Film Review: It Happened One Night

Since Hollywood began handing out gold plated statues in 1929 for the recognition of excellence in the movie industry, only three films have ever won all five major awards – the Oscar Grand Slam – Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay. The most recent was in 1992 when The Silence of the Lambs swept the board and Hannibal Lecter declared to the world his penchant for fava beans and a nice chianti. Prior to that it was Milos Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in 1976. The first time occurred forty one years earlier when It Happened One Night became the movie that helped put the then minor studio of Columbia well and truly on the map.

Frank Capra, a rising star when the silent era morphed into the ‘talkies’ directed It Happened One Night and would later go on to make such Hollywood gems as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). In total, he would win three Oscars out of six nominations for his directing and another three out of seven nominations for Outstanding Production/Best Picture.

Numerous actors were considered for the two leads before Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert signed on. Robert Montgomery and Myrna Loy were among them but rejected the parts because they didn’t feel the script wasn’t good enough. It’s said that Gable was lent to Columbia by MGM’s boss Louis B. Mayer as some form of punishment for refusing roles at his contracted studio but while this may or may not be true, it does give an air of plausibility to Gable apparently turning up for work on the first day of shooting and grumbling – ‘Let’s get this over with.’

The atmosphere on set was pretty tense as filming got under way but Gable and Capra enjoyed making the movie. However, it is said that Colbert did not. She was the sixth actress to be offered the role and reluctantly accepted the part only after Capra had agreed to double her salary to $50,000 and guarantee that she would have to work no more than four weeks. One might think that would make the pill easy to swallow but  she was reportedly difficult on set and whined about something virtually every day. When filming had wrapped, she complained to a friend, “I just finished the picture in the world.”

After opening to luke warm business and indifferent reviews, it gained a secondary movie house release, word of mouth spread and the box office receipts went through the roof. It became Columbia’s biggest hit to date and had an immediate impact on the public. One scene has Gable undressing for bed, taking off his shirt and revealing himself to be bare-chested. This was because removing his undershirt as well didn’t fit in with his humorous dialogue and so the undershirt was abandoned altogether. It apparently lead to a noticeable decline in the sales of men’s undershirts. Also because the two characters travel on a Greyhound bus for a significant part of the film, the public’s interest in bus travel increased nationwide.

Although the plot may be well-known to our modern audiences, at the time it was a story largely untapped. Spoiled heiress (Colbert) runs away from home because her father has forbidden her to marry a man he doesn’t like. She boards a bus to New York City to reunite with her husband-to-be and runs into a struggling newspaper reporter (Gable), fellow passenger and all-round charming rogue. She’s soon without the means to get to her desired destination and so he (recognising who she is) offers to help in exchange for her story. She agrees out of necessity and they form a squabbling, travelling alliance. Their adventures together leads them to fall in love but in the finest tradition of great storytelling, it’s not as straightforward as it might sound.

There’s great humour throughout this wonderful film and both leads play their parts superbly (regardless of how they felt). The scene where they first meet aboard the bus sets the standard but a hitch-hiking scene later on is possibly the highlight. Gable’s assurance that he’s an expert in thumbing a lift and Colbert’s subsequent belittling him is an absolute joy to watch. Gable’s nibbling on a carrot while rapidly talking at the beginning of this sequence is rumoured to have influenced the creation of Bugs Bunny too. The subtleties of Gable’s performance is a perfect blend of rapidly delivered wisecracking dialogue and moments of romantic tenderness but he never loses that hard-as-nails streak of downright manliness that personified him throughout his career and helped cement his status as The King of Hollywood. When he tells you to “Beat it!”, you really don’t want to hang around to find out what’ll happen if you don’t. Likewise, Colbert’s portrayal of the spoiled brat who suddenly finds herself roughing it outside of the pampered world she’s only ever known is a marvel. It’s no wonder she would soon become the highest paid actress in Hollywood and I’m sure as the box office receipts piled up, Capra would have admitted she’d been worth her hefty fee.

In 1993, It Happened One Night was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.” I think the word ‘significant’ is a good one to wrap this review up with. It is a significant film and a sublime example of a romantic comedy of its time. In cinema terms, it also epitomises the word ‘classic’.

 

 

 

 

 

Book Review: 50 Shades of Grey – E L James

Everyone is talking about it and even those who haven’t read it know exactly what to expect. Mummy-porn, Clit-Lit, whatever you choose to call it, the result is the same. A naughty novel with a simple story. The most frustrating part about this new craze is that from a literary point of view the book is terrible. Repetitive phrases, unbelievable characters and poor use of a thesaurus! Even from an erotic fiction point of view it is weak. I’ve read many Mills and Boon books that are much more captivating, but at the end of the day that isn’t the point. While the trilogy may be infuriating to an English student, for many people across the globe it has awoken something that was long forgotten.

Aside from the content itself, everything about this trilogy has caught the attention of millions worldwide. Starting out as Twilight fanfiction, many people were drawing comparisons between the two love stories before they even knew of its origins. This could be partly to blame for the immense publicity that 50 Shades has achieved. It is the perfect example of just how valuable word-of-mouth can be. Women of all ages have been talking about this book, with many finding themselves unable to resist reading it. While some unwitting readers may have picked it up thinking it was an innocent love story, it is surprising how many did not cast it aside as crude, but used it as inspiration to try out different things in the bedroom.

The BDSM content has been criticised as misleading, but it is very much an introductory lesson, not a hardcore demonstration of all things bondage. The increase in Ann Summers sales of the more adventurous variety of toys is certainly a tribute to the success of the story. So with all this in mind, it is difficult to decipher what the real definition of a good book is. In terms of literary skill and the criticism it has received it is certainly nothing to write home about. However, when a book rejuvenates so many people’s sex lives, opens their eyes to new experiences and new forms of literature, can it really be called a bad book?

 

 

 

 

 

This is your Government on drugs!

“The plain fact of the matter is drugs are incredibly addictive, they destroy lives”. So said Tory MP Louise Mensch, successful politician, bestselling author, mother-of-three, wife of Metallica manager Peter Mensch, and former Class A drug user whose dabbling with certain unnamed narcotics has clearly ruined her life. Yes. Ruined. So she’s quitting the low-down, dirty, hand-to-mouth insecurity of political life in the UK and moving to America with the family, where hopefully life will be easier, more tranquil(liser).

Oh, Menschy, why’d you have to go now? By removing yourself from British politics you’re wrenching the linchpin from my argument, to wit, that drug-taking, per se, does not actually ruin lives. I guess I’ll just have to find some other poor down-and-outs to pick on, like David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Alistair Darling, all of whom smoked cannabis in their youth. In fact, a few minutes’ fervent Googling turned up a plethora of drug-related confessions from within the many echelons of British politics – among all these successful, powerful, well-educated people. I particularly liked the views of Tim Yeo (with whom Mensch shares both a political party and alma mater), who is said to have enjoyed the experience of smoking cannabis and thinks that “it can have a much pleasanter experience than having too much to drink.”

I hope Mrs Mensch doesn’t think she’s going to get away from these more liberal views on drugs just by moving to America – a country whose current President famously said of smoking cannabis:

“I inhaled frequently… That was the point.”

And as for some of the others… Bush Jnr abused alcohol (and allegedly cocaine); Clinton admitted to having a couple of puffs on a joint whilst studying in England, but not inhaling or liking it (oh, blame the Brits for leading you astray, eh Willie?); Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg was more candid, even going so far as to say that he has enjoyed smoking marijuana in the past. Al Gore and Sarah Palin have both been ‘outed’ in biographies as former dope smokers (add cocaine use to that, in the case of Miss Alaska). This kind of name-dropping is not intended to shame those in the spotlight, but rather to highlight two things: firstly, that dabbling in recreational drugs is extremely common, and secondly, that doing so does not automatically condemn one to a life of petty crime and back-alley blowjobs.

I’m terribly sorry, Louise, but your “plain fact” of my first paragraph is anything but. Drugs can be addictive, and they can be a major factor in “destroying” lives (what a horrible little phrase), but neither one of these claims is absolute. It is, in fact, quite absurd to just lump all controlled drugs in together like that; are we expected to believe that alcohol and heroin are equally addictive, equally life-destroying? Morphine is Class A, but doctors use it to alleviate severe pain in their patients – may I therefore infer that it is the application of the drug, not the drug itself, that we ought to be controlling? Fast food can be just as detrimental to health when ingested to excess, and obesity can and does ruin the lives of those who suffer from it as well as impacting on the lives of those around them; are you intending to ban fat and sugar for all, too?

I’m sure you’ll recall that, about four years ago, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) presented its conclusions regarding the dangers of cannabis use – conclusions that resulted in the dismissal of the Council’s chairman Professor David Nutt and the resignations of several other members of the ACMD. The problem, in essence, was that the Council’s findings did not support current government policy; against the Council’s advice, cannabis was reclassified as a Class B controlled substance. A study published by Nutt et al. in The Lancet in November 2010 reiterated that, using the multicriteria decision analysis approach (which took into account personal harm, social harm etc.), alcohol is the most harmful substance. I’m using percentages here to represent the study’s arbitrary ‘points out of 100’ scoring system of overall harm: alcohol achieved 72% on this scale, with heroin and crack cocaine ranking second and third respectively at just over the 50% mark. Cannabis was ranked much lower at 20%, making it 6% less harmful than tobacco. Magic mushrooms, LSD and ecstasy can be found huddled at the far end of the chart, each with a score under 10%. I found the scores for LSD and mushrooms particularly interesting because, as well as being of only very slight risk to users, they were deemed to be of absolutely no risk to wider society – and yet both substances are currently Class A, which can get you up to seven years in prison and a hefty fine. Even more interesting is DirectGov’s explanation that drugs are categorised as Class A, B or C “according to how dangerous they are.” Hmm. That’s a lie, isn’t it?

But I digress. The plain fact, Louise, is that just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be prohibited by law. Or, as your fellow Question Time panel member John Lydon observed, “Just because you’ve had a bad time of it… Let us, as human beings, determine our own journey in life.” If you want to keep drugs illegal because of the damage they can do, you should also be fighting to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal, or you’re just being a hypocrite. If you want to allow people to make their own choices based on accurate information made available to them (and, perhaps, turn a tidy profit in tax), you’re going to have to legalise all drugs – or at least the ones proven to be no more damaging than tobacco, alcohol, and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. But you cannot simply rally against something because it has personally upset you at some point. Your personal experience is not the experience of others, and to legislate based on personal views is to deny experiences to other people. You cannot keep people safe by stopping them from doing any activities that carry any risk. We must defer to evidence, to cold hard facts, and then disseminate this information as clearly as possible, in order to adequately equip those who are determined to take such risks.

I recently came across the notion of “truthiness”, a term coined by American satirist Stephen Colbert (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report) to explain the increasingly popular, and increasingly worrying, trend toward decision-making based on gut feeling rather than facts. Mr Colbert had in mind certain politicians of his own country when he said this, but I can see a very similar trend in the UK. In the case of drug legislation, surely it makes more sense to classify substances according to the harm they do, rather than political agenda, or societal perception (which, let’s face it, is usually based on very little information and sensationalist negativism courtesy of the mainstream media)? If we base policy on evidence instead of opinion, how can there be any arguments?

The Magic of Mad Men

<!–
google_ad_client = “ca-pub-6469969007044671”;
/* Anne Iredale */
google_ad_slot = “4931800784”;
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 90;
//–>

Mad Men is another intelligent drama series from America, with charismatic characters and a socially relevant story, illustrating that not everything has to be about cops or doctors. I caught some of the season 5 episodes recently and was hooked, so now I’m watching from the beginning, devouring the repeated first season.

Mad Men is set in the Madison Avenue of the 1960s and the first season opens in 1960. The creative force at Sterling Cooper advertising agency is Don Draper. He’s not who he says he is and watching flashbacks of his mysterious childhood reveals tantalising clues. He sells the American Dream at work whilst at home, his suburban kingdom is falling apart.

The men in the office swap banter about the attractiveness or otherwise of the women in the office and sometimes make direct remarks that would result in a sexual harassment lawsuit today. The casual racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny are jolting to us, the modern audience.

Advertising sells the perfect family. Don understands what his clients want and cleverly manipulates them. Behind the white picket fence at home, his wife Betty struggles to keep up appearances. While Don sells the American Dream and the easy life, she spectacularly fails to cope within her suburban prison.

No one is happy. The wives gossip and go to the grocery store and prune the roses and pretend that they’re not bored and not nostalgic for their younger selves, before they were just somebody’s wife; somebody’s mother. They don’t know who they are anymore. Making sure casino online dinner is on the table when their husbands return is their primary concern.

The women in the office serve the men, sitting behind their typewriters, providing a decorative distraction. The men would do something else if they could. They’re ambitious but they also yearn for their former selves. After all, they are creative people applying their minds to selling baked beans. They live on stories from their carefree, college days.

No one tells the truth. The consumerism boom of the 1950s and 1960s in America fed into people’s desires and images of themselves, but in contrast with today, there is nothing ironic about it. There is no truth in how the copywriters make their money or in their various affairs. Husbands and wives hide their disappointments from each other and the advertising industry continues the lie.

Don’s generation is an interesting one, caught between two generations – the WWII generation of their parents and the counter culture generation of the 1960s. In coming seasons, the cultural revolution will rage outside but Madison Avenue is slow to catch up. Don is more Frank Sinatra than longhairs playing guitar. It’s a shifting landscape of change. In season 1, Kennedy is trying to be President. As America is on the cusp of this revolution, the advertisers tell people what they want to hear. Within relationships, husbands and wives tell each other what they want to hear. Kennedy will tell the country uncomfortable truths that the WASPS (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) will clearly not want to hear. As a surreal counterpoint, Don has bizarre brushes with a bohemian lifestyle when he takes a mistress whose Beatnik friends disapprove of him.

And then there is Peggy Olson. Peggy represents women in transition. Her rise from secretary to copywriter is a big deal in these times and so is her sexual liberation. There is also account executive, Peter Campbell, a man struggling with his identity. He gets married and immediately knows he’s made a mistake. He wants a woman he can drag back to his cave, but he hasn’t got the energy to stop his wife getting her way and he’s in hock to his in-laws. Feeling emasculated, he buys a hunting rifle, only for his wife to demand he take it back to the store. Gender politics, class snobbery and race relations are always just below the surface of the smiling, nuclear family with 2.4 children and a dishwasher.

Visually, Mad Men is stunning. Essentially a period drama, the clothes, hairstyles and décor flavour the drama as well as representing a point in time. Music also plays an important part in the series. Each episode ends with a different piece of music. Crooners of the 1950s make way for The Beatles.

Selling the American Dream used to be easy for these boys. But what do you do when people begin to question it – when people start demanding the truth? What do you do when everyone starts dreaming a different dream?

The Killers – Film Review

The more I delve through the cinematic archives, the clearer it becomes that the 1940s was the decade for film noir. Like Double Indemnity two years earlier, The Killers, made in 1946, is a terrific example of the genre. Once again, I watched this classic for the first time a couple of days ago and am amazed that I’d never seen it before. I make it no secret that I’ve always been a great fan of the genre.

The Killers is the title of a short story by Ernest Hemingway and the first twelve minutes of the film which sees a pair of hit men enter a diner one evening in their search for and ambush of “Swede” Andreson is a faithful adaptation of his writing. Played by William Conrad (later of TV’s Cannon and Jake and the Fatman fame) and Charles McGraw, the two assassins open the movie with an incredible sense of menace and deadly intent. The dialogue is sharp and typical of tough guys of the era and you are immediately gripped by the tension and sense of foreboding.

Their mission is to kill Swede (Burt Lancaster) who they know comes in every evening at around 6pm for his dinner but tonight he’s late and the diner’s owner manages to convince the gun men that he won’t be coming in so late. So they leave the diner and head for Swede’s apartment. Swede’s co-worker, who was in the diner when the killers arrived, bolts out the back way and warns Swede that the men are coming for him but Swede, laying on his bed in a cold sweat of resignation, makes no attempt to escape. The killers break in his door and gun him down. Brilliant, brilliant opening.

The rest of the film (an original screenplay co-written by an uncredited John Huston) follows life insurance investigator Jim Reardon (the always excellent Edmond O’Brien) who has been assigned to locate and pay the beneficiary of Swede’s policy. As he tracks down and interviews the dead man’s friends and associates and slowly pieces together the puzzle of Swede’s life, we learn through well-constructed flashbacks that the Swede was involved in a $250,000 heist and then how he came to meet his demise the way he did.

Being a noir, the film obviously has a big cheese bad guy and a delicious femme fatale and Albert Dekker and Ava Gardner fill these roles superbly, respectively of course. Indeed, the entire cast is well put together and Lancaster, 33 years old and in his screen debut, plays his role of a pro boxer washed up through injury then falling for a mobster’s girl and mixing with the wrong crowd admirably. He has a likability and the unmistakable presence that would quickly make him a star.

The black and white cinematography, so often a defining trademark of the noir genre, doesn’t disappoint here. There are many moments of beauty where starkness, shadow and silhouette take turns to create mood and enhance the atmosphere. Sometimes it’s worth watching these films just to see what the director is doing and in this case, Robert Siodmark, a pupil of the highly influential school of German Expressionism really knew his beans.  The lighting inside Swede’s apartment when Reardon encounters “Dum Dum” looking for the loot and then later inside the Green Cat night club towards the end of the film are just perfect. Check it out and see what I mean.

All in all, a great film and a great noir. The use of flashback gives it a different feel to the usual main character narrative but it takes nothing away. Full of colourful, untrustworthy characters and intrigue, it’s definitely another one worth watching.