Picnic (1955)

Intro.

Very few people I know today who are in their twenties recognize the name William Holden.  I don't have an exact number, but in conversations with my friends, I've realized most of them know Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, but not Bill Holden.  In the mid-1950s, he was the leading male star in Hollywood, and known as America's Golden Boy.  I recommend most of his films (of the ones I've seen), starting with the epic The Bridge on the River Kwai.  But now I have to add Picnic to that list - what a great film!  And a perfect film to watch on Labor Day!

Overview

Picnic opens with a train slowing down in a small Kansas town and the engineer waking a passenger.  The passenger is a wandering vagrant (Bill Holden), who has an easy, friendly manner.  He goes to the first house he can find and asks for work.  The old woman, Mrs. Potts, tells him no one works on Labor Day and invites him to breakfast.  He soon is working in her yard anyway and without a shirt, which attracts the attention of next door neighbors: mother Flo (Betty Field), daughters Madge (Kim Novak) and Millie (Susan Strasberg), and their boarder, an aging, single schoolteacher named Rosemary Sidney (Rosalind Russell).  The man gets cleaned up and goes off to meet up with his old college buddy, Alan Benson (Cliff Robertson in his film debut).  Alan, son of the wealthiest man around, relives some good old times with Holden's character, who we learn is Hal Carter, the former college football hero.  Alan is taking his girl, Madge, to the Labor Day picnic and encourages Hal to take Millie.  The whole group, including Rosemary's date Howard, goes to the picnic and has a great time.  Madge is crowned Neewollah queen (a big honor in the town), uptight Rosemary relaxes as she enjoys a bottle of liquor smuggled in by Howard, and Millie starts crushing on Hal.  Things heat up after sundown, as Madge and Hal give in to a growing attraction and dance together.  It's a pretty intense performance that gets out of hand when a jealous Rosemary (who's already having problems dealing with the loss of her youth) breaks them up, tearing Hal's shirt.  Then teenaged Millie grows ill, having stolen the liquor to deal with her own jealousy.  After getting chewed out by almost everyone, Hal takes off, but Madge follows him.  They spend the night together, but come morning Alan has reported his car stolen (he had lent it to Hal).  Hal has to get out of town and Madge has to finally choose what she really wants out of life.

Highlights   
This was only Kim Novak's fourth credited film, but she is wonderful in it.  It's very easy to see why she rose to be such a big star.  She and William Holden make a good, believable couple, despite Holden being a few years too old for this role.  There was a 15 year difference in their ages, but I think Holden's charm and box-office appeal helped make the film a success.  Of course, I think the number of shirtless scenes probably didn't hurt either.  When I started watching the film, all I could think of was that the whole plot really revolved around his half-naked shots.  It makes sense then that the studio wanted the top male actor of 1955 in the role after it was turned down by the actor who had made it a hit on Broadway.  They wanted a built-in audience and they got it.      

I really liked how this film was shot.  There are so many elements that go into a frame, and in Picnic each one seems to fit together like a well-woven quilt.  Everything that is mentioned or seen once comes back later in the film - no loose ends.  The scene where Rosemary tears Hal's shirt is reminiscent of his arrival that morning when he took his shirt off to be cleaned (I told you the whole plot revolved on him being shirtless).  In the opening sequence, Hal cleans up at the river by a small waterfall - he returns to this same spot with Madge and then later when he is running away from the police.  It's a key point in the film, because it's at those falls where we learn the most about his character.  The shots themselves are also really well-constructed, particularly during the dance sequence, which features many shots at waist level.  All we see of Hal and Madge is from their elbows to their knees.  Framing alone can tell a great story.

Characters are great in this film.  You can't say the film is solely about Hal.  We learn just as much about Madge and Rosemary, and even quite a bit about Millie and Flo.  None of them are all good or all bad, but completely and entirely human.  They could be your next door neighbors.  Well, neighbors in 1955 maybe.  There's a side story about Madge and Flo too.  Flo is still hurt by her husband walking out on her some ten or twelve years earlier, and wants Madge to marry the "right kind of man" like Alan.  She keeps stressing that Madge should convince Alan to propose soon, before her beauty starts to fade.  At one point, Madge says "I'm only 19!" To which Flo responds, "Then next summer you'll be 20.  Then 21.  Then 40."  As if in answer to this warning, we see Rosemary, almost or already 40 and angry at still being an old maid.  Through the course of the picnic (and steady intake of alcohol), she goes from sarcastic to jealous to downright crazy.  Her resentment is aimed at the young lovers Hal and Madge, which is why she so viciously goes after Hal.  Howard, as boastful and unattractive as he first appears, becomes a sympathetic character by first helping Hal and then by marrying Rosemary.  Finally, Millie really makes an impact as the kid sister growing up.  During the course of one day she goes from being a stubborn tomboy to a lovely young lady.  She and Hal get along so well because in many ways he's still a fourteen year old boy.  Millie might still be a child, but she's also the one who has insight enough to tell her sister what to do in the end.

Picnic turns out to be no picnic for any of the characters, if you'll pardon the awful pun there.  It's a great film that encompasses not just one day in the life of these people or a holiday celebration in a small 1950s town, but also the hard choices we have to make about love and our own destinies.  I think Mrs. Potts says it best.  At the end, she admits that she liked Hal because he was so different and shook everyone out of their routine, everyday lives.  It's ironic since Hal only wanted to reinvent himself and have a shot at a normal life.  Whether he gets that or not is left up to us.      

Review and Recommendation
I loved this movie.  And not because William Holden was shirtless (although, I have to admit, he's really handsome).  It's masterfully done, with great cinematography, acting and story-lines.  It's one of the strongest character-driven films I've seen, and one of Holden's best performances.  It's also great to see Rosalind Russell and Kim Novak together, as two such talented actresses share the same screen!  I am definitely adding this to my Top Films list and recommend it to anyone interested in the real classics of Hollywood's golden age.

P.S. Thanks to TCM for all the movie backstory!  Also on their website, I saw that Picnic was remade in 2000 with James Brolin and Gretchen Mol.  I wonder if it can even come close to being as good as this version.

P.P.S. I was talking about this film at work the other day, and a woman in the breakroom told me that she had done the play of Picnic in high school and had hated it.  She said it was the worst play.  I think it could have been great if only Bill Holden had been there to take his shirt off.  It's always good to hear other people's responses to works - be it the film itself or the original play or book, the medium can often affect the story itself.      

12 Angry Men (1957)

Intro.

I know I've mentioned those films before that I swear I've seen, but can't remember.  Part of that may be due to a film's huge impact on American film history.  If there is such a thing as a Hollywood canon of films, 12 Angry Men must be on that list.  I was fortunate enough to have it on my DVR and finally got a chance to watch.

I learned on TCM that studios did not want to touch this film.  Henry Fonda had purchased the rights from the television version, and together with the screenwriter, Reginald Rose, the two personally financed the picture.  It was one of Henry Fonda's top three favorite films of his career (the others being The Grapes of Wrath and The Ox-Bow Incident), and it's easy to see why.  

Overview 

The film opens with the end of a trial - the judge is excusing the jury to go and deliberate the fate of 18-year old Puerto Rican boy who has been charged with first degree murder.  If found guilty, the death penalty is mandatory.  The twelve jurors file into the Jury Room and begin their deliberation.  They take an initial vote and get the result of 11 guilty, 1 not guilty.  What most of them thought would be a simple, open-and-shut case becomes a long afternoon debate on the hottest day of the year.  The lone holdout is Juror 8 (Henry Fonda).  He begins asking simple questions about the trial and asks for one hour to consider the case in exchange for a man's life.  Each point of the case comes up for debate.  We start to see that the case isn't just about a boy's guilt, but about the process of democracy and at what point you can sentence a man to die.  When the final verdict is reached, each man leaves the courthouse changed, yet each one remains nameless except for Jurors 8 and 9, who shake hands.

Highlights

The film feels a lot like one of those Hitchcock films that is completely contained in one space - in this case, a jury room.  The sweltering heat of the summer afternoon/evening with no air conditioning adds to the heated arguments between the jurors.  Even though it's only one room, the camera work and the fine acting keeps the film fresh and interesting.  There's a definite line of action - first in introducing each point of the court case and second in the number of men on each side (guilty or not guilty).  There are 5 votes in total during the film, and no two are held or filmed the same way.  In one, we only see the hands of the voters, in another we only see faces.  I feel like I could watch this film over and over and still notice something different.  It's a lot of subtle details, but details are what make a story pop.

On the surface, the film seems straightforward, maybe even simple in plot.  But the subtle undercurrent of deeper problems makes it compelling.  All of the acting is superb - these are the finest actors of the day.  Henry Fonda made a point of picking actors he admired the most to act in this film.  It is full of great talent and a complex web of stories, all of which add to the film's intensity.

I also really enjoyed how well-developed and dynamic the characters were.  Even though they remained nameless, each juror had his own personality.  It was fascinating to see what they talked about in the breaks between discussing the case and which juror talked to which.  It was also interesting to see who changed his vote and what it took.  Juror 10 couldn't get past his bigotry, Juror 3's problems with his own son influence his vote, Juror 5 had a similar background as the defendant, and Juror 9 used his age and experience to help sway several members.  The level of detail put into each character made this film not just a great courtroom drama, but one of the best character studies in film. 

Review and Recommendation

There is a lot to be said in favor of 12 Angry Men, but instead of writing a much longer post, I will simply say that this is an absolute must-see.  Not only is it a quintessential drama, but it is an important study in human nature.  It addresses some of the deepest questions in our society - questions on race, background, the justice system and who or what can determine absolute guilt.

P.S. Thanks to Catherine for getting on my case to watch this film.  Catherine, you were right!  Definitely a great movie!

The Great Escape (1963)

Intro.
Lately I've felt like I've seen so many films, but only in pieces.  I'll catch the first twenty minutes here and maybe the ending there, or a piece or two in the middle a few weeks later.  The Great Escape was one of those films for a long time.  Of course I had seen Steve McQueen in "the cooler" with his baseball - it's iconic.  So awhile ago I sat down and saw the entire thing and loved it.  Then this past weekend when the whole state of Maryland got a nice two feet of snow, I curled up with a few movies and happily found this one on Turner Classic Movies (in High-Def!!!).  So I thought I should probably write about it.

Overview
Based on a true story, The Great Escape tells the tale of 76 men who successfully escaped a German POW camp during WWII.  This camp had specifically been designed for prisoners who had escaped from other camps.  The hard work and organization that went into their escape is fascinating and drives the entire film.  It is very much a character driven film as well, as we get to know and care about each of the main prisoners.  Steve McQueen plays Hilts, the "cooler king", whose main job is to keep the Germans busy with his escape attempts so as to divert attention from the big escape.  James Gardner plays Hendley, the "scrounger", who must come up with a set of travel papers so that the forgers can copy them, as well as other provisions.  The two main leaders are Richard Attenborough (playing Roger Bartlett) and Gordon Jackson (playing MacDonald).  The entire group digs three tunnels (Tom, Dick and Harry), forges travel papers, makes civilian suits and bags, and one night sneaks out into the woods where they part ways and try their best to make it out of Germany.

Highlights
The acting in this film is outstanding.  I can't go on enough about all of the actors involved.  In addition to the ones I mentioned, there's also Charles Bronson, James Coburn, and James Donald (who, in a side note, also BRILLIANTLY played my favorite movie doctor, Clipton, in the Bridge Over the River Kwai in 1957).  All of the details, all of the planning is so well organized and orchestrated.  The directors wanted it that way - they even hired a survivor of the original camp to come and be a technical advisor on set.  That's why the details really make this movie.  Watching this film reminds you of the determination of the spirit to be free. It's breathtaking and terribly sad at the end; worse still when you read about the real story and learn just how much of this was true.

Should be Mentioned...
Steve McQueen's character does feel a bit out of place, but according to history sources, there were some Americans in the camp.  His timing at the end is a bit off, as Steve almost makes Switzerland on a motorcycle while simultaneously James Gardner tries to make it there in a plane and crashes 20 miles short.  But in light of the history and how well made the film is, you can overlook some of the Hollywood-ness.  I can almost hear comedian Eddie Izzard's voice now: "Steve McQueen plays the American who is dropped into British films to make them sell."  Well, that may be true, but the film still earns its place as a classic.  As it compares to another classic, The Bridge Over the River Kwai, it's fascinating how differently the POWs deal with their imprisonment.  Both groups are distinctly British and go about their plans with great foresight and attention to detail.  (And on a side note, Hilts gets time in solitary called "the cooler" while Alec Guiness gets time in solitary called "the oven.")  Then both films end tragically, reminding us (in the words of Clipton) that war is madness.

Review
I love this movie more each time I see it.  Every time another character captivates me and I have to follow and root for him clear through to the end.  It's amazing, humbling, and undeniably devastating to know that real men lived this life and died trying to escape.  If you haven't seen this movie yet, or if you are like I was and only saw a few bits, do yourself a favor and watch it.  All of it.  Straight through.  And you may need a tissue.

Want to learn more?  I read a lot about the film and the story behind it at HistoryinFilm.com.  Also, if you want to see Eddie Izzard's routine about the movie, click here (he starts around 1:45, but please note that he does use a few obscenities).