House of Wax (1953)

Further proof that my uneasiness in wax museums is completely justified.

Intro.

I definitely went through classic movie phases even as a kid.  There was a period where all I wanted to watch were musicals and then came old horror films.  My favorite horror film was the original House of Wax, starring my favorite horror movie actor, Vincent Price.  I can remember going to the local video store and making a beeline straight to the Classics section and asking my mom to rent it again and again.  I hadn't seen the movie in something close to twelve years, and was delighted that it was featured on TCM this Halloween.   

Overview

Vincent Price stars as Prof. Henry Jarrod, a gifted sculptor of wax figures.  His museum, studio and home are all in one building, and the small space, while filled with well-crafted figures from history, fails to draw in as many crowds as other wax museums which feature scenes of torture and horrors.  His partner Matthew Burke (Roy Roberts) wants a return on his investment, and losing his patience, sets fire to the museum.  Jarrod cannot bear to part with his "children" as he calls his wax figures, and many believe he dies in the fire with them.  In the aftermath, we see a strange, misshapen man in a black cape appear in Burke's room and kill him, hanging him in the elevator shaft.  It's a ghastly crime, and only made worse when the scene is revealed in a brand new wax museum specializing in the macabre and recent headlines in crime.  Running this new museum is Jarrod, who is now wheelchair bound and without fine motor control in his hands.  His apprentices now carve his figures under his guidance, and he is determined to recreate all of his best pieces.  One of the couples visiting his grand opening are Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk) and Scott Andrews (Paul Picerni).  Sue's dear friend Cathy (Carolyn Jones) was recently murdered, and Sue had walked in on the murder - the same man in black who killed Burke.  Once at the museum, Sue can't help but notice the similarity between the figure of Joan of Arc and Cathy.  Every line of Cathy's face is there, right down to her only having one ear pierced.  Jarrod explains that he often uses photographs from the newspaper as models for his work, but Sue isn't convinced.  Scott begins working for Jarrod as well, and begins work on a new Marie Antoinette, using Sue's face as a model.  But of course this creepy film gets even spookier when Sue goes into the museum one night alone to get another close-up view of Joan of Arc (seriously, how does she think that's a good idea?).  Of course she discovers that Joan actually is Cathy, and Jarrod and his other assistants decide to make her a permanent fixture of the museum.  Can Scott and the police save her?  And just who is it among them that's been killing people across the city?

Highlights

I love Vincent Price.  In any horror film, he adds a certain level of creepiness.  Not only is his voice pitch perfect for any horror film (in fact his is also the voice you hear in "Thriller"), but he is also a  remarkable actor.  It's so easy to forget how good of an actor he really was when you watch films designed to showcase other things (like the novelty of 3D effects).  But he's always a great actor to watch and to learn from*, and I think part of the reason I was so drawn to this film was because of his work.  He is so easy to admire and empathize with from the beginning, then we see his change after the fire and the loss of his world.  It's as much about his loss of sanity as it is about Sue's own descent into what she fears is madness.  She just has to know if it's really Cathy beneath that layer of wax.  It's a good thing she does question it too, for her story starts the police investigating into Jarrod's life.

House of Wax was a remake of an early horror film from the 1930s, but was remade at this particular time in Hollywood for two reasons.  One, it would make a great showpiece shot in color and second it could be made into 3D to attract movie audiences.  Theaters were losing business in the 50s with the widespread ownership of television, so many sensational tactics began deployment in the film industry.  3D effects were one of those ideas, and did bring viewers in to see films like House of Wax.  While I have not seen the film in 3D, I can attest to the brilliance of color in the movie, with particular attention paid to the details of the wax figurines.  It's very well shot and composed, with a good eye for color.  It is also very amusing to see which shots were constructed solely for the purpose of coming right at the camera for that 3D effect.  The hawker outside Jarrod's new museum is the most out of place, having no effect on the plot and interacting directly with the audience with his paddle-board.  It's an amusing reminder of the fad and a reminder of what was once on the cutting edge of Hollywood.    

There were a few things I didn't particularly like in the film on this viewing, particularly the supporting characters.  It's most apparent with Cathy, but several of them are a bit stereotyped and almost corny, as is the bad pun which ends the film.  Still, I have to admit that the novelty of wax museums and the drawing power of Vincent Price makes this an enjoyable film.  It's still one of my favorite horror films, although I may still be biased towards my childhood favorites.  And the scene where Jarrod's true face is revealed (arg, I can't really make this spoiler-free) still makes me gasp.  That's what always terrified me as a child and today it still gives me the creeps.

Before I sign off, one quick funny story.  As I began to write this post, I looked up House of Wax on IMDb, because I knew that Jarrod's assistant Igor had looked really familiar.  Turns out it was a very early appearance by Charles Bronson, who was listed in the credits as Charles Buchinsky.  I just told my friend who had also watched with me, and we both said in tandem "I knew he looked familiar!"

Review and Recommendation
Although a bit stereotyped and somewhat predictable, House of Wax is still a very enjoyable film and an example of new techniques tried in the 1950s.  A wonderful vehicle for Vincent Price (and probably one of his best performances), I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants a more tame horror film.  What a great way to wrap up my month of horror films!

*I've seen Vincent Price in only two non-horror films, one of which was His Kind of Woman.  Now, you talk about an acting range - I almost didn't recognize him because he was so funny!  Of course, his voice was unmistakable.  :-)          

Strangers on a Train (1951)

I had no idea that merry-go-rounds could be so terrifying!

Intro.

I am taking a slight break from the movie monster phase to talk about Hitchcock - which still seems appropriate for October and Halloween.  Do you ever find yourself watching those films that everyone seems to know, but not too many people today have actually seen?  I'm definitely guilty of a lot of those films - I've never seen the full length of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Citizen Kane but I know what happens in those films and why they are so key to film history.  (I know, I'm a terrible fangirl for not having seen those!)  I think Strangers on a Train is one of those films, which is why I'm glad it was recently featured on the TCM series, The Essentials. 

Overview

The premise of Strangers on a Train is exactly what it sounds like - two strangers meet on a train.  Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is a famous tennis player, not quite pro yet, who is approached by a very talkative fan, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker).  Bruno seems to know a lot about Guy's life, including the fact that he wants to divorce his wife and marry his girlfriend, Anne Morton (Ruth Roman).  Bruno admits that he has family troubles of his own, namely his stern, disapproving but very wealthy father.  Pretty soon Bruno tells Guy his idea of a perfect murder - two strangers with no connections between them "swap murders".  "Everybody has someone they'd like to get rid of," Bruno says with all the charm of a snake.  For whatever reason, Guy disapproves but not too harshly, possibly to not upset this stranger who may decide to kill him instead.  Anyway, Guy gets off the train and confronts his pregnant wife.  She's decided not to go through with the divorce and to tell everyone that the baby she's carrying is Guy's (even though it isn't).  He's so furious, he calls Anne and says he's so angry that he could strangle his wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers).  That's about all Bruno needs to know when he calls Guy to see how things went with his wife.  Bruno then tracks and finds Miriam at a local carnival, where he follows her for some time before getting her alone on an embankment by the river.  There he strangles her and slips away. He tells Guy what he's done and expects him to uphold his end of the "bargain".  Bruno's left nothing to chance either - if Guy goes to the police, Bruno can frame him as an accomplice.  Worse still, he has Guy's engraved cigarette lighter, which he plans on taking back to the crime scene.  A battle of wills begins between the two men as complications arise - first Guy's alibi, a man he took the train with during the murder, was too drunk to recall seeing him.  Then the police send a detective to shadow Guy 24/7, making any meetings between him and Bruno difficult and risky.  Bruno starts losing patience and comes out of hiding to start following Guy more closely.  He even invites himself to a big society party with Anne's family (her father is a Senator).  Her sister, Barbara (Patricia Hitchcock) recognizes Bruno after he almost strangles one of the guests and from there one last plan is hatched - Bruno must get back to the crime scene to leave the lighter and frame Guy irrefutably.  A mad chase and a terrifying merry-go-round ride bring this great thriller to a dizzying end.   

Highlights
As in so many Hitchcock films, the cinematography is outstanding.  I found out through TCM that the cinematographer was Robert Burkes, whom had worked with Hitchcock on something like 10 films.  The shots in this movie are so well crafted and again, there is more showing than telling.  I loved the tennis match that Bruno attends - he is the lone spectator whose head does not turn to follow the ball, but instead remains eerily fixated on Guy.  Also, when Bruno is following Miriam in the carnival, she watches him at the strongman game - he looks at his hands, looks at her, picks up the hammer and whacks the target so hard he hits the bell.  It's a testament to the strength in those hands and the look he gives both his hands and then her foreshadows the strangling that follows.  When he wins, he also looks at her and waggles his eyebrows - so creepy!  I mean, his stalking is bad enough, but that look just gave me chills.  She thinks it's flattering to have a man so interested in her (which, by the way, is so messed up! Stalking is NOT OKAY.) which is why she winds up alone with him in the dark struggling for life and losing.  That moment of the murder, we see the act as it is reflected in her glasses, which have fallen into the grass.  It's a beautiful shot and one I'm sure that has been imitated many times since.  The overall art direction is phenomenal and typically in the style of Hitchcock where ever shot tells a part of the story.  Look away for a minute and you've missed so much.

In addition to such fine camera work, we also have great performances by the cast.  In the intro from The Essentials series, they mention that the two lead actors were chosen partly because they had previously always been identified with "everyman" types of roles.  That in itself makes the film even more thrilling - these men are seen as regular guys like anyone in the audience.  Put Vincent Price in that role and forget it, the effect would be gone and the film wouldn't be nearly as good.*  It's what I've seen Hitchcock do in so many of his films.  He takes an everyday person and puts them in an out of the blue, terrifying situation that only escalates.  Think about Cary Grant's character in North by Northwest, or Jimmy Stewart in, well, in any of his Hitchcock films (wow, there were a lot.  perhaps because Jimmy Stewart defined the "everyman" type?).  As long as I'm talking about acting, both Ruth Roman and Patricia Hitchcock also give great performances and sort of help redeem the film from becoming anti-feminist thanks to Miriam.  (Really, Miriam?  If a guy is stalking you like that and won't even speak to you, run away!!!)


I think what I liked the most about this film is how it can be thrilling, suspenseful and downright creepy without anything out of the norm.  What I mean is, there are no vampires, no aliens, no voodoo zombies walking around (not that I don't also love and appreciate those films too).  The fear grows from something as simple and innocuous as two seemingly normal strangers meeting on a train. 

Review and Recommendation

Strangers on a Train reminded me of a pot of water boiling on the stove.  It took some time to get started and after a loud bang or two it slowly grows more fierce until it explodes (okay, so I may have left a pot on the stove once and forgotten about it till the scorched pan started making really odd noises).  The film grows on you, wearing down your patience just as it wears down the characters.  It's true, I thought it was a bit slow at times, but really it was only because all of the action was building, waiting to bubble up and over.  And the ending, well, that is well worth the trip.  Overall, fantastic cinematography, great concept, and good solid acting make this one film I can recommend to anyone.

A few end notes: 
* Don't get me wrong - I love Vincent Price.  He is a great actor in his own right, but his type-casting as the villain in so many horror films would have not helped Hitchcock's cause of the everyman.  If you'd like to see a Vincent Price horror film, I recommend House of Wax.  It was (and probably still is) my favorite horror film. 
 
Also, Alec Baldwin referred to Bruno as one of the top 5 creepiest villains of all classic films.  It makes me wonder who the other 4 are.  I'm sure that Max Cady from Cape Fear is on that list.  Mitchum's performance in that picture reminds me somewhat of Walker's portrayal of Bruno; I wonder if it was an influence.  Something tells me it probably was, as Strangers on a Train is such a standard classic for all film historians.

Rebecca (1940)

Intro.

Aside from the posting rules on my blog, I don't really have a system for picking films.  Usually I just get into phases where I watch a lot of films by the same actor, actress, director or something.  But I can't always choose, especially since my sources of films are 1) my own collection, 2) my friends' collections, 3) whatever's on cable, and 4) the library.  Luckily I've been getting to know some fellow classic film fans and sometimes swap DVDs.  My friend Jen just lent me Rebecca, insisting that I had to see it.  I've always loved Hitchcock, so I settled down a few nights back and watched.

Overview 

Rebecca opens in Monte Carlo, where a pretty young woman (Joan Fontaine) meets rich, handsome widower Mr. Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) through her employer, the wealthy but annoying Mrs. Edyth Van Hopper (Florence Bates).  When Edyth takes ill, her young companion spends her time with Maxim, and the two begin a sweet romance.  It's a bit of a May-December love, but it's more than enough to make them both happy.  They marry and he returns with his new bride, the second Mrs. de Winter, to his grand estate, Manderley.  There is a shadow over the entire place, as the former Mrs. de Winter, Rebecca, drowned just off shore.  The second Mrs. de Winter can feel Rebecca's presence everywhere - her initials are on everything, the staff all seems to compare her to Rebecca.  Even Maxim has moods where he is cold and aloof.  Worst is the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), who hates Mrs. de Winter as strongly as she loved (and still loves) Rebecca.  It seems that nothing Mrs. de Winter can do can make anyone like her and soon she grows even more shy and withdrawn, even considering suicide at one point (with coaxing from Mrs. Danvers that is).  One night a shipwreck off shore drags up Rebecca's sunken boat - the one she had died on and was never found.  Her body is onboard, which means that the body buried in the family plot had been misidentified.  An inquest begins and much bigger problems test the love of Maxim and his new wife.  Rebecca seems to have won for a time, but the story holds a few more unexpected twists and shocks than anyone expects.

Highlights 

The characters in this film are unforgettable.  The simple fact that our heroine, the shy, sweet girl who marries Maxim, has no name.  She is so overshadowed by Rebecca, she can't even claim a name other than "the second Mrs. de Winter."  That's a very powerful statement.  Nevertheless, she is the heart of this film - the audience can connect with her.  There's an entry on IMDb that says Olivier had wanted his girlfriend Vivian Leigh in the role, so he had been awful to Joan Fontaine.  Hitchcock used this to his advantage and told Joan that everyone on set felt that way - they all hated her.  He wanted to get her into the same frame of mind as her character and it must have worked - she is amazing!  Her leading man, despite how he may have acted off screen, is ever so charming and gentle with her as his bride, yet we can see the change come over him once they reach Manderley.  It's fine acting, subtle but moving.  And finally there's the amazingly evil Mrs. Danvers - what a villainous woman!  She reminded me a lot of Madame Sebastian from Hitchcock's film Notorious.  So stark, so chilling, I sure wouldn't want her mad at me!     

Okay, I know I geek out over every Hitchcock film's cinematography, but it's with good reason!  Rebecca is no exception - everything about it is beautifully orchestrated.  I loved especially how Manderley was filmed as Mrs. de Winter moved about it.  At times the shadows of light through the windows make it look like a church or a prison.  At one point we see her sleeping and the bars from the window are framed like a jail over her face.  She's trapped by this dead woman.  There are times when she is framed against massive structures like a giant iron-scrollwork window or the towering fireplace where she looks as small as she feels.  It's so well done, I can't really say enough.  Good framing and camerawork can tell more of a story than the actors, so when you combine those with such great talent as Olivier and Fontaine, you know it'll be a wonderful film.

Review and Recommendation
I loved this film.  It's smart, funny, and completely breathtaking.  It'll have you on the edge of your seat.  I highly recommend it to everyone, not just because of the suspenseful story or great acting, but for an example of film making at its finest.

P.S. I should note that this film was based on the book by Daphne du Maurier and comes highly recommended by my friend Catherine.  She also confirmed that the wife was unnamed in the book as well.  Thanks, Catherine!!

Suspicion (1941)

Intro.
I didn't plan to watch a lot of Hitchcock films, but the more I've watched Cary Grant in Hitch's films, the more I love them.  Suspicion was definitely my favorite so far.  I had read a lot about it previously in a few film classes, mainly because it is a prime example of everything Hitchcock did - the camera work is phenomenal, the story is filled with complexity and the characters are deep and well developed.  The special effects are wonderful too, especially the "glowing" glass of milk. 

Overview
Shy intellectual Lina (Joan Fontaine) mingles with the elite crowds of England, going on fox hunts and to balls, but she is afraid of turning into an old maid, a fear her parents have accepted as fact.  So when the charming, gorgeous Johnnie swoops into her life, she falls for him.  In less than two weeks they are married and off to an elaborate honeymoon all over Europe.  When they return to their new mansion, Lina is shocked to find that Johnnie hasn't a cent to his name and abhors the idea of working for a living.  He would rather gamble and take his chances.  The rest of the film focuses on the strain this financial trouble takes on their relationship.  Johnnie, who is obsessed with murder mysteries, starts to become fascinated by poison.  After Johnnie's close friend (and financial business partner) dies, Lina begins to fear that she too will become a victim.  Every move Johnnie then makes she suspects as a possible move to murder her.  It all ends with an incredibly terrifying drive along a cliff and well, let's just say the ending will leave you shocked.

Highlights
As I wrote above, the cinematography is incredible.  The interior of Johnnie and Lina's mansion is shot with lights flooding in through "windows" - we can see the outlines of windowpanes.  In the main foyer, the round window above makes Lina look as though she's trapped in a web, very appropriate for her growing suspicion.  And that famous glass of warm milk that Johnnie brings her (which may be poisoned) glows.  I saw on a documentary once that they had to light the milk from beneath in order to get it just the right glow.  Hitchcock has it beautifully framed too, as Cary Grant switches off the hall light and all you see is that glass of milk.  Even if it was harmless, we as an audience are just as freaked out as Lina. 

Joan Fontaine won an Oscar for this role, and she definitely deserved it.  Her character remains shy throughout the film, but where we initially saw her as completely given over to Johnnie, she quickly grows wary of his gambling and then his interest in murder.  Most impressively, we see just how hard it is for her to put on good face when interacting with the other townspeople.  She must pretend to be the gracious, grateful wife no matter what.  Hitchcock also does a great deal to really build the suspense so that as Lina's suspicion grows, ours does too - the entire film is from her point of view, so we see and hear what she does. 

Cary Grant needs recognition too.  Even though he wasn't nominated, he should have been.  I had my doubts going into this film that anyone could ever believe he could commit murder.  But boy did I believe it!  The traits Lina (and we as the audience) initially found charming grow into annoying and then almost mean.  His tone becomes more sharp and his actions more mysterious.  There's one shot where he stands in Lina's doorway as she's in bed and he looks like, well, he looks like a murderer.  A lot can be contributed to Hitchcock, but I know that any other actor would've had a harder time (trying to picture Jimmy Stewart in this role is ridiculous).  He pulls it off.  Best of all, when the ending is explained (and we realize the truth along with Lina) you can't help but feel your heart wrench.  I got so into the film that I said, "I can't believe I didn't see that!"  Of course I didn't see it, because I was watching from Lina's view point and she didn't see it either.  I won't say any more because I don't want to ruin it, but the end is truly amazing.

Recommendation
I could write a 20 page paper on why this movie deserves the title of "classic."  It's a rich experience and I highly recommend it.  It's one of the best mystery/suspense films I've seen, and definitely one of the best of Hitchcock.  It's a very close second to my favorite Hitch film, Rear Window.  I even want to watch it again, something I rarely think about when I see murder mysteries.  There's so much to see and consider that it has to be on your must-see list (if it isn't already!)

   

Notorious (1946)

Intro.
I have to admit, I've never been one for suspense films.  I've liked some Hitchcock films, but also fallen asleep on some.  But as January is Cary Grant month, I was determined to watch a few of the pictures considered his best - Notorious being one of them.  Immediately, I was drawn into the story and stayed fixated until the end.  It aired on Turner Classic Movies as one of "The Essentials" and I have to agree, as far as a stellar entry in Hitchcock's filmography, it is also one of the greatest performances of both Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant.  It also marked Hitchcock's first film as both director and producer.

Overview
Notorious refers to both of the Hubermans.  First the father, who at the film's opening, has been convicted of treason and sentenced to 20 years.  Second is his daughter Alicia (Ingrid Bergman), who is a notorious party and good-time girl with society friends and a penchant for cocktails.  After her father's trial, she is approached by Devlin, (Cary Grant), a quiet and mysterious guest at her party.  The two have instant chemistry, but when she wakes the next morning, her hang-over isn't her only source of pain - Devlin is also an FBI agent who was sent to recruit her for a special assignment.  Reluctantly she agrees to go with him to Rio, where they will get further instructions.  While they wait in Brazil, the two fall in love.  This is where the sub-plot begins: Devlin suspects that he cannot fully trust Alicia, and refuses to let go of his principle job - to protect her.  He also refuses to make her decisions, a theme that recurs several times in the course of the film.  Alicia's assignment, which she carries out well, is to reunite with Alexander Sebastian, a scientist who was friends with her father and still very much in love with Alicia.  She encourages him and they wed.  We learn, and then Alicia and Devlin learn, that Sebastian is part of a group of German scientists who are up to "suspicious" activity.  While we never hear their entire plan, we do learn that they are working with uranium, and we see them plot to kill off a member who has said too much to strangers.  When Sebastian begins to suspect his wife of espionage, both plots (the FBI vs. the Germans and Alicia & Devlin's rocky relationship) twist, turn and lead to a great ending.

Highlights
There are so many topics to bring up, but I can't cover them all, so I'll pick two.  First is the unique, beautifully coordinated cinematography.  The unusual shots and angles add to the film's feeling.  There is a scene early on when Alicia wakes up with a hangover and the camera takes on her point of view, tilting up and sideways to watch Cary Grant cross the room.  The second is when she realizes she's been poisoned and fears that she will be killed - the room tightens, characters talk but only their shadows are seen.  In effect, we become as disoriented and terrified as Alicia.  Second of all, there is the way that Hitchcock ties all the elements together like a great novel.  What I especially liked was the champagne.  When Devlin and Alicia are in Rio together and in love, Devlin goes out and buys a bottle of champagne.  On his way back to their romantic night, he is called to the office and given the news of Alicia's assignment.  In order for her to work on Sebastian, Devlin has to give her up.  He forgets the champagne at the office and returns to her to bear the bad news, and you can almost hear the passion fizz out (clearly the party is over, if you pardon the pun).  Later, the champagne plays a key role during Sebastian's party.  Alicia steals the key to the wine cellar in order to allow Devlin to snoop around and find the uranium.  She fears that Sebastian will discover this when the champagne begins to run out and he is called upon to get more.  We start to see the bottles disappearing, we see Alicia begin counting glasses of champagne the waiters present on trays.  It uses a seemingly innocent item like champagne to represent something much larger and remind us of the double layer of plot.

Not to be Missed
1) Claude Rains is wonderful in this role!  He has created a character that is detestable and evil as well as empathetic.  At times you hate him, at times you feel sorry for him.  It's a wide range, but he plays it all with a cool charm that reminds you what good acting is about.

2) Edith Head (who I love!!!) designed the gowns for Ingrid Bergman and they are all lovely!  I'm not at all a fashionista or know anything about it, but I love watching the dresses Edith Head makes.  Check out her list of films here (yes, she did Grace Kelly's amazing dresses in Rear Window and all those dozens of gowns for Shirley MacLaine in What a Way to Go!).

3) The woman who plays Madame Sebastian (Leopoldine Konstantin) is truly terrifying without trying.  I think Alec Baldwin (who introduced the film with Robert Osborne on TCM) hit it when he said the reason she's so terrifying is that she never blinks.  He's absolutely right - during all of her scenes, I think I saw her blink twice.  It's just as unnerving as the off-center camera angles.

4) Finally, the kiss.  In order to subvert the Hayes code of the day that limited on-screen kiss time to four seconds, Hitchcock had Grant and Bergman kiss for several minutes, breaking every four seconds for a quick line of dialogue.  It's one of the best and most memorable of all love scenes.

Review and Recommendation
I loved this film even though I was not expecting to do so.  It has renewed my interest in the suspense/thriller drama because it has so much complexity and such great, powerful characters.  If you've decided you're not really a Hitchcock fan, consider watching this film - it may change your mind!