Shane (1952)

Heads up - this post is rather long and full of rambling about Westerns.  If you don't like the genre, feel free to skip it!

Intro.
Okay, so you know those films you've heard of for years that are supposed to be the standards of a genre?  Like, Gone with the Wind is supposed to be a standard for epics or love stories or The Sound of Music is supposed to be a standard for musicals?  When it comes to Westerns, I've seen a lot of the standards, mainly from the classic era (Stagecoach, High Noon) and some from the spaghetti Western era (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly).  Now one Western I've always heard about but have never seen was Shane.  It's been on my DVR for longer than I'd really like to admit, and I wanted to watch it as part of my now-abandoned theme for November (November was supposed to be cowboys, but that didn't really happen). Anyway, even the write-up in TV Guide said that Shane was a four-star masterpiece with rare characterizations of depth and poignancy.  Who could resist a film like that?

Overview

One of the best parts of Shane is that the story is pretty easy to follow.  It's iconic, really - a drifter rides up to a homestead, offers to help work the farm, then finds himself drawn into ongoing feud between the homesteaders and the ranchers who want their land.  The ranchers are led by the biggest bull in the area, Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) and the homesteaders find a leader in Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) [the homesteader who has drifting gunman Shane (Alan Ladd) working for him].  Joe's wife Marian is a strong influence on both men and we wonder at her wonderment, and her son Billy's adoration, of this tall, silent stranger, Shane.  The boiling dispute between the ruthless ranchers and stubborn farmers comes to a head when Shane comes to blows with one of Ryker's big men, Chris Calloway (Ben Johnson).  Homesteaders get their homes burned, livestock killed, all the awful stuff you can imagine so they saddle up and prepare to get out of Dodge, so to speak.  But Joe wants to make one last stand to protect what is rightfully and legally his.  It's about a lot more than land at this point, but what Joe doesn't know is that Ryker has hired a really fast gunman to take care of the homesteaders.  Even after learning this, he's determined to go off and fight, but Shane fights him instead, keeping Joe alive while Shane goes in his place to the final showdown.  Will he live?  If so, will he ever be able to settle down and live a "normal" homesteader's life?  Or will he be forced to wander between the winds (oops, wrong Western!)?

Highlights  

First of all, I loved the simplicity (and I mean that in a good way) of the story.  Like I said, it is classic and I believe part of the reason the film is such a staple or essential movie, is because it takes such a popular Western storyline and makes it work really well.  That being said, I wish I had seen Shane much earlier in my Western film experience, as I feel like it could be a good basis to which you can compare other films because there are a lot of fundamental ideas, plot points and characterizations that are honed and done well here.  I could write a book about all the films that it reminded me of, but that would be a book, not a blog post.  Two things really made the film good - fine acting and beautiful camerawork.  Now, John Ford is my favorite Western director and his cinematography is amazing.  He literally based some of his storyboards on Remington paintings (don't believe me? Watch She Wore a Yellow Ribbon).  The shots here are just as beautiful and well constructed and give a good feel for the isolation of the homesteaders and the rough life they have on their settlements.  The landscape is just as violent as the men who control it.  (More on violence later)  As for the acting, I couldn't believe that the top credits went to Alan Ladd and Jean Arthur when really I found myself paying more attention to Van Heflin.  He's incredible - in this sense, he becomes the everyman, the hard-working American trying to build a life for his family.  He's the stuff of legends.  His transformation from a quiet, peaceful man to one who wants to face certain death to preserve his principles is inspiring.  It all really comes to light at the cemetery when the homesteaders bury their dead before leaving their homes for good in fear of Ryker.  It does make you wonder about his intentions - is he really doing it for principle or so that his wife and son will look at him the way they admire Shane?  What makes a man a real man in country so rough?  What makes a man at all?  And if a man survives by countering violence with violence, isn't he just as wild as the country around him and unfit for things like a wife and a home?

I did enjoy Shane's showdown with Chris and then his later showdown with Ryker's hired gun and the aftermath of that shootout, but it still begs this same question about violence.  I think that violence, especially the really long fight between Ryker's men and Shane and Joe, is more pronounced in this film than in earlier or even other fifties-era Westerns.  It isn't on the same level as say, The Wild Bunch, but it is different and Shane is a different kind of hero.  He reminds me a lot of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers (1956) which really showed the older men who tamed the West with guns and violence had fallen from their place as heroes.  Tolerance, principle and the urge to settle and to build shaped the new heroes, who usually weren't as good with a gun.  This changing form of the Western cowboy hero is fascinating (to me, anyway) and really interesting in light of what was happening in the 1950s.  I don't know as much about Shane, but The Searchers was actually written and influenced by the decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education.  Prejudice was losing ground.  Gentler, less violent and more tolerant heroes were in.  Shane was just prior to this, but was also in the midst of events like the McCarthy hearings and the Korean War.  What role does a cowboy play in all of this?  Why is Shane our hero now?  He puts the good of the homesteaders before himself, using his skills against the wilderness to protect society as every classic cowboy hero does.  And what does it say about us that we cannot take this hero into our fold?           
     
Now a word about a character that really struck me in Shane.  I'm talking about Chris Calloway, Ryker's big talking lead man who gives homesteaders a lot of heat and a few punches.  This whole idea of subverting the usual hero type is also reflected in Chris.  At first I hated his character, but I think part of that was for a wholly unrelated reason (more on that below).  But one moment changed it all - after their awful, throw-down fight, it is Chris who comes to tell Shane about Ryker's hired gun, something I don't think he was supposed to do (I can't really remember clearly right now, but I remember feeling that Chris was crossing some sort of line with Ryker).  He's awful and mean and ornery, but yet he feels like he has to give Shane fair warning.  Maybe it's out of respect for a man he sees as just as capable of violence, or maybe it's because Chris isn't as evil as Ryker.

Before I go any farther with this very long and rambly sort of analysis, I have to make a small confession.   I know a lot of people are like this, so I'm going to admit it freely here.  I have a lot of trouble watching actors and actresses I like play characters that are cast against their type.  I have some back up here - Jimmy Stewart only played a bad guy once in his whole career (After the Thin Man, 1936) because he was so beloved by audiences for his guy-next-door, everyman heroism.  As for me, I love Ben Johnson.  He usually played the good guy too, as one of the sidekicks in an old John Wayne picture (love him as Tyree in Rio Grande) or the lead in my all-time favorite Western, Wagon Master.  He did a lot of stunts too, as he was born to the saddle - in Rio Grande, that's really him and Harry Carey Jr. riding and jumping as they each stand up on two horses.  He even won an Oscar for his role as the town patriarch in The Last Picture Show (a role he only accepted once his dialogue was rewritten to get rid of all the cursing, mind you!).  So imagine my surprise when I saw my favorite cowboy actor as a mean-talking, fight-starting bad guy in a black hat!**  Anyway, after I got past my initial shock, I tried to put those other thoughts and feelings aside and focus on his role in the picture.  And you know what?  He's fantastic. 

Last Thoughts and No Recommendation (for now)
I am now a bit lost - where was I before I went on my Ben Johnson fan fest?  Oh, so all in all, Shane was sort of mediocre to me.  In critical evaluation, I can see its merits and its rightful place as an essential Western.  But I didn't really get what so many other reviewers are talking about - namely this "love" between Marian and Shane.  I'm pretty sure I missed something and as such, I need to rewatch the film.  It could also be that I have trouble watching Jean Arthur because something about her voice annoys me.  Usually I can tune it out (the annoyance, not her voice), but other times it is still grating.  That and I just didn't get enough of her character; I felt like I didn't get to understand her that well (another reason to rewatch!).  I am doubting my own taste now, since I feel like I should like Shane and write a lot more about how wonderful it is.  So before I recommend it or go on anymore and embarrass myself with a lot more random Western movie facts (and I have plenty), I'm going to close this post with a question to you guys - those of you who read this far!  Does anyone have any thoughts?  If you've seen it, do you recommend this film?  Why or why not?

Some afterthoughts:
** I feel like I should mention that the whole white hat/black hat thing isn't infallible.  Even John Wayne wore a black hat now and again; heck even Gene Autry wore a black hat once in a film (granted that was the weirdest I'd ever seen him look).

*** Okay, one last completely unrelated Western fact - did you know that Ben Johnson was an extra in the musical Oklahoma?  I know, it's hard to believe.  If you watch carefully, you'll see him...and then also see him clearly exit once the dancing starts. 

Room for One More (1952)

Is this a movie or an ad for the Boy Scouts?

Intro.

They say laughter is the best medicine, so last week while I was down with a stomach bug and could finally crash on the couch, I decided to watch a premier film showing on TCM called Room for One More.  I don't think it's a well known film, but it has a good story, a lot of heart and the adorable chemistry of real life husband and wife Cary Grant and Betsy Drake.  Did you know they starred in two films together?  I didn't!

Overview

Anna Rose (Betsy Drake) is a happily married mother of three and a heart the size of Texas - she is the woman in the neighborhood who can't pass a stray dog or cat without taking them home with her.  So when her women's group tours an orphanage, she considers adopting one of the older children, who have a much harder time getting adopted than babies.  She convinces her stressed but tolerant husband George (Cary Grant) to let a troubled girl, Jane (Iris Mann), stay for two weeks.  The family needs a lot of love and understanding (spearheaded by Anna) to help Jane feel secure in her new home and pretty soon she becomes a part of the family.  Alright stretched pretty thin, the Rose family accepts another orphan - a little boy with a very bad attitude named Jimmy (Clifford Tatum Jr.), which may stem from his always being teased for the large braces he wears on his legs.  George is the one to lead the crusade to have Jimmy welcomed in their home.  It takes a great deal of patience, second chances and even a vote by the kids as to who can stay.  The film follows the growing family (even the bunny is pregnant), and especially Jane and Jimmy, as they adjust to their new home.    

Highlights

Okay, I'll start with the obvious.  Cary Grant and Betsy Drake are adorable together.  They make a great couple and have a natural back and forth banter.  I like how you can tell when two people get along and it shows through in the acting - think Tracy and Hepburn or Bogart and Bacall.  I loved how Cary Grant turns from the protesting father frustrated by trying to make ends meet into an accepting, all-around good Dad.  He's the one who makes the decision to let Jane stay and he's also the one who goes out looking for Jimmy when he goes off on a ten mile hike in the middle of winter to get his Eagle Scout award.  He's also pretty entertaining as the put-upon husband who just wants an evening alone with his wife (which, of course, he spends the whole movie trying to get).  And Betsy plays the kind of mom every kid wants to have, full of warmth and wisdom.

Speaking of kids, the children really do steal the show.  Jane's transformation from angry adolescent to glowing and gracious young lady is remarkable, but it isn't overnight and she can't do it alone.  Jimmy's transformation is harder because he's had different kinds of troubles, notably his leg braces.  But his final achievement of becoming an Eagle Scout is really a great moment both for him and for his parents, George and Anna.  As he says at the end, he's had a leg up on the rest of the guys trying to make it to the Eagle Scout award, because he was able to choose his parents.  That's where the heart of the film lies - the choices we make about our lives and our happiness and how much love we have to give.


Review
Room for One More is what they mean by old-fashioned feel good movies.  You can't help but smile while watching the antics and even some of the drama faced by this family.  I also learned that it was based on a memoir.  While I didn't find it as funny as another popular growing-family type of film, Yours, Mine and Ours (the version with Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda), it more than makes up for it with heart.  I'd recommend it to anyone with a bit of a sappy side like me and to any Cary Grant fans who haven't seen it yet - it's maybe not his best or most memorable, but still worth seeing for his role with Betsy Drake!*

*The other film they made together was Every Girl Should Be Married (1948).  Not sure how I feel about the title....     

**Love seeing Cary Grant playing a father?  I have to absolutely recommend Father Goose - it's fabulous!  Definitely one of his funniest (and most un-Cary-Grant-ish of roles).

The Lusty Men (1952)

Bulls, broncos, cowboys, cowgirls, horses, heartbreak, fortunes; the only thing missing is Ben Johnson.

Intro.

I've loved Westerns for a long, long time.  There's something about the wildness found in the West and the wildness found in man's heart.  I'm more of a fan of the simpler times, films where you knew good from evil, and violence was acknowledged but not glorified.  So it's hard for me to pass up an old black and white Western from the fifties, which is why last week found me curled up eating popcorn and enjoying The Lusty Men. 

Overview

The film introduces itself with a rodeo announcer, commenting on and explaining events like bull-dogging and bronc riding.  Next up in the chute is a cowboy well known in the rodeo circuit - Jeff McCloud (Robert Mitchum), but his luck is about to run out as he gets thrown and stomped.  He limps away, not just from the arena, but away from the entire life.  Jeff hitches his way back to his boyhood home, a place he hasn't seen in some 18+ years.  The small homestead is owned by a bachelor who keeps getting offers to buy the place from a young married couple.  They can't afford the down payment, but he lets them come by and daydream.  They stop by and meet Jeff, and the husband, Wes Merritt (Arthur Kennedy) recognizes him from his glory days in the rodeo.  Wes and his wife, Louise (Susan Hayward) take Jeff back to the ranch where Wes works and help Jeff get a job.  It doesn't last long though, as all of Jeff's stories about winning quick fortunes in the rodeo give Wes the idea to enter in the local rodeo, despite Louise's worries for his safety.  With Jeff training him, Wes does astonishingly well his first time out, and wins a handsome amount of money.  He and Louise decide to start rodeo-ing so that they can earn enough money for their homestead, with Jeff's help.  Each rodeo becomes a strain on their marriage as Louise wonders just how long Wes's luck will last.  On their way they meet fellow rodeo competitors and their wives and soon learn about the other side of the life - that the thrill often keeps them coming back again and again, but the fear is ever present in the wives.  Sure enough, Louise is ready to call it quits once they have enough money, but Wes can't walk away from the rodeo life.  What it comes down to is a kind of showdown between Jeff (who has some unrequited feelings for Louise) and Wes, which ends in both tragedy and triumph.

Highlights
Susan Hayward and Robert Mitchum give some standout performances, perhaps not their career best, but well worth watching.  I only wished I could have seen them develop their relationship more.  The story itself is very good and a has a good showcase of rodeo life (even with all of the stunt doubles and obvious faked close-ups of the actors bull riding).  Robert Mitchum feels at home in a Western (like in The Red Pony), and adds a certain strong-but-silent ruggedness to the film.  What I meant in the tagline is that the film was great, but to be a real rodeo film, I could have used a bit more authenticity.  Don't get me wrong, the rodeo scenes were great, but part of me wished that Ben Johnson, who won both an Oscar and a World Rodeo Championship in Roping, could have been there.  I could write a whole post about why I love Ben Johnson, but that's for another day.  In the meantime, check out this article. 

Despite the camerawork to make it look like the actors were riding broncs, there are some beautifully crafted scenes.  The one that struck me the most was after Jeff limps away from the arena in the beginning.  His saddle slung over his shoulder, he makes his way across the open, deserted arena, trash blowing past him like modern tumbleweeds.  It's solemn, isolating and sad.  It also makes me wonder if this was what inspired one of the scenes from the later Steve McQueen rodeo film, Junior Bonner (which does have Ben Johnson, though he's older and not doing any trick riding).  In any case, that same sense of loss is conveyed.  It's almost every kid's dream to be a cowboy or a cowgirl, and to lose that dream in the blink of an 8-second ride is crushing.  Meanwhile, to add to that same sense of loss, we hear in the background of the film a familiar Western song - a variation of "Oh Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie."  I've not only watched a number of Westerns (many of which feature this song), but I also listen to Western music (which is much different from Country music) - groups like Sons of the Pioneers and Riders in the Sky and artists like Tex Ritter, Gene Autry and Rex Allen.  But in this film, the song is a commentary almost on Jeff's life and his ultimate decision of what to do in the end.  I promise not to spoil it.  But I knew the ending was coming, yet I still hoped that it wouldn't happen.  In Jeff's words, "there never was a horse that couldn't be rode; there never was a cowboy that couldn't be throw'd.  Guys like me last forever."  How very true.

Before I sign off, I want to just think about what was going on in this period of Hollywood history.  In 1952, America was in the middle of the Cold War and fighting in the Korean war.  Extreme conservatism ran the country, from McCarthy right through to the Breen office.  Western movies and television shows thrived.  Like I said before, these were films where good and evil were easy to distinguish.  Jeff becomes the ultimate classic Western hero - the lone individual sacrificing his own happiness for the sake of traditional society (in this case, the marriage of Louise and Wes).  He's among the last of his kind, because the mid- to late fifties would introduce the anti-hero in the Western and bring an end to such romantic idealism.  It's always interesting to me to think about how a film was defined by its time period, and The Lusty Men is no exception.  

Review and Recommendation   
While not my all time favorite Western, The Lusty Men is nevertheless one of the most memorable and enjoyable.  A good story, solid performances and the novelty of rodeo events will keep you entertained.  I recommend it to any Western fan or any Robert Mitchum fan - you won't be disappointed!
 
P.S. Wagon Master (1950) is my favorite Western, followed by a very close second of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.  You may also want to check out the film where Ben Johnson his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor: The Last Picture Show (1971).    

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

Tagline: Kirk Douglas has swagger to burn!
Intro.

When I talk about books with my friends and co-workers, we inevitably mention our growing "to read" piles - books that have been recommended or even lent to us, books we've been itching to read but haven't been able to find time for or books that we know we should read because they are classics or bestsellers.  This last group, books that we should read, I think can be applied to a sort of loose canon of literature.  You know, those books we were all expected to read in school.  I think the same idea of a canon can be applied to film as well.  We can focus it on world film as a whole or on films of a particular country.  If we took American films, for example, some classics in the canon would include The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, you get the idea.  That got me thinking - what determines a film's place as a real classic?  On this site, I use the term "classic" loosely to mean any film more than 30 years old.  But you can't very well say two films like Carolina Moon and 12 Angry Men are classics in the same sense of the word.   Does it have to do with the number of Oscars a film wins?  Or the performances of the actors or actresses in their careers?  What about the place of a film within the history of Hollywood or in the film's culture?  What about the film's recognition in today's world (like how many people today have ever seen or even heard of films like The Life of Emile Zola or Grand Hotel - both are Best Picture Oscar winners)?  This is what I was thinking about when I saw that one of the films on my "should watch" list was on television.  The winner of 5 Oscars, The Bad and the Beautiful promised to be a great film, so I eagerly settled in to watch.

Overview
The Bad and the Beautiful starts with phone calls - one to a director, one to a beautiful woman, one to a writer.  All of the calls are from Jonathan Shields and all go purposefully unanswered.  All three of those people meet up at the house of studio head Harry Pebbel (Walter Pidgeon).  Washed out film producer Jonathan (Kirk Douglas) is ready after two years to make his comeback, but needs all three of those people to make the film with him.  As Harry pleads with them, each person tells the story of how Jonathan entered and then ruined their lives.  First up is director Fred Amile (Barry Sullivan), who met Jonathan when the latter first came to Hollywood.  Jonathan's father had been a big time producer and Jonathan aimed to do even better, but had to start at the very bottom.  Together, the two men began directing films back when they were very production-line oriented.  As the studio executive tells them, "I don't want to win awards.  I want to make pictures that end with a kiss and black ink in the books."  The men learn their trade through long hours and hard work, and finally make a really successful film.  Fred has a story outlined from a popular book and is dying to be lead director on his own picture.  But Jonathan is the one who can sell, and gets the picture made, though part of the bargain is to bring in an experienced director.  Fred disowns Jonathan, though back in the present tense of the film, Harry reminds him that Fred finally stopped hanging on Jonathan's coattails, became a great success on his own and has a great life.  Then the story switches to beautiful actress Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner), who was discovered by Jonathan.  Her flashback shows us what a wreck she was - an alcoholic steeped in depression.  Jonathan takes care of her, teaches her to be a lady and gets her the role in his next big picture, despite the protests of the director.  Their fondness turns to love (at least on her part) and the night of the premier she is haled as the next great star.  But Jonathan isn't there to share her joy.  She goes to his house only to find him angry at her presence.  That's probably because he has another woman upstairs.  Completely crushed, she leaves him and almost has a car accident because she's crying so hard.  Thus, she blames him for using her.  Since then, however, she has continued to be a great star and studios everywhere are eager for her to work with them.  Finally the last story is told through the screenwriter, James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell).  His connection with Jonathan started when he published his book on the history of Virginia.  Jonathan convinces him to come to Hollywood to turn the book into a film.  James is reluctant to stay and write the screenplay, but between Jonathan's influence and James's wife's desire to see Hollywood, he stays.  When he can't focus on the screenplay, Jonathan arranges for he and James to spend two weeks in the country.  He also arranges for a sexy actor called Gaucho (Gilbert Roland) to distract Mrs. Rosemary Bartlow (Gloria Graham), a charming Southern belle with a knack for disrupting her husband whenever he tries to work.  James finishes the script, but returns to Hollywood to find that Gaucho and Rosemary have been killed in a plane crash.  When the truth finally comes out, James disowns Jonathan.  So at last James, Georgia and Fred have to decide whether or not to give Jonathan another chance.

Highlights
I'm a big fan of flashbacks.  The way that The Bad and the Beautiful, uses three long flashbacks to tell the story of a man's life is very well done.  In fact, the whole film is very strong in its storytelling.  Part of it is the way it all ties together.  The three central characters (James, Georgia and Fred) all know of each other and appear in multiple flashbacks.  The opening itself is a great way to introduce the three of them as well as Jonathan - a man so hated no one will take his call.

Kirk Douglas carries the film so well.  He makes Jonathan both despicable and yet so endearing.  It's magnetism.  He can talk his way into or out of anything.  One word I thought of immediately was swagger.  The whole movie rests on how much swagger he has.  That and his perfect, unmovable hair.  But I digress.  Kirk Douglas should've won an Oscar for this performance - his character is the absolute epitome of everything we both love and hate about Hollywood.  I think that's why the film is such a classic.  It's not only about a man who will stop at nothing to get to the top, but also the story of old Hollywood, or at least the kind of story we want to see. 

Review and Recommendation
The Bad and the Beautiful has some great aspects and the Oscars it won (Art Direction, Cinematography, Writing, Costume Design, and Supporting Actress for Gloria Grahame) are deserved.  It's not as dark as most "inside Hollywood" films, but also not as light as say Singin' in the Rain.  While I don't think it's a "classic" as much as some other films, it is nevertheless a fine piece of movie-making history.  An all-around good film, I recommend it also for Douglas's fine acting and a great story.

Macao (1952)

Intro.

In films, a "meet-cute" is the point in a story where two characters meet for the first time.  It's usually applied to romantic comedies.  Eli Wallach in the film The Holiday gives an example.  To paraphrase: suppose a man and a woman are both in need of pajamas, so they both go to the same men's department store.  The woman says she just needs a top; the man says he only needs bottoms.  They look at each other and that's it.  I have to say, even though the 1952 film Macao isn't a standout classic, it definitely has one of the funniest meet-cutes.  Onboard a ship heading for Macao, Jane Russell is in her cabin with a man she's trying to fend off.  She throws her shoe at him, but he ducks and the shoe goes right through the porthole and hits Robert Mitchum in the head as he's walking by.  He goes into the cabin with the shoe, sees Jane Russell, and that's it - a great meet-cute!

Overview

Cinderella jokes aside, Macao is really a film noir.  It opens on a ship bound for Macao, a place notorious for being 3 miles outside of police jurisdiction.  Headed there is nightclub singer Julie Benson (Jane Russell) and ex-GI Nick Cochran (Robert Mitchum).  Benson is short on money, so not only does she land a job at a local bar, but she picks Cochran's wallet.  He in turn gets stopped by the police, but she returns the money before he's arrested.  Meanwhile, Cochran teams up with another passenger, who gets him a job as an undercover special agent investigating a crime ring that just so happens to be run by Julie's new boss.  What follows is a web of crime, deceit and a blossoming romance between Nick and Julie.  Nick sets out to get Julie's boss, Lawrence Trumble, to take him on as a hired hand.  The idea is to get Lawrence to leave the safety of Macao and go to Hong Kong for some missing jewels so that the authorities can arrest him.  But the best laid plans often go awry, and after a shooting and a thrilling fight on Trumble's ship just shy of the 3 mile mark, the film comes to an end that's typical noir, though a bit happier.

Highlights

Both Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell give good, solid performances.  While not a standout film, it is nonetheless enjoyable and much of that is due to their chemistry.  This was their second film together, the first being His Kind of Woman, which is more of a noir parody.  As many reviewers on IMDb have said (and you should read those write-ups - they are much better than mine!), Macao is kind of a lighter film noir.  It is still "good triumphs over evil" rather than in some of Bogart's films or Mitchum's Out of the Past, where morality is an issue and the good and bad characters are hard to tell apart.   

Aside from that, the story was easier to follow than some noirs, partly because the script was so confusing, Robert Mitchum helped rewrite it as they filmed.  Also worth mentioning is Jane Russell's fabulous singing.  She does "One for My Baby" and the ironically named "You Kill Me."  She is quickly becoming one of my new favorite actresses.  Gloria Grahame is also featured in the film, though not in a leading role.  She nevertheless turns in a great performance as Margie, a woman you both love and hate.  You'll probably recognize Grahame from some of her other work, but for me she'll always be Violet from It's a Wonderful Life.  Overall, a good cast.

Review and Recommendation
Macao is an enjoyable film - it's easy to follow with enough suspense and romance to make for a good lighter film noir.  I recommend it to fans of Russell and/or Mitchum, and would say that it's a good film.  Not great, not horrible, but always entertaining.

Angel Face (1952)

Intro.

It seems as though May has turned into Mitchum Month without me knowing it.  I think it's because my new DVR lets me search listings by Actor/Actress.  As such, I was excited to see Mitchum in another suspense film - Angel Face.  Right from the beginning when he stepped out of an ambulance as a paramedic named Frank, I knew I was in for a great evening!  **Please note, there is no way I can discuss this whole film without giving away the ending, but I will put in a Spoiler Alert before then.**

Overview
As I said, the film starts with paramedic Frank (Mitchum) arriving at the Tremayne home, where the stepmother Catherine (Barbara O'Neill) has had an accidental brush with gas affixiation.  There are suspicions about the cause, but nothing very substantial.  On his way out, Mitchum bumps into the daughter, Diane (Jean Simmons) whom he tries to comfort.  She later follows him and they spend the evening together.  Diane learns that Frank is an ex-race car driver and wants to save up to open his own garage.  The next day Diane gets her stepmother to consider funding Frank's venture, even bringing Frank to the house to meet her formally.   Although Catherine wants to proceed with the garage, Diane tells Frank that she doesn't and plays up the "evil stepmother who never wants people to be happy" card.  Pretty soon Frank winds up falling for Diane and accepts her offer to join the family as their chauffeur.  All goes pretty well as we learn that Diane is 1) a huge Daddy's girl and 2) she's obsessed with convincing Frank that Catherine is trying to kill her.  And then one day we see Diane standing at the edge of the family's driveway and see that the path veers off to a sheer rocky drop.  The next thing you know, Catherine and Diane's father Charles (Herbert Marshall) get into their car and put it in drive.  However, the car instead accelerates very rapidly and zooms backwards, tumbling end over end off the cliff.  Diane, unaware that her father had also been in the car, is inside contently playing the piano.  Just when you think it's over, the film pulls a fast one - both Frank and Diane are arrested and, in a play to get sympathy from the jury, their lawyers have them get married.  Then, they face their trial....

***SPOILER ALERT***
It works too, as they are tried and found not guilty.  Frank, angry and disgusted as he knows Diane is guilty, leaves her after the trial to try and get back together with his ex-girlfriend.  The ex of course, turns him down, and Frank returns to a distraught and emotionally wrecked Diane.  He stupidly says he is leaving her and going to Mexico.  She pleads with him to stay and asks to make her case while she drives him to the airport.  He STUPIDLY gets into the car with her and what happens?  She is determined not to lose the only person she has left in her life, so she throws the car into reverse and drives it off the cliff as well, killing them both.        

Highlights

I think what is most remarkable about this film is that you don't really know how or when Diane will attack.  I thought Frank had indeed talked her out of killing her stepmother, then only a few minutes later the car goes off the cliff!  I had just gotten comfortable with a good old slow paced suspense film and then bam! double homicide!  It's shocking for both the audience and for Diane, who collapses when she discovers her father was also a victim.  Just the same, you don't really expect the ending - that is until you see Diane at the wheel.  These parts make up for some of the longer, more drawn out scenes and make for an interesting ride.

Robert Mitchum is very good in this role, although his character's seeming blindness to Diane's plans was pretty aggravating.  In retrospect, I think that it would have been too easy for him to see what was coming, as his character is not the street-wise private eye we're used to seeing.  He's the chump in many ways and no amount of screaming from the audience (believe me, I tried) will save him.  It's a different role than usual, but he plays the part with his usual charm and good looks. 

Review
Overall, despite some slow parts, I think this is a fine example of the old Hollywood suspense film.  Heavy on drama and suspicion, it brings together many good elements and fine acting talent to make it into a thoroughly enjoyable film.  I'm sorry if I've spoiled the film for some of you, and for those of you strong enough to skip the spoiler, go enjoy the surprise!

Night Stage to Galveston (1952)

Intro.
Another of Gene's last Westerns, Night Stage to Galveston also feels more like a longer verison of one of his TV episodes.  It's based on a little-known and interesting piece of Texas history.  After the Civil War, Texas legislation had tried to pass a bill for three companies of Rangers, but when funding failed, they instead put together a group of State Police.  As in most states, these State Police weren't trusted, leading to distrust among the residents.  This sets the stage for Gene's picture.

Overview
Gene is one of the now-retired Texas Rangers, along with his friend Pat Buttram.  They are working with Colonel Bellamy, who runs a newspaper with his daughter Ann.  The town's been getting pushed around by the local State Police, who pretty much throw anyone they don't like in jail on false charges.  When they kill a local rancher, Gene goes after them and shoots one of them in self-defense.  He and Pat take in the dead rancher's little girl Cathy (Judy Nugent), and take her back to the Colonel.  Gene, Pat and the Colonel come up with a plan to contact all of the old Rangers and have them gather as much proof of police corruption as possible.  It almost works until the State Police steal the affadivts, kidnap Ann and Cathy and beat up the Colonel.  It all culminates in a rip-roaring stagecoah hijacking by Gene and the re-establishment of the Rangers!

Highlights
As in most of his post-WWII films, there is less singing and more action.  The plot is better than some of his later work, and the feature songs in this picture are great.  Gene sings "Heart as Big as Texas" (one of my favorites!) and the theme of the movie, "Eyes of Texas" is a great, old Texas Ranger song.  If it sounds familiar, it could be because the song was also used in the TV series Tales of the Texas Rangers and later was rewritten a bit as the theme song for Walker, Texas Ranger.

The supporting cast is great in this film as well (outside of Pat Buttram's chauvinistic lines about a woman's place).  Colonel  Bellamy is well played, as is the character of Cathy.  Little Cathy (played by 12 year old Judy Nugent) is quite a scene-stealer and has a big part to play.  Aside from hiding several times and overhearing the police plotting, she is also kidnapped with Ann and escapes by climbing out of a chimney.  She gets Gene to come save Ann, then later on she saves the Colonel when he gets shot in the arm and ruptures his artery.  Finally, Gene's horse Champion shares top billing with Gene.  This film highlights what a beautiful horse he is during all of the great chase scenes.

Review
Gene's films usually lean towards comedy, singing or action.  This one is heavy on the action, but has some comedy and singing too.  If you can get past Pat's shenanigans, then I think you'll really appreciate this film.  It's good, solid entertainment and a fine example of the singing cowboy Western.

Want to read more?  Check out the Official Website of the Texas Rangers here.

Apache Country (1952)

Intro.
Encore Westerns had a great Gene Autry double feature today: Melody Ranch and Apache Country.  I watched both, even though I had already seen Melody Ranch (but the second viewing was just as good!).  I have to admit, I was a bit apprehensive about Apache Country.  As a fan of Westerns, I am painfully aware of sometimes awful treatment of Native Americans in motion pictures.  I haven't seen many films where they are not the bad guys, and fewer still where they have been portrayed as complex, important characters.  This picture struck me because the Apaches are the very people Gene is protecting, and they are respected.  The main Apaches in the film are not main characters, but important to the plot.  In a timeline sense, this film came after Gene had already been on his TV show for about 2 years.  He's a bit older than his early classics, but he can still pull a few punches (and sing a few melodies!).

Overview
This film reminds me of a longer, more polished version of one of Gene's TV episodes.  The plot is fairly simple - Gene is chief of scouts for the Army, and his latest assignment is to go undercover in the town of Apache Springs to find out who's been inciting Apache uprisings to cover up real train robbers.  The easy part is finding out the couple behind the outlaw ring - the hard part is proving it.  Lucky for Gene and his sidekick Pat Buttram, they run into Carolina Cotton (playing herself), a gal who runs her late father's medicine show.  Carolina can out shoot and out yodel everyone in the territory, and she and Gene become fast friends.  He entrusts her with a coded report that will expose the outlaw leaders, but the leaders get wind and try to ambush her when she joins a wagon train to the nearest fort.  Gene and Pat ride in just as the bullets start flying, and of course they all get the bad guys.

Highlights
What this film lacks in plot, it makes up for in the character of Carolina Cotton.  She is unstoppable!  Not only is she running her own business, but she's joining up with Gene and Pat to help them in a pretty dangerous situation.  Gene pays her quite a compliment too when he says that next to her father, she's the best they could have asked for.  It's so refreshing to see a woman in a Western who is her own person, not dependant on anyone, able to shoot and fight better than any man.  And she's not the usual old, bitter spinster with a gun - she's gorgeous!

Carolina sounds great when she sings too, and just as terrific when she and Gene sing together.  He doesn't sing as much in this picture, probably because he's too busy chasing train robbers and punching out bad guys.  But he does manage to sing a beautiful version of "Cold, Cold Heart."  The Cass County boys are also along for the ride, providing some nice backup for both Gene and Carolina (although they really should have had more screen time).

Finally, the Apaches that tour with Carolina perform some traditional dances for us, and Gene narrates their actions.  He pays respect to their traditions and helps those around him understand the symbolism of the Eagle Dance and the Buffalo Hunt.  It's very different from other cowboy-and-Indian movies, and makes me happy Gene did it.

Review and Recommendation
There are a few reviews out there that say this film is only mediocre.  It really is a usual, run-of-the-mill oater, but still entertaining.  There are a few good reasons to see it.  If you think that Native Americans are never portrayed well, you should see this picture.  If you think women are never strong Western characters, then this film will prove you wrong.  All in all, not Gene's best, but far from his worst either.

Monkey Business (1952)

Intro.
Here is yet another film that is a must see simply because of the cast.  This film is a perfect way to round out Cary Grant month, as it pairs him with wonderful co-stars and a chance to show off his wonderful sense of humor.  This film, much like most of Hawks's comedies, is rather silly but still provides some depth to the story.  While it is a wild and entertaining romp about what can happen when adults are turned into children, it also touches upon the sadness of losing that innocence. As Cary Grant's character, Barnaby, muses: "I'm beginning to wonder if being young is all it's cracked up to be. We dream of youth. We remember it as a time of nightingales and Valentines. And what are the facts? Mal-adjustment, near idiocy and a series of low comedy disasters, that's what youth is."


Overview
Cary Grant plays Dr. Barnaby Fulton, a chemist who is hoping to discover a formula that will ease the aches and pains of age.  He has a laboratory of chimpanzees and one very funny boss who is more focused on profits (played by Charles Coburn).  Barnaby's wife Edwina (played by Ginger Rogers) supports him wholeheartedly and they have a wonderful marriage.  One day one of the chimps gets loose and concocts a formula, which she then dumps into the water cooler of the lab.  Barnaby tests his latest formula on himself and takes a drink of water to wash it down.  Almost instantly he begins acting like a 20 year old college boy - not only is he free of aches and pains and bad vision, he drives like a maniac and goes roller skating and swimming and such with his boss's beautiful secretary, Lois Laurel (Marilyn Monroe).  After a wild day, he sleeps it off, but as he attempts to try it again, Edwina instead takes the formula followed by a drink of the lab's water.  She begins to act like her 20 year old self, and as she convinces Barnaby to return to the hotel where they honeymooned, she then begins to re-enact all of the drama of their wedding night.  Poor Barnaby gets kicked out of their room and again a crazy night ensues.  Emotions settled the following morning, they make up and go back to the lab.  Edwina uses the lab water to make them some coffee while Barnaby resolves to destroy all his notes.  Meanwhile his boss has heard of the success and demands that Barnaby turn over the formula.  Both Edwina and Barnaby are taken back to their 8 year old selves and the chaos only increases!  At long last and many laughs later, the truth of the water is discovered and the chimp responsible is put to work to replicate it (which echoes the idea of monkeys writing Shakespeare).  

Highlights
The big draw today for this film is Marilyn Monroe's real break out role.  She is delightful as the dim-witted but beautiful Lois, and seems to have a good sense of comedic timing.  She's quite a supporting actress and holds her own with such established and talented co-stars.  You can tell that Hawks is really trying to figure her out, getting her ready for his next picture, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (also wonderful, by the way, as is How to Marry a Millionaire).

Not only is Marilyn wonderful, but so is Ginger Rogers!  It's easy to forget that Ginger appeared in films without Fred Astaire, but without his big shadow you can really see her shine.  She's just as funny as Cary Grant (even funnier at times) with impeccable timing.  It reminded me of her amazing comedic role in Stage Door (which, if you haven't seen, you should add to your list!!).  She's pure dynamite. 

I wondered in this film if any other two actors could carry a film about reverting to childhood so well.  Both Grant and Rogers make the effects of the formula apparent and believeable.  Together they make an endearing, fun-loving couple who discover that love only gets better with time and youth is not all it's cracked up to be.

Review and Recommendation
Instead of sounding like a broken record and saying that you should see this film because of the great cast, I'm only going to say that it is one of the best Hawks comedies I've seen.  And really, how can you resist Cary Grant playing with a chimpanzee named Ester?

Also, keep your eyes peeled for a great cameo by Harry Carey Jr!!  And as always, you can read more at IMDb.