding of their roles that Gable, and more significantly to my mind, Gardner brought to it all.
As for Harlow, she generally brought a vivacity to her work, but Gardner was a better actress.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My view is exactly the opposite of yours on Red Dust. Mogambo works for me.
LikeLike
Good commentaries here make me want to see this one again. My memories are largely black-and-white from the original “Saturday Night at the Movies” telecast c. 1961. (“Mom, why is that woman falling down the stairs?”) I’ve encountered the film since in washed-out color. Why, indeed, did it fall into the public domain?
As for the music, it should be noted that at least one bit of source music is by Alfred Newman: the sax tune in the club, called “Blue Mountain” or “Love for Cynthia.”
According to the notes for the Naxos recording, Zanuck made extensive trims at the last minute, mostly of Susan Hayward’s scenes: 158 minutes down to 117 minutes. Zanuck was a good story editor, but a good deal must have been lost in the process. The chief’s feud with Hayward may have been a factor.
As for the 1963 Bowl concert, there were actually two of them, the televised event being a kind of abbreviated encore. Herrmann was missing from the telecast. His earlier appearance had included “North by Northwest” as well as the “Kilimanjaro” waltz. The latter performance was preserved on the Columbia Records LP and the expanded CD issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never given Henry King much thought as a director. I have enjoyed quite a few of his adventure movies – King of the Khyber Rifles, The Black Swan, Captain from Castile and Prince of Foxes. They’re the movies I associate with him. Quality swashbucklers.
LikeLike
Directors who were comfortable working in just about any genre, who could operate within the studio system with success and still leave their own stamp impressed on the movies they made tend, for whatever reason, to be undervalued. Perhaps the versatility combined with a style that is characteristic without being flashy plays a part. I don’t know, but I do know Henry King is one such filmmaker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Captain from Castille works best in this group, but King of The Khyber Rifles is a distinct miss. The others are quite good. I saw Prince of Foxes upon its initial release and it has never left me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like King for The Black Swan and The Bravados.
LikeLike
King’s touch is very much in evidence in The Bravados, that spiritualism spoken of earlier is all over it and the cauterizing redemptive journey Peck takes is a powerful one.
LikeLike
I think King and Peck created a masterpiece in ‘Twelve O’ Clock High’. I’ve run that film over the years and go gosh is it already over. So real, vivid, and moving. Honestly I think it is one of the great American films.
LikeLike
I have that movie on a the rewatch list and I keep putting it off, or letting it get overtaken for some reason. It is a superb movie and I should try harder to fit a viewing in again.
LikeLike
You really should. Also the commentary with Nick Redman, Rudy Behlmer, and Jon Burlingame is wonderful though poignant too with the loss of those first two gentleman imparting such great info on every track they appeared including this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those three also provided a good commentary on King’s Captain from Castile.
LikeLike
One reason I dislike the “Auteur” theory is various arguments I have with a close friend of mine who defends the theory by stating both King and Ford worked extensively at Fox and while Ford’s pictures are generally masterpieces King’s films are generally run of the mill fodder. I asked him if he had ever seen THE GUNFIGHTER a top tier classic Western that (for me) ranks with anything Ford had made including MY DARLING CLEMENTINE. Oddly enough, he visited me the other day and I gave him the sealed DVD of the Criterion release of King’s film that I ordered in error in my effort to get the Blu Ray. I thought at least he might be tempted to watch the film as among the extras there is feature on Barbara McLean doyen of film editors-as this
chap was in fact an editor. Darryl Zanuck hated the haircut King had demanded Peck had to retain an authentic period feel. King had enough power at Fox to get his own way-despite Peck being Box Office Gold at that time.
I’ve enjoyed King’s bigger CinemaScope pictures especially UNTAMED but have thus far missed out on some of his smaller more intimate pictures like WAIT TILL THE SUN SHINES NELLIE and I’D CLIMB THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN. I did catch DAVID AND BATHSHEBA at the cinema back in the 60’s and recall it as an enjoyable experience despite the films less than stellar reputation-sure it is rather slow but very absorbing I thought way back then.
Despite the somewhat fearsome reputation several Fox contract directors had (Lang,Preminger and Hathaway) Mr King was a gentleman by comparison. I’m also a great admirer of King’s brother Louis again a veteran of silent cinema. I love Louis King’s early Buck Jones pictures on to his sensational Paramount programmers HUNTED MEN,PRISON FARM,ILLEGAL TRAFFIC,TIP OFF GIRLS and the masterful PERSONS IN HIDING. I also enjoy his later more big budget pictures like POWDER RIVER, DANGEROUS MISSION, FRENCHIE and THE LION AND THE HORSE. One of my “most wanted to track down” titles is Louis King’s SAND with the most appealing (for me) star trio of Mark Stevens, Coleen Gray and Rory Calhoun. The fact that I’ve seen more Louis King films as opposed to Henry King says more about me, I guess.
Back to my Auteur friend it too me years to get him to watch George Sherman’s REPRISAL! which he gave short shrift to because Sherman, sadly would never fit into the Auteur description-others may beg to differ. To me all directors are “Journeymen” (or should I say “Journeypersons” ) it’s just that some journeys are more interesting than others. I must close by saying my friend is a huge admirer of Edgar G Ulmer which just goes to show what a “cult” reputation can do to enhance a director’s reputation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would it be fair to say your antipathy to the auteur concept might stem from a misinterpretation, or maybe misapplication is better, of the term?
I know we’ve been down this road before, but I do wonder if the misuse of the term or its too narrow application is the problem.
LikeLike
I’ve never supported the Auteur theory. Some great directors have made some very bad films whereas some very bad directors often knock one out of the park. There’s a W Lee Wilder film shot by John Alton that makes Wilder look like Anthony Mann. When certain very talented directors ( I will not name them) shot overseas without say Burnett Guffey,Joseph Biroc and others their pictures looked decidedly inferior. As Ken Tynan all those years back noted it was not only down to the DOP’s but also the editing and the overlooked production designers-just look at Bernard Robinson’s earlier non Hammer work. Anyway this always divides opinions so let’s let it rest here.
On a happier note it would seem Warner Archive are testing the UK market for their Blu Ray’s with THE NAKED SPUR (essential) being an initial release. The problems for fans is what Warner Archive titles to wait for I’ve just viewed Lang’s RANCHO NOTORIOUS and your eyes
just will not believe what they are seeing. As one reviewer stated the film has never looked this good even on it’s initial release. I long for the day when ALL Warner Archive releases will be available through Amazon UK at the more competitive rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the expansion of the WA range to the UK is good news, but I too have a hunch it’s going to move slowly and wonder if how many titles will be included as it goes along. We’ll see, but I certainly regard it as a step in the right direction.
I just ordered a copy of Rancho Notorious the other day as it happens, but imports are slow and it will be a while before I get to sample it – I’m very much looking forward to revisiting it.
I used MovieZyng for a recent order, they had a sale on Archive titles at 4 for $49 and each subsequent title for $12.25 and it worked out pretty well. I picked up Crossfire, Great Day in the Morning, They Won’t Believe Me and Blood on the Moon.
LikeLike
Cannot fault that quartet Colin all essential on Blu as far as I’m concerned. Seeing the Tourneur film in the correct ratio
makes all the difference. THEY WON’T BELIEVE ME should be much higher regarded than it is and yes,Irving Pichel could knock
one out of the park occasionally. I long for a fully restored version of QUICKSAND another, gem from Pichel who hits bull’s eye on a restricted budget.
ENJOY!
LikeLike
I’m quite keen to see the full version of Pichel’s movie – I’ve only ever seen the cut version.
LikeLike
Some great directors have made some very bad films whereas some very bad directors often knock one out of the park.
Often you’ll find that when a great director made a bad movie it was because the director wanted to make an intelligent provocative movie while the studio wanted safe, bland, predictable pre-digested pap. In those cases the studio usually got its way. And often the director’s desire to make a great movie was thwarted by the Production Code.
Never underestimate the contempt that the Hollywood studios had for their audience.
Mediocre directors occasionally made very good movies because they were lucky enough to get handed a script so good that even a talentless hack couldn’t mess it up, especially if they were also lucky enough to have a great cinematographer. A cinematographer like John Alton could make any movie worth watching.
The greatness of a lot of Hollywood movies had more to do with the quality of the cinematographer, the production designer, the costume designer and sometimes the star.
Also consider the Warner Brothers musicals of the early 30s. Their greatness had more to do with Busby Berkeley’s genius than with the abilities of the directors. And the Astaire-Rogers musicals were great because of Astaire and Rogers.
LikeLike
I don’t buy that at all. Talented people come together, sometimes they fail, but not for lack of trying. In my experience, the producer/director depending on who they are, drive the narrative, but the star has special input and drives both. In any case, making a movie is not like writing a poem, the money, whoever provides it, has input as well. Then and now.
LikeLike
my friend is a huge admirer of Edgar G Ulmer which just goes to show what a “cult” reputation can do to enhance a director’s reputation.
The Black Cat and Detour on their own are enough to secure Edgar G. Ulmer’s place among the greats.
LikeLike
There are three A-budget films Edgar did with Louis that work wonderfully well. The Strange Woman, Ruthless, and best of all, The Pirates of Capri, the first Italian-American co-production. They are all available.
LikeLike
I’ve seen The Strange Woman and Ruthless and I loved both films. Especially The Strange Woman. Now I’m just going to have to track down a copy of The Pirates of Capri.
LikeLike
Pirates was released twenty years ago on DVD. It must be around. Fine score by Nino Rota.
LikeLike
The only DVD of The Pirates of Capri that I’ve found that is affordable is a French release. It seems to offer both French and English soundtracks although product descriptions on websites can be misleading. I’m definitely tempted to grab it. Edgar G. Ulmer plus pirates – that’s a combination hard to resist.
LikeLike
I can only give you my take. I love it, seen it at least thirty times, including upon its initial release, filled with classic photography, Hayward, Binnie Barnes, Alan Curtis, Mariella Lotti, and Massimo Serato, billed as Rudolf here.
LikeLike
The French DVD is not outrageously expensive and you’ve just about convinced me to grab it. And I’ve loved all the Ulmer films I’ve seen, including his ultra low budget PRC films and his later science fiction-y films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops……
My last post if suffering from the “Diane Abbott Blues” (Jerry will know what I’m on about) in that I posted the initial draft without an edit (easily done!) so I apologise for various typos and generally clumsy writing.
THE BRAVADOS would have been a thousand times better were not Felicia Farr had the female lead. THE BRAVADOS is a mighty fine CinemaScope Western but nowhere near THE GUNFIGHTER as top drawer Western.
LikeLike
John,
Felicia Farr is not the female lead in The Bravados. Joan Collins, yes?
LikeLike
No doubt John will clear it up himself, but I took it to mean he would have preferred to see Felicia Farr in the role Joan Collins played.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YEP! Barry-
My clumsy writing to blame.
LikeLike
But — good taste. I like Felicia Farr Too. Doesn’t everyone?
LikeLike
The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952), I watched about 20 minutes of a jumpy vhs years ago and gave up. Looks like time to give it a spin again.
Several years before Peck passed he was here in Calgary doing a one man show. The dolly and I took it in and were pleased we did. The first 20-30 minutes he showed clips of his film work etc. Then he told great stories of working with various actors, actresses, and directors. He was particularly vocal in his praise of Robert Mulligan and John Huston. Then Peck took questions from the crowd. I was lucky enough to get to ask one. I asked what it was like making YELLOW SKY with Anne Baxter Richard Widmark. He smiled and said that working with “Wild” Bill Wellman was fun.
Several years later we got to see Peter Ustinov doing the same sort of show here in town.
Gordon
LikeLike
People
The 1940 version of GASLIGHT is coming up here on TCM in a few days. This one has Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard as the leads. I have seen the 1944 remake, but I see the reviews for the 1940 edition on IMDB are all down-right glowing. What is the take among you bunch?
Gordon
LikeLike
Personally, I liked the remake better. I rate Cukor highly in general, the cast is superb and, others may disagree, but I enjoy the polish of it all as well as the sets and art direction.
The original is a good movie, I wouldn’t claim otherwise, but maybe my coming to it after being very familiar with Cukor’s version meant I found it slightly flat in comparison. The tone is different, maybe more restrained, but I’m not sure that’s the right way to describe it either.
Anyway, I recommend you check it out since you have the opportunity to do so – I’d tend to encourage people to check anything out for themselves, but this is without doubt a worthwhile movie – you may find yourself among those who prefer it to the remake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the 1944 remake is quite good but I do definitely prefer the 1940 original.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like both versions but, like Dee, warm more to the 1940 original
LikeLike
For Ulmer fans I highly recommend the Sci Fi Triple from Kino Lorber. BEYOND THE TIME BARRIER is amazing considering the threadbare budget. His Universal-International 50’s Western THE NAKED DAWN is also very good-Kennedy’s performance seems to be a homage to his buddy Anthony Quinn. DETOUR is not loved by everyone at RTHC including our gracious host but in Colin’s case it’s more of a dislike for Tom Neal who IMHO is perfectly cast.
BTW Dee your earlier comments prodded me to dig out and re-watch (for the umpteenth time) KISS ME DEADLY. For me the film is Aldrich’s masterwork it improves with each
viewing and Meeker is the ultimate Hammer.
As is typical with Aldrich the film downplays the sex and turns the sadism and violence up to 11. I agree with Colin, however, that it’s a stretch to warm to Biff Elliott in I, THE JURY but the film is still essential- John Alton to the rescue yet again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, John, whenever I read anything by Spillane now, I have a picture in my mind of Meeker.
LikeLike
The best screen performance in the role of Mike Hammer was Mickey Spillane himself in the excellent The Girl Hunters.
LikeLike
I’ve given Robert Aldrich plenty of chances but so far I’ve disliked every one of his movies that I’ve seen. The Big Knife is spectacularly bad.
I see Aldrich as the Quentin Tarantino of his day – popular with the cool kids who think he’s edgy.
LikeLike
Bingo — However, at sixteen The Big Knife was startling and well performed. We also did the Odets play at Temple University in Philadelphia, but n hindsight, anything by Clifford Odets seems naive and pretentious. To be avoided. An aside. Cary Grant did None But The Lonely Heart with Odets, and was nominated for the Academy Award. His reaction was to never take another phone call from this guy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Aldrich but he can be hit or miss. I really like ‘Attack’ and ‘Ulzana’s Raid’. The latter is pretty much a dark masterpiece on American violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t seen I, the Jury. Apparently it’s been released in 4K UHD, a format which doesn’t interest me in the slightest. I believe that release also includes the movie on Blu-Ray. I’m tempted to buy it but it’s ludicrously overpriced.
Getting back to Ulmer The Naked Dawn sounds interesting but the only DVD release I can find is a Spanish disc. Has anyone seen that DVD? Is it OK, in the correct aspect ratio, etc? It’s also horribly overpriced.
LikeLike
Still on the subject of Ulmer, his 1959 epic Hannibal rarely gets a mention. He wasn’t happy with it since he didn’t get to make it the way he wanted to but it’s still quite an interesting film.
LikeLike
Has the dislike of Aldrich anything to do with Politics? Aldrich was a Liberal (” I could never understand why working
class Americans vote Republican”) yet his films are often very sadistic especially SODOM & GOMMORAH and ULZANA’S RAID.
With the former I wish he had upped the sex and toned down the violence. APACHE originally a Joseph Losey project is an almost classic Western and I take it you guys (Dee & Barry) don’t like Losey either. VERA CRUZ was a huge influence on the Spaghetti’s need I say more. I enjoyed Barry’s Marxist vibe that he noticed in the Euro Westerns. ULZANA’S RAID is one of the 70’s greatest Westerns. Like Nicholas Ray (who I assume Dee & Barry don’t like) Aldrich suffered with certain films being mutilated and even re-shot-they both had a hard time throughout the 50’s. I wish Losey had stayed in America and while his take on English mores and morals is fascinating I would have loved to see him tackle more American genres especially the Western.
I think Losey’s American films generally outstanding especially M. I also feel he lost the plot with his later English films
THE GO BETWEEN being grossly overrated. I’m also interested to hear which other directors Dee & Barry have a dislike for-what a boring world it would be if we all loved the same stuff.
THE NAKED DAWN was released on a very nice DVD by Koch Germany some years back.I’THE JURY has been released in the UK by Studio Canal without the 3D Version but the “flat” version is from the same 4K master. I think it can be picked up on Amazon UK for about ten quid.
LikeLike
John,
The Republicans are the party of progress and the least personal interference. I say this as the child of homeless bankrupts. An example; One day after I had sold half a dozen of my homes, my mother said, she had never heard of someone selling their house for profit. Thji was, simple-minded and naive. My response: Of course not, the only home you ever owned was repossessed by the bank. End of conversation. Oh, my family was Democrat, and so were Reagan and Louis Hayward until they shifted. I voted for a Democrat once, Jack Kennedy, and I would do it again, although my daughter observed that today, he woudl be a Republican.
You wrote above about not being in tune with the auteur theory. Of course not, it was created by people who had never produced a picture. I am a major studio and top star oriented. Or just a leading player. MGM is my choice, with Gable adn Tracy heading the list, along with Clarence Brown and Jack Conway, followed by Minnelli and more. Long-term employment at L.B. Mayer’s studio was no accident. Same for Warners and Fox. Second and third on my list. I suppose Ford, Welles,and Hitchcock are the directors I favor, but not in everything. Ford in the thirties pre-John Wayne, means little to me, Welles as a technician and curiosity, although I applaud Ambersons and Lady From Shanghai. Hitch, Read Window and his Cary Grant pictures. After 1960, pass. Time to work out, weight training. Speak to you soon again, I hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welles as a technician and curiosity
For me his masterpiece was his Macbeth.
After 1960, pass.
For me the turning point was around 1967. Point Blank, The Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde came out that year and everything changed.
There are lots and lots of post-1967 movies that I love but they tend not to be major studio Hollywood productions and they tend to belong to disreputable genres like science fiction or horror. There are exceptions. Chinatown is superb.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Directionally speaking, and at a different level of ambition if not execution, I am partial to George Sherman and John English. Budd Boetticher, but only the Ranown product, and Bullfighter and The Lady work for me, although among the outright lefties, Robert Rossen in the forties works fine for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Budd Boetticher, but only the Ranown product, and Bullfighter and The Lady work for me
I absolutely loved Bullfighter and The Lady.
LikeLike
Budd Boetticher, but only the Ranown product, and Bullfighter and The Lady work for me
Budd Boetticher, but only the Ranown product, and Bullfighter and The Lady work for me
I absolutely loved Bullfighter and The Lady.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has the dislike of Aldrich anything to do with Politics
I have no actual political views. I do intensely dislike political films, and I don’t care what brand of politics they’re pushing. I just don’t like propaganda of any sort.
All political movies are bad movies.
I take it you guys (Dee & Barry) don’t like Losey either.
The one Joseph Losey movie I really love is the science fiction movie he made for Hammer in 1962, These Are the Damned (AKA The Damned. Some of Losey’s 60s movies are amusing in a so-bad-it’s-good way ( Boom, Secret Ceremony, Modesty Blaise). It’s fascinating to read about the production of Modesty Blaise. Losey just didn’t have a clue what he was doing.
Like Nicholas Ray (who I assume Dee & Barry don’t like)
I remember seeing a documentary in which Ray was interviewed. He gave the impression of a man who knew nothing whatever about making movies.
I’m also interested to hear which other directors Dee & Barry
have a dislike for
Robert Altman. Sidney Lumet.
The common thread linking these directors is that they took themselves too seriously without having the talent to back it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Barry for your detailed reply.
I’ve been wanting to “like” lots of comments on this thread but getting the “like” system to work sometimes baffles me. I try not to get too political on this blog but I thought I would mention Aldrich’s Liberal stance. I personally do not care about a director’s politics after all it’s the films that matter. I loathe the “racist” tag that has been applied to John Wayne and a no talent like Sharon Osborne demanding the removal of his airport statue as she finds it so offensive. Most of our heroes from the Golden Era were pretty right wing politics should never enter into it really. England is so screwed up right now I will not even venture an opinion on what is happening in America.
Sometimes I feel I shouldn’t even be on this blog as my true love is for B Movies and Programmers an obscure little Noir like BLONDE ICE getting a restored Blu Ray release means everything to me. Perhaps only a Hugo Haas can be considered a true Auteur as he produced directed and often starred in his own threadbare little pictures which I love I might add. It goes without saying that Columbia is my all time favourite studio as they did everything B Movies Serials-Sam Katzman-Boston Blackie-Crime Doctor-Lone Wolf-The Whistler-Randolph Scott-William Castle-Glenn Ford-and a whole heap of wonderful Westerns and Noirs.
I must admit I watched the gorgeous Blu Ray of LAST TRAIN FROM GUN HILL and it made me wonder why I spend so much time watching B Movies. I always enjoy our discussions Barry as I do trading opinions with Walter who has forgotten more about movies than I’ll ever know. It’s great that we can keep it pretty sweet natured despite a differing stance from time to time-Heaven knows there’s enough mean spiritedness in the World today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I consider everything you have written to be worthwhile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Consider your above comment “Double Liked”
and myself truly humbled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes I feel I shouldn’t even be on this blog as my true love
is for B Movies and Programmers
I love B-movies and serials. I’ve become totally obsessed by serials. Especially the serials William Witney directed for Repubic. I think my movie tastes are all over the place. I like John Ford and I like Russ Meyer. I like Astaire-Rogers musicals and Hammer horror. I like screwball comedies and I like Kubrick.
My greatest love is for European genre movies of the 60s to the 80s (except spaghetti westerns). I love European gothic horror movies of that era, I adore Italian science fiction movies, I love giallos (or gialli if you prefer).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peplum??
LikeLike
I love the Italian peplums. So much fun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blonde Ice is a great little B noir.
I love most of the B-movie series of the 30s and early 40s. My favourites are the Charlie Chan, Mr Moto and Nick Carter movies. A recent discovery for me has been the Torchy Blane movies. I also enjoyed the Brass Bancroft Secret Service B-movies with Ronald Reagan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I forgot to add that I’ve always admired it when someone
has the guts (audacity?) to deconstruct a “sacred cow”
Although I don’t agree with Dee’s opinion of Aldrich I found
his opinion of the director compelling reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the subject of Aldrich, does anyone feel like defending The Legend of Lylah Clare? Or The Killing of Sister George?
There was a definite nasty streak in a lot of Aldrich’s movies. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is a very nasty movie.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think “nasty” is a term I’d use, and as I’ve said before, I’ve even grown uncomfortable with the use of cynical in relation to his films. I feel he was keen on peeking behind facades, peeling back the external image presented to take a look at what was behind it all, something which has the potential to reveal nastiness without necessarily indulging in it. I’m not anywhere near as fond of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, despite its greater fame, as I am of Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte though.
LikeLike
Lylah Clare was a mess but I was and remain interested in it, although the thought of another viewing is negative.
LikeLike
Not really. ‘Emperor of the North’ and ‘Flight of the Phoenix’ and ‘Vera Cruz’ are pretty fun though. They are worthy films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All
Speaking on an earlier thread on Edgar J Ulmer. One film of his I really enjoyed was his last. THE CAVERN 1964 is set in Italy in WW2 and follows a handful of Italian, German. British and American soldiers trapped in a massive cavern in the mountains. The cavern had been used as a huge storage area for food, fuel etc. The men get trapped inside when the entrance collapses. They all agree to stop fighting and see if they can get out. Days turn to months etc. There is also the less than minor problem there is a pretty Italian nurse locked in with them.
A much better film than it might sound like with a cast that includes, Larry Hagman, John Saxon and Brian Aherne.
Gordon
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never seen it. It appears to be available to watch on YouTube, but not in the best quality.
LikeLike
I thought The Cavern was an unwatchable career killer. Marty Melcher offered Louis the part played by Brian Aherne, but he turned it down for two reasons; he did not like the part and he did not like Marty. Brian included comments about The Cavern in his autobiography, mainly about nto being paid and how he supplied the float during this unprofessional interval.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The same Marty Melcher that ripped off Dear Doris Day? His son Terry produced The Byrds
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nailed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One late Edgar G. Ulmer movie that never ever gets mentioned when his career is discussed is of course his nudist movie The Naked Venus. It’s actually a decent enough romantic melodrama. A definite oddity in his filmography. There weren’t too many genres that Ulmer didn’t have a go at.
Ulmer’s daughter Arianne is one of the stars (although she keeps her clothes on).
LikeLike
dfordoom
Thanks for the heads up on “The Naked Venus” title. Can’t say I have ever heard of it. New information is always good information.
Gordon
LikeLike
Ulmer fans try to pretend that The Naked Venus doesn’t exist. It is a nudie movie but if that doesn’t bother you it’s a better movie than you expect it to be. And it’s a 1959 nudie movie so it’s very tame and rather good-natured.
It was released on DVD by Something Weird years ago. Probably very hard to find now.
LikeLike
One can view it online…….not YouTube. The print is pretty good. I enjoyed it……even broke out the popcorn.
LikeLike
The Last Round Up………………or is it.
Regarding Aldrich: I feel he was on a later roll with THE GRISSOM GANG- ULZANA’S RAID-TOO LATE THE HERO-THE MEAN MACHINE-HUSTLE and EMPEROR OF THE NORTH POLE-All worthwhile to outstanding pictures. FLIGHT OF THE PHEONIX I thought saw Aldrich starting to get into excessive length with his pictures-great cast but a long haul for the viewer. I was at the UK premier and was given a “survival kit” darned if I knew what happened to it. I remember some of the stars appearing on stage especially Jimmy Stewart and Dan Duryea who seemed to enter the stage with a jaunty dance. I also like (with reservations) THE LAST SUNSET and parts of FOUR FOR TEXAS a SAM Production (Sinatra Aldrich Martin) ‘though I feel there were bad vibes between Aldrich and Sinatra. Aldrich at the time was looking forward to doing a big fun Western ‘though I don’t think it was a fun shoot. Believe or not I really enjoyed THE KILLING OF SISTER GEORGE- Aldrich deconstructing his image as a “Macho” director.
Joseph Losey, THE DAMNED is great one of Losey’s best pictures. THE SLEEPING TIGER-TIME WITHOUT PITY and THE CRIMINAL also superb.
Robert Altman A horrendous director in my opinion.
Charlie Chan-Mr Moto-Michael Shayne. Love those Fox programmers-Moto is pretty violent compared to the cultured Chan. I love the Chan’s that blend Horror elements CC IN THE WAX MUSEUM-CASTLE IN THE DESERT. John Larkin as most interesting screenwriter-he also directed the superb QUIET PLEASE MURDER which needs a physical media release.
LikeLike
Regarding, 4 for Texas, I sometimes wonder if a comedy western is actually one of the trickiest types to pull off successfully.
I have a lot of time for Losey, especially up to Accident. After that, I find his work patchy at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree on both points.
LikeLike
When I see a lot of Losey’s 1960s and 1970s movies I find myself wondering what exactly he was trying to do. I don’t think anyone has ever figured out what he was trying to achieve with Modesty Blaise. I’m not sure Losey himself knew. And Boom. He must have had some notion in his mind when he made such movies but I have no idea what it was.
It’s a long long long time since I saw it but I vaguely remember The Romantic Englishwoman being rather strange as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dumping Glenda Jackson and casting an attractive woman might have helped The Romantic English Woman. I know homely was in fashion, but not with me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Killing of Sister George does have a bizarre fascination. It’s certainly more watchable than a movie like The Big Knife. Worth seeing for Susannah York. It’s the movie that made Susannah York a lesbian icon!
Getting back to B-movies I really do love the Mr Moto movies. The novels are very different. In the movies Moto is an Interpol agent. In John P. Marquand’s novels he’s a Japanese master spy but he’s still one of the good guys. The novels are just as good as the movies in their own way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I salute Quiet Please, Murder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Last night I took in the 1956 Joseph Pevney war film, AWAY ALL BOATS. I enjoyed it. The last time I had seen this was in the late 60s on a b/w set. Did a double take when I saw Clint Eastwood doing a small part as a Navy Corp-man.
This week I have another Pevney film lined up, 1952s FLESH AND FURY. This one has Jan Sterling, Mona Freeman and Tony Curtis as the leads. Do not recall if I have ever seen it before.
Gord
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great piece, Colin. Ava is certainly the best thing about the film. Harry’s relationship with Cynthia is the one I’m most invested in and I care about both characters. The scene where she’s injured and Harry screams out desperately for a stretcher-bearer always stays with me.
LikeLike
Thanks. Yes, that relationship is the beating heart of the movie, defining it and setting the terms for the path toward resolution. You’re right about that scene too and how it clarifies the depth and sincerity of Harry’s love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent review. It’s really a wonderful movie. I thought the three main actors were splendid. Ava was my favorite, though. And, yes, the nice-looking Fox DVD is a godsend to movie buffs.
LikeLike
Thanks, good to hear you’re a fan too. And I find it very satisfying when films that have only been accessible in worn and grotty pri TS are rescued like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person