Johnny Simmons

I don’t think I’m the first person to make mention of this, but I do find it ironic and not just a little humorous that the era of Hollywood most notorious for its debauchery and other hijinks was the time when they were most likely to spew out all their religious cant. I used to live, for about three years, with this overly religious aunt of mine and she was a big fan of religious fare and whatnot. I swear I’ve seen every incarnation of the Jesus’ life – from Jesus Christ Superstar to some awful animated shtick which I wouldn’t mind getting lobotomised to forget.

So, naturally, it’s no surprise that my favourite religious stars one of the least holy of Hollywood’s stars and also happens to eschew the strictest of religious principles. I’ve spoken about The Robe before, and it was on last month when they were counting down to Easter. I don’t know if it’s my perspective, because there really is little that’s palpably irreverent about The Robe (well except for Burton’s deliciously over-the-top performance, I have no excuse for loving it yet I do) but I still think of the film as an impertinent religious pseudo-masterpiece. It’s probably because the last scene takes place in the palace of the very histrionic Caligula and the only who tops Burton in the histrionic department in The Robe is Jay Robinsonb who’s so ridiculous he seems to have walked off the set of some comedy show and thrust into 1 AD.

Next to The Robe I’d probably cite The Ten Commandments as a worthy religious adventure. Once again, though, it’s the more visceral side of the film that makes me a fan: enter Anne Baxter. In my defense, it’s evidence of good screenwriting that the generally known story of Moses can be turned into a pseudo-love triangle (quadrilateral?) I’m not a big fan of Charlton Heston as it is, but add him to Anne Baxter and then toss in Yul Brynner and Yvonne De Carlo (who is not often remembered but is lovely here) for kicks and it’s a party. I’m a bigger fan of The Robe but I’d never the technical brilliance of The Ten Commandments. I always wish DeMille’s film had made a bigger showing at the Oscars that year. (They lost to Around the World in 80 Days for god’s sakes.) But, that's awards for you.

          

...but it's been kind of awful. Still, it's Richard Burton’s birthday today and he’s only one of the most brilliant actors to grace the silver screen – womanising and alcoholism aside. I wouldn’t bother to do a retrospective on him, though in all his brilliance he does deserve one. Today’s been kind of awful, but George will not be kept back.

Drunkards – we hate them in real life, but we love them on the screen. One of the many riddles that I cannot answer for you. It’s strange, whether the drunk is a bit of comedic relief, an affable protagonist or a dastardly villain it’s always nice seeing an actor ham it up for our entertainment on the big screen. Making this list was actually difficult, there were a number of notable drunks to sift through (I considered dividing it between males and females) – but in the end, I believe these five are the most notable.

        

This isn’t a biopic on overcoming drunkenness, but Joaquin does an excellent job of delving into that territory. I love that morning after where he and all the boys are drunk and Reese’s June turn up. He’s an incorrigible drunk, but he’s also an affable drunk – except when he’s fainting on stage and all. But, I suppose we must take the good with the bad.

     

If Blanche depended on the kindness of any stranger, his name was Jack Daniels. Like many drunks she often tried to hide it, but after her horrid birthday party all bets are off. It’s not so much funny as it is frighteningly unnerving.

      

Oh how I love Joan Allen, how I loathe Kevin Costner (but not here). Terry is an ultimate drunk, she drinks alone – which is a bit unnerving, until she gets Denny as a drinking buddy. But she can drink him under the table, anywhere. It could be at dinner, at her daughter’s graduation, just after her husband has “deserted” her – she’ll keep drinking with that same pensive look on her face. That’s what we call dedication.

    

Sometimes I forget he’s a drunk and just presume he’s crazy. Perhaps, it’s a bit of both. He’s exaggerated, he’s histrionic and he’s a lot of fun to watch. For shame, Disney, what kind of licentiousness are you promoting? I love it.

        

Who didn’t see this coming? It seems I may have to disqualify them; they’re topping too many lists (here, here). I can’t be the only one afraid to pick up a liquor glass after this watching these two having “fun and games”. Just look at the consequences of a nightcap. (Shudders)

  

Honourable Mention to Karen Walker, she’d suck the alcohol from a deodorant stick – if that’s not drunken dedication, I don’t know what is.

    

Another repost in my TOP 100 entry while I'm away...
...I shall be counting down the final ten soon.
              
I have a penchant for Shakespeare. As far as I’m concerned he’s the greatest writer in the world living or dead, and I’ve always taken a liking to films based on his plays. Some are good and some are not so good, but I am very fond of this particular adaptation. The Taming of the Shrew is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations to hit the big screen. It’s just a really good film – the writing, the direction, the costumes and oh the acting. I’m trying to describe this film and all the words coming to me are superlatives. Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are two of the greatest actors ever and this is their second best collaboration (second only to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). The strength of this play lies in the portrayal of the main character Katherine – the eponymous Shrew and Elizabeth Taylor is magnificent in this tour-de-force role. If Hamlet is the best male role Shakespeare ever wrote then Katherine is definitely the best female role.

The story of The Taming of the Shrew is simple. Katherine is the older daughter of Baptista a nobleman of Padua. She is a shrewish and temperamental young woman who vows never to marry. Her sister Bianca is somewhat of a hussy – well as much as you can be in the 1500s. She has countless suitors flocking to her, but Baptista refuses to relinquish his youngest until the older is betrothed…which doesn’t look too likely. A rather brash man shows up in Padua willing to try his hand at wooing at Katherine since she has a respectable dowry on her. What ensues is a string of highly comedic scenes and lots of loud voices with much hilarity. If you know how it ends (and shame on you if you don’t) you’ll know that the ending is somewhat unsatisfying in terms of the women, but I always figured that this was meant to be a satire (like most Shakespeare comedies) and not a realistic outlook on life. And at the end of this movie, there's a shot of Katharine's face that seems very enigmatic.
                        
It’s a testimony to Elizabeth Taylor that whenever I read "The Taming of the Shrew" it is her, and only her, that I imagine as Katherine. You’re probably wondering, is she the only good in the film? Of course not. Richard Burton more than matches her as the cad Petruchio. We already know that they had great chemistry, but it’s really heightened in this film and especially the wooing scene is just a joy to watch. The physicality of both their performances is just engrossing. And with Liz and Richard doing their thing it’s quite hard actually for anyone else to get a noticed. The original play was already working against them because only Katherine and Petruchio have especially strong scenes. However, Victor Spinetti who plays Hortensio – a friend of Petruchio – was memorable in his supporting turn.


It’s kind of beyond me as to why this movie only got 2 Oscar nominations [for Costume and Art Design] I mean, the year wasn’t exactly THAT tough. The nominated the goddman Dr. Dolittle for best picture. What's more amazing is that this movie was shot after Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? where they both went the deglam route.
                 
This is #95 on my lists of memorable films, and if you haven't seen it, and many haven't, you should definitely go and check this film out. You won't be disappointed...I hope. In addition to the great acting of the leads, the aforementioned costume and set decoration, this film boasts a melodic comedic score, and beautiful cinematography. Franco Ziffirelli does a good job directing the film, and although it doesn't stick staunchly to the play it's still too much fun for me not to love it.

f there’s one thing the cinema can do, it’s make an impression on you – and one thing that’s they’ve done constantly is make marriage seem like a sick-twisted game. Some couples do it for fun, and some do it because they’re incompatible. It’s a bit crazy when you think of it because if they’re irreconcilable why get married in the first place? Hence the title… (click on the links for thoughts on the films)

                 

Of course they’d make the list…they made the other one too. What makes them smarter than the others it that at least they ended their marriage. They realised that this thing was heading nowhere. I still find Clark Gable a bit too audacious at times (am I the only one getting the Clooney vibe…whom I am not fond of) but the paring with the brash Scarlet works lovely even if they end up tearing their heads off in the end.

Reason #5 – don’t get married [The wife will be lusting for another man and the husband just will not give a damn.]

Reason #5 – get married [The wife will never go hungry again…but still the husband doesn’t give a damn…yikes]

         

It’s a bit too different from the play, but I still love it so. I suppose that Elizabeth Taylor is the only one able to completely embody the iconic Maggie the Cat (I often wonder what Catherine Zeta Jones could do with the role). It’s a bit annoying that they pair her clad in a sensation white dress with Paul Newman and they don’t…you know, get it on. But, of course, that’s the entire conflict of the play.

Reason #4 – don’t get married [The husband will withhold sex and the wife will hate your in-laws.]

Reason #4 – get married [Maybe the husband will look like Paul Newman and maybe, just maybe, the wife be hot like Lizze, you can dream.]

Really, they’re twisted. They move from whispering sweet nothing importants in each others’ ears to pulling out all the stops to make the other cringe. Just when you think they do love each other they turn around and are spitting venom. It’s all very confusing…and then they’re children too, self destructive but oh so lovely to watch…

Reason #3 – don’t get married [The children will hate the parents, the wife will try to conquer her husband’s territory – he’ll jail her and he will pick up with his son’s fiancée and threaten to annul his marriage.]

Reason #3 – get married [The wife will look good even when she’s near sixty, and they both will have a knack for brilliant line readings.]

           

Hmmm, they’re just all around toxic. It’s so hard to imagine when they’ve ever had better days. She’s just too neurotic and he’s just too…well, he’s just not interested. It’s a pity, though. Their scenes together are so lovely.

Reason #2 – don’t get married [The child will feel alienated and pick up with dope fiend, the husband will smash plates and lust after teens and the wife will hate him and have an affair.]

Reason #2 – get married [“I will sell this house today”, well that’s what the wife thinks and thus husband will look good naked, or so he hopes.]

               

How could they not be on the list? They’re so twisted and the reason they’re at the top of the list is because they seem to enjoy it so much. It’s like all this violence is some twisted bit of foreplay that they cannot do without out, and it is so brilliant (and brilliant I mean scary and by scary I mean excellent) that I cannot look away.

Reason #1 – don’t get married [They both will be drunks and he especially will despise his father in law.]

Reason #1 – get married [Did you see this movie…? The upside is you die

               

...A Shakespeare Lover.

         

Why are people so fond of adapting Shakespeare to screen? I do feel he’s arguably the greatest writer so I have no issues with it, but it’s really interesting how he’s adapted and then re-adapted and then adapted again, just for good measure. The man sure has left behind a legacy. Two films I’m anticipating this year are Shakespeare adaptations. The first is Julie Taymor’s The Tempest. I like, but don’t love, The Tempest and I’m not too enamoured with Taymor’s decision to change the sex of Prospero (even if the lovely Helen Mirren has been given the reins). The second is an updated version of Coriolanus, a play I’ve never read (but I’ve never been overly fond of his histories). But with Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes, I don’t see how I can say no.

            

I can’t say which adaptations of Shakespeare’s work are my favourites, although this list does pretend to be about that. But five incarnations come to mind immediately when I think of Shakespeare on film.

      

Olivier’s Hamlet has its issues, a number of them actually, but I’m always willing to forgive them – like Jean Simmons’ simpering Ophelia, Olivier’s obvious oldness, Herlie’s obvious youth – because it all comes together well. The film depends so much on the foreboding atmosphere, and with the black and white and the misty screen it’s so reclusively tense we can’t help but spiral down with Hamlet as he takes his journey. I guess, it did deserve it’s Best Picture win.

  

Branagh and Emma Thomson sizzle on screen as Beatrice and Benedick, and though this too has its faults (Keanu Reeves, ugh) it’s all done well. I’m actually not a big fan of the actual play, but unlike many pieces it translates excellently to screen. I guess reading it can never compare to seeing it acted and Much Ado About Nothing doesn’t shirk on the joy of it all. It boasts one of Emma's most delightful performance, it's a pity it's become forgotten...

            

...forgotten like this, another Branagh piece. I always remember the lovely Helena Bonham Carter with affection in this. Twelfth Night is my favourite Shakespeare play (an odd choice, I know), it’s perhaps my favourite play – period. There’s just something irresistible about the nuanced nature of the characters and the ridiculous machinations of the characters as subplot after subplot develops leading to perfectly delight conclusion. Imelda Staunton and Ben Kingsley too are worthy of remembrance. I can’t say why Branagh’s film has become so forgotten…

       

This film actually makes an appearance in my top 100, but has anyone seen it? This is Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor with the most chemistry between them. It’s sheer joy to watch them play excellently off each other in this farce piece. It may probably be a bit too irreverent for Shakespeare worshipers, but I’m sure that he would have enjoyed it for the sheer fervour with which they attack the lines.

           

This is actually quite a simple choice. As I mentioned in my review of it, it’s close to perfection. Leonardo Whiting and Olivia Hussey are astounding as the eponymous characters and the ensemble cast backs them up well. It’s not at all maudlin and just as excellent as the original. I’m uncertain if any Shakespeare incarnation could ever top this?

            

The Robe is a film that is thoroughly religious. Perhaps it was even more religious than the religious adaptations that the era was wrought with at the time. I suppose, it was a bit of an irony to have Richard Burton star in such a thoroughly religious film since he does have a reputation as something of a heel. But, all things being relative, who isn’t? If played in chronological order, it would suffice as a sequel to the life of Christ. Burton plays Marcellus, a Roman soldier, one of those who nailed Jesus to the Cross. While dividing up his belongings Marcellus happens to get the eponymous robe, which spirals his life out of control.

                             

If you haven’t seen this movie, what’s your excuse? Along with King of Kings, Ben Hur, Home Alone, The Ten Commandments, Miracle On 34th Street and Jesus Christ Superstar [don't ask why] this movie is inescapable come Christmas and Easter Time. I suppose it wouldn’t be up your alley if you’re an agnostic or something akin, but all in the name of film making, eh? Richard Burton and Jean Simmons are the core of the film. Simmons’ plays Diana, a Roman young woman in love with Marcellus who eventually follows him in his quest for a new religious awakening. It probably is not too demanding a role of Simmons, all she has to do is look pretty and be the object of Burton’s affection. And well, she pulls it off. Doh.

                  

Technically the film is a triumph. As with so many of these religious epics it calls for luminous sets, beautiful costumes, pretty cinematography and it’s all pulled of so well. But it’s those dark moments at the crucifixion that seem so well made; the dark tone is palpable and almost chilling. And the entire film itself is particularly well made.

                               

I wonder what the response of the film audiences was at that time to Richard’s histrionic. Yeah, I love the guy, and I call it histrionics. But it won’t have been the same if he played underplayed it. It’s not that kind of movie. For some reason despite the obviously serious intention of the film, I can’t help thinking that Richard’s just having fun playing this role, and really it shows.

               

The film is easily unsubtle; in fact there isn’t a subtle bone in its body. The ending has Burton and Simmons ascending the stairs of heaven, literally. But still it’s not un-enjoyable; it’s almost campy sometimes – especially when portraying Caligula. I have a strange affection for this; it’s obviously rooted in Burton who’s just outstanding anyway you put it. But it’s more than that. Sure it’s a little cut and dry when it all comes down to it, but it’s a nice little film or epic. Depending on which way you look at it. And it’s my #99.

So seeing that the list of my Favourite Best Actress nods was somewhat well received I’m done a companion piece...for the Best Actor race. If you’re lucky, I’ll continue the trend for the supporting categories. So here’s the list of my  favourite Leading Nominees – Actors...beginning with the thirteen runners up. [Click on the films for more information]

     

28 – James Dean in Giant 
27 – Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver

26 – Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon

25 – Robin Williams in The Fisher King

24 – Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun

23 – Tom Hulce in Amadeus

22 – Jack Lemmon in Days of Wine & Roses

21 – Paul Newman in The Hustler

20 – Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls

19 – Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia

18 – Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator

17 – Spencer Tracy in Judgement at Nuremberg

16 – Paul Newman in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof

                         

Yeah, I spoke about his awesomeness in my review of the film and he cracks the top 15. I haven’t seen him in that much but what I’ve seen him in he’s good. And then there’s the fact that French people are just great. But yeah, his Gregory is a despicable man, but he’s still incredibly charming. He would be a good friend to have a sticky situation – unless he turns on you, of course. I haven’t seen Going My Way but I really don’t think that Bing Crosby could have topped this. It's not the stock villainous role, he really is good in this. And he thoroughly deserved his Oscar nomination.

                                               

Along with The Ten Commandments they show this film every Easter here. This one is better, even though it’s a bit schmaltzy, it is a nice movie. And Burton is good [as usual]. I suppose he can be accused of being over the top. But Marcellus was going crazy, so it’s an occupational hazard. And this was the first Richard Burton performance that I saw, so it’s that much more special too. And Jean Simmons doesn’t hurt either. I'll admit it, those scenes when he goes crazy are my favourite. Yeah, they're total Oscar bait. But I can't help it. It's really good in a scary kind of way.

                                          

And here we have it, the greatest thing that Sean Penn has ever done – and probably ever will do. And he did it under the hand of Tim Robbins. I still cringe when I think he lost to Cage, not because Leaving Las Vegas was unworthy but because Cage is just despicable; but I digress. Matthew Poncelet truly is one of those incredibly complex characters and your reaction to him is completely subjective. Sean's work here is incredibly layered and it was so early in his career too. It's a truly incredible performance...not to be ignored.

                               

Are you fed up seeing him? Can't help it. I can't believe that he only has four nominations, he seems so ubiquitous. He has not starred in that many films either, but when he does he's outstanding. And Gerard is outstanding. I am a bit prejudiced against Scottish accents in film, they just make me want to implode. But Daniel made me make an exception. It's a sympathetic character, but he doesn't beat it over our head. He plays Gerard as just an ordinary guy - the good, the bad and the ugly. And that's what makes me like the performance. Gerard is not the stock hero. He is instead a real person.

                                                 

Tracy had all the charisma to play this role and he did it just right. Sure, I don’t know why Gene Kelly or Frederic March were not nominated too, but it’s all good. You can’t have everything, I suppose. Henry Drumond is a great character in print, and Spencer brings it effectively to life. Whatever your opinion on evolution [and if you’re smart you’ll realise the film is about more than that] it would do you good to at least experience this film and performance at least once. Stanley Kramer allowed Spencer to give three outstanding performances and this is probably the greatest of them all.

                                            

It’s my favourite performance from Sir Hopkins. The man is a legend and he’s done wonderful work for decades but I’ll always think of James Stevens when I hear his name. It’s a difficult character, we never see the man breakdown and he’s never spontaneous. That closing shot and the expression on his and Emma’s face is truly poignant. In a year of Liam Neeson and Daniel Day Lewis and Anthony I am slightly miffed that Hanks won, though his performance was fine but oh well. That's life. 

                                         

This is another one of those introverted roles, though Almasy does have some showier moments. It’s a real pity that this guy doesn’t have an Oscar. Of course losing to Geoffrey Rush is much more noble than losing to Tommy Lee Jones, it still is losing whichever way you put it. There’s a scene at the beginning where denounces the use of adjectives. Fast car, slow car, chuaffer driver car.... Someone asks, Broken car? He winces almost imperceptibly, still a car. It’s mot a particular groundbreaking part of the film, but it’s in moments as small as this that we see some truly good acting from Fiennes. And yes when he gets drunk at the dance he's just as good playing loud and angry.

                        

Do people really hate this guy? And if yes, ummm why? This is another guy that needs to do more movies...he's not getting any younger. What's so good about him in this role is that there are scenes where he's not the centre but his facial reactions are thoroughly convincing. Warren is somewhat underrated as an actor but he's really good in this. And for that matter, so is the movie.

                          

Did you do a double take? Sorry, don’t rub your eyes. You’re seeing correct. I won’t go into people’s hatred of this film... I like it, and well yeah, that’s about it. W. P. Inman. Jude's accent is so freakish in this movie [in a good way] and yeah though I kind of watched hoping to see more of him and Nicole it was all good. His part of the film is less interesting, and it depends purely on his talent [and Philip Seymour Hoffman a little] to make it work. It could have gone horribly wrong, and I know for some they feel it did, but for me Jude made it work. Kudos to him.

                                                   

It’s the best thing that he’s done; that I’ve seen at least. Yeah, I would have given him the Oscar. I mean if they weren’t going to give it to the oldie, why not give the fresh young’un? Don’t ask me. Benjamin Braddock is just hilarious. He carries the entire film on his shoulders and all the other cast members are just supporting to him. His movement and antics alone are enough to convince you of his feelings in those montages. And the line readings aren't half bad either, Mrs. Robinson, are you trying to seduce me? You think?

                                     

There’s a moment in the movie where Bud is sifting the channels. He tries to watch Grand Hotel, but the ad breaks keep annoying him. It’s not a big acting moment, but Lemmon’s facial expressions always sell me. People always say Some Like It Hot or Missing was where he was best, but The Apartment has always been it for me. Bud is just a great character and all of that [well most if it] rests on Jack. Sure the screenplay is good, but this is one of those roles that would have been empty if done right. And luckily, Jack does it right.

        

I sure wish that he would have won the Oscar, though I have nothing against William Hoden. Clift may not be the best actor in the world, but he doesn't deserve to be written off as only a looker. I thought he was really good in this and deserves praise. It's the tortured character that is his specialty, but he plays it just right. A heartbreaking performance that is even sadder when you think of how his life [and career] ended.
                                       

                                       
3 – Richard Burton in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I am not drowning. Even though George won’t admit it, he is slowly, but surely a drowning man. The middle of the film where he rips into Nick during the macabre Get the Guests is one of the best parts of this already great film. He outdoes the entire cast [all of whom give career best performances] and he absolutely takes control of his role. Everyone marvels at Liz's age transformation, but Richard ages too. Just look at The Taming of the Shrew [shot after this to see how young he was]. It's a great performance from any angle.

                                         

What the hell is about this guy? But yeah, here’s to Stanley Kowalski. Tennesse Williams is a genius for writing this, and Brando is a genius for interpreting as well as he did. It’s one of the greatest male performances, and yeah Stanley is despicable but [be honest] don’t you wish you were him? And you can’t not remember that famous calling of Stella. Lolita was right that perhaps people love him just a little too much. He doesn't always ace it, but boy-oh-boy. When he does, it's just marvellous and he deserves all the recognition here.

                                                                  

I feel a bit generic to put this as the best, because so many people say that it’s the best...but maybe it really is the best. The fact that he’s about thirty years too young for the role always boggles my mind. What exactly prompted them to give him the role? And the fact that he’s just as good as Katharine Hepburn boggles my mind too. This is just an outstanding performance. I’ve never seen Charly and I never want to see it because I know that I will scream in anger when I see whatever crap it was ROBBED Peter O’Toole of his Oscar. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
                            
And know that somewhere someone's going to be ticked off by at least one of these choices. So have it. I'm ready, I'm ready, I'm ready...

As I’ve said before I respect Tennessee Williams very much. He’s probably my favourite post Shakespearian playwright. I can’t pick a favourite play of his…but the fullest incarnation of his plays is Elia Kazan’s interpretation of Tennessee’s Pulitzer Prize winning A Streetcar Named Desire. Tennessee has been done so well on screen from the macabre Suddenly, Last Summer; the scorching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof; the underrated but satisfying The Rose Tattoo; the imperfect but enjoyable Sweet Bird of Youth; and the list goes on and on. But yes, this is my favourite. Much of that depends on Elia Kazan. Kazan is most remembered for On the Waterfront, another masterpiece, but there is something that resonates when he tackles these sexual themes.

                         

I always attribute the paradigm on which Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is based to A Streetcar Named Desire. The similarities between the two films are more than just the black and white pallor and the four principal characters. Both are anchored in the performances of the two women. They are both addicted to the sauce…although one is more willing to admit it than the other. And more importantly they both live in worlds that are nothing more than illusions. And if we push the boundaries a little they can even extend further… surely Nick is not that brutish but he does have some similarities to Stanley, Stella’s dutiful housewife is a bit similar to Honey. It’s only measuring George against Mitch that the hypothesis doesn’t hold up.

                                                

It’s not that I’m wont to the cheery endings. Many of my favourite films are actually quite bleak, but I’ve probably looked at the first half of these films twice as much as I’ve looked at the second half. Not because their endings are inferior but it’s so gruelling to look through. Tennessee’s richly poetic language is not an accurate representation of life, but yet it's so sharp cutting that we can’t help but see ourselves in Blanche and Stanley. Albee is not as rhythmical. We may not know persons quite like Martha and George but there is a bit of them in us all. This is precisely the appeal of both; their almost repulsive propensity to show human life at its worse.Few cinematic adaptations are so true to their source material without seeming too staged.

There are two scenes in the films that play almost as parallel pieces in symphonies…and as good as both films are they are two of the best moments for me. George has just maliciously killed their baby…and Martha doubts him. He can’t do it after all she descends in manic shrieks and spits in his face. Blanche is more of a lady…kind of. When Stanley destroys her illusions she doesn’t exactly face him…but when Mitch leaves her and she descends deeper and deeper into her delirium it’s downright scary. These are more than just selfish women – Blanche and Martha depend on their illusions for without them, they are nothing. And it's why, you can't quite hate them.

                     

The ending of both films are important, and perhaps show the difference between the two. Blanche refuses to give up her illusions and as she leaves the doctor at the end we can’t help but shed a tear for her. And maybe Martha is luckier because she has George. She asks, did you have to? Yes, he answers. Maybe the shattering of the illusions can help her to grow. And it’s probably the starkest difference between the two films.We can hope for understanding and education to Nick and Honey and perhaps in their own twisted way George and Martha will find happiness. But what of Mitch? Blanche has ruined him as she has ruined herself and a baby cannot assuage the damage between Stella and Stanley.

                     

A Streetcar Named Desire and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf are two films that feature some phenomenal acting. Taylor, Hunter, Burton, Brando, Dennis, Leigh, Malden, Segal. Each one of them is extraordinary beyond words. Both films had each principal character being nominated for Oscars [Malden, Leigh, Taylor, Dennis and Kim Hunter as winners]…but it’s more than the winning of the award. Just the honesty of their representation is enough to make them exceptional, with or without awards.

                         

It’s probably no accident that the two films fall so close to each on my list. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf sits at #71 and A Streetcar Named Desire at #68. Both films are important as much for their entertainment value as well as education. Both represent excellent and fluid adaptations of plays, both feature outstanding direction and both feature some outstanding ensemble acting. They may not be your favourite films…but it’s important to see them both at least once; if only for the experience.