Johnny Simmons

You know that I’m fond of these vague guessing games, so I’ve got another one for you. As you can tell from the name, it’s quote related. I think it’s difficult, but this quote has always stuck with me.

        

1) The film won a number of Oscars (but not for writing)

2) It was said by the lead actress of the film, an Oscar winner, but not for this film (though she was nominated

3) The first shot of the film is in black and white…but the rest is not

4) In the quote, the speaker is referring to a work of art

           

I think I’ve given you quite much. Here’s the quote.

             

          

One of the great things about being a naturally voracious reader is that when I have to do reading for University I’m usually way ahead of the game. Case in point, the book we’re currently studying is Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler. It’s one of the six plays we’re doing this semester (the others: Oedipus Rex, Othello, Death of a Salesman, Ti-Jean & His Brothers, Moon On a Rainbow Shawl). And like so many books, I read it way before I could even grasp the actual themes. Nevertheless, even though I know it’s wrong, I still find Hedda to be hilarious (inadvertently, of course). Next to Shakespeare’s shrewish Katherina and Tennessee’s Blanche Dubois few female roles thrill me as much as Ms. Gabler. I’m trying to get my hands on the Glenda Jackson film version. I still consider it the best in her career of illustrious performances. Shouldn’t she have won the Oscar that year? I wonder if it’s too soon for a remake…. Cate Blanchett seems like an obvious choice, but I suppose she’d be too old…what do you think?

Have you been doing any significant reading recently (academic or secular)? Have you read Hedda? Who’d you cast in a remake? Sound off below.

I don’t why, but I’ve really been evading recent cinema. We’re already in April and I’ve only seen just a few flicks from 2010. I was supposed to see Green Zone and Alice in Wonderland last week, but for some reason I passed. I should probably rectify that sometime this week, but I feel a bit swamped. Notice how I’ve been doing more retrospectives and less current work? Still, 2010 seems to be off to a good start. Shutter Island was imperfect, but still moderately satisfying, The Greatest was stodgy but suggested good things for Carey and Agora was just excellent. Sure I’ve got more than eight months to go and most likely none of these will be remembered at the end of the year, but who knows? I’m still to see limited stuff like The Runaways, Fish Tank or Repo Men. 

Other than being a prerequisite of Christmas It’s A Wonderful Life exists (superficially, at least) as in indicator of changing opinions on films. I suppose Citizen Kane already has that laurel (but I prefer How Green Was My Valley); but on the other hand this Stewart piece is such an obvious victor among its nominees even if eventual winner The Best Years of Our Lives is not undeserving of the title – best. The thing is, as I simultaneously bemoan the loss of the film it’s not difficult to see why it didn’t win. It’s A Wonderful Life exists as a film so comfortable in its sentimentally (but never wallowing). Its affirmation of family values is sweet but never maudlin. I’m well aware that the AMPAS is a group of persons and not a single (ominous) entity, but I often wonder if they are fine with being overly mawkish but don’t give their laurels to those that tread the middle ground. It’s not that It’s A Wonderful Life is not brave enough, it’s just wise enough to realise that being overemotional would only undermine the potency of Jimmy’s story.

Capra could not have found someone more epitomic of the everyman than Jimmy Stewart. Stewart has always been able to deliver a cadence that makes him simultaneously admirable and relatable and he brings it to full use in It’s A Wonderful Life – most likely his most iconic role. Yet, the conceit of the common man undergoing an epiphany after a bout with a celestial being is not exactly new; although it was relatively original for the time. Unlike its contemporaries (Heaven Can Wait, or its original Here Comes Mr. Jordan) the usually suave angel is replaced with an intermediate and somewhat bumbling buffoon – Clarence. Like in the characters in the film, though, Clarence is a representation of a specific type explicated by the actors playing them. For example: the aforementioned everyman in Stewart, the assertive but still meek (paradoxical, of course) wife in Reed and the greedy villain (usually, a representation of old values). The thing is, the strength of It’s A Wonderful Life isn’t lost by the ostensible glossing of characters. It’s part of its charm.

    

It’s A Wonderful Life is an ensemble cast form all superficial representations, but for me the success of this film depends completely on Jimmy Stewart. The man is such a brilliant actor, and exudes such a goofy charm that you can’t help but root for him whatever he’s going through. When it all comes down to it, it’s Jimmy that makes It’s A Wonderful Life for me (although Donna's prettiness, doesn't hurt), and as that final scene ends and we see his upward wink at Clarence I can’t help but feel a sense of happiness. It’s not Jimmy I’m watching anymore, but George. It’s # 39 on my list of favourites.

Do people ever remember that Warren Beatty is a good actor? I know it sounds like a silly question, and given. The man has done excellent work in Splendor in the Grass, Bonnie & Clyde, Shampoo, Heaven Can Wait and on and on. But I often wonder if we really remember that he’s that talented. Sometimes I wonder if he remembers. He’s now become an icon, and he doesn’t do much work. Sure, his directorial talents are impressive, but I always remember Warren as an actor before I think of him as anything else. Like so many of the good actors of his time, Beatty was excellent at playing a particular type, and in many ways this type was not too far from himself – the brash (young) man who eventually underwent an epiphany of sorts. I always accredit Reds with my favourite Beatty performance. It is a credit to Beatty (and the rest of the cast) that with all going on in Reds (fictional and authentic) that they never get lost beneath the mire of information. In some ways I’d call this my favourite Keaton performance too, even if I do prefer her generally as a comedienne. And has Jack ever been so good without being Jack? It’s a good question. The sole Oscar win (acting) for Reds was in Maureen Stapleton. In some ways the role was almost a cameo. It’s not the best performance in the film, but I never can dislike the win. Always a talented performer, Maureen shows up and does what she needs to do – and does it excellently.

I often wonder what drew Beatty to tackling a project like Reds. The film functions as a history lesson as much as entertainment, but unlike so many films with the same intent it never does it tediously. It’s difficult to put it in a box, and I often wonder if that’s the reason it’s become so forgotten. How many persons remember Reds today? Along with I think it represents the best of films from 1981 – I never was fond of eventual Best Picture winner Chariots of Fire. Reds did go on to win a director statue for Beatty (his only competitive Oscar win) – so it’s not like it was completely hated. Still, I always feel that something of this scope deserves more. Hopefully placing it at #36 on my list of favourites I’m doing my bit to level the playing field.

Wilder and Lemmon had their thing, Kazan had Brando, Cukor had Kate, Scorsese had DeNiro and then DiCaprio and Stanley Kramer had Spencer Tracy. Being the benevolent man I’ve heard, Spencer Tracy probably thanked heavens for Stanley Kramer. An excellent actor when given the chance, no other director has consistently pulled greatness out of Spencer. From Guess Who’s Coming Dinner, to Inherit the Wind and this magnum opus Judgment At Nuremberg. Although Inherit the Wind is my favourite stand alone Tracy performance, I always return to Judgment at Nuremberg when I think of the good work the two have done together. Sure it got steamrolled by West Side Story, and all (undeservedly in a few categories) but I still remember Judgment at Nuremberg, fondly (well as fond as you can think of a film so harrowing). It should be ranked atop the list of great films with all those other classics of the era.

                   

The thing is though, I can wax on for pages about Spencer’s excellence – I’m an ardent admirer; but as brilliant as he is here it’s Maximilian Schell that deserves effusive praise. This would probably rank high on a list of Oscar shockers. I’m not sure who was the buzzed winner, but Max’s win (his nomination even) is not indicative of what we usually associate with the Oscars. In fact, the same year the Supporting Actor performance went to the George Chakiris’s obnoxiously loud Bernardo (a variation of Shakespeare’s Tybalt). I don’t think subtlety really begins to describe Max here. Yet, it’s not an understated performance in any way. In fact, it’s probably more strong supporting than actually leading – but that’s just opinion. Max’s performance ranks as one of my favourite decisions from Oscar and he and Tracy are both memorable here.

            

I wouldn’t say I’m smitten with Judy Garland – the actress, but few of her performances touch me as much as her turn here. It’s not wholly loved, but I don’t care. It’s a bizarre performance from her, when we think of the screen characters we associate her with. Irene Hoffman is a woman who has gone through a number of trials, in a way it’s a perfect fit for Judy who was at her lowest (it was only a few years before her suicide). She was never the greatest technical actress, but what she was able to do was connect with the sensitivity in her character. She does this here, excellently. Montgomery Clift, with just a few minutes of screen time gives another great performance and Marlene Dietrich is brilliant, as always.

Judgment at Nuremberg is a brilliant piece of cinema. It’s based on true events, and unlike so many stories of the war it deals with the aftermath – something we rarely see. The entire film permeates with a tension that’s almost overwhelming and the black and white only adds to the apprehension. Kramer did his best work here, and even though he’s rarely remembered today when we think of the greats – his brilliance is assured. Judgment at Nuremberg probably isn’t that cheerful, but it’s still an excellent piece worthy of your time. It’s #46 on my list of favourites.

Kate and Spence; sure I’m as biased as they come – but is there any screen couple more iconic. I suppose Richard and Liz would give them a run for their money but Kate and Spence trump them in age, celebrity, and longevity and aren’t we all suckers for happy endings? I’ll be honest, my interest in Spencer was only incidental since he seemed to be a single entity with Kate, who was my first love. The couple made a host of films together – some good, some fair, and some excellent. This probably falls into the last category. I always wonder why the film wasn’t more successful and why it isn’t more celebrated today. Unless I’m mistaken, no other Kate/Spencer films captures the brilliance of lovers on screen more than this self aware comedy Adam’s Rib.

Speaking of people I’m fond of, George Cukor probably ranks up there with the greats when it comes to directors I admire. The man has a talent for brilliance, regardless of genre, though he’s most remembered for his comedies. I always credit George for two of Kate’s other excellent pieces (Little Women, and The Philadelphia Story) and with Adam’s Rib he repeated the excellence of these two pieces, which altogether probably represent stages of the woman. Kate’s Jo March was the now developing girl, her Tracy Lords was the woman caught on a precipice and in Adam’s Rib her Amanda Bonner. We can’t really ignore the subtle gender politics of the film (remember the middle section of The Philadelphia Story) but it’s not exactly a crutch for the film. And who cannot forget Judy Holliday (Oscar winner to be) in her first screen appearance. It’s now legend that Kate and company lobbied for Judy to star in Adam’s Rib to convince producers that she could hold her own (as in Born Yesterday). It’s a gamble on a newcomer that works, because even if Judy is not the greatest actress she’s completely aware of the scope (and limits) of her talent. She turns her significant defendant into a wonder.

           

Why is it that I come back to Adam’s Rib so often? It’s not as ridiculously funny as Desk Set, or as light on its feet as Pat & Mike, it doesn’t get be teary eyed like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner but it’s just an all-round delight. It’s not just two lovers acting as lovers on screen. It’s as if with Adam’s Rib we get a rare (and almost voyeuristic) look in on the private life of that revered couple, and it does it while all the while being an excellent film. It’s #40 on my list of favourites.