MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar > Replies
ElizabethJoestar's Replies
I agree with this assessment. Jack is a tragic anti-hero, desperate to redeem his past mistake but too hubristic to try a different method. He ends the movie doubly haunted and trapped in a job he despises.
Lots of nitpicking over typical melodramatic conventions. Like in many movies, the filmmakers forego realism to give the main character some dying words. She didn't live-- it's pretty clear by Julian and Lermontov's reactions.
Also the ending is thematically perfect. Vicky's inner conflict between the conventional life represented by Julian and the world of art represented by Lermontov led to self-destruction. It's a mirror of the Red Shoes fairy tale, where Karen's vanity leads to a living hell.
Hepburn was certainly the love of Holden's life (he said as much in an interview), but I don't think he was for her. When they reunited on the set of PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES, he was still mad for her and she... was not for him, from reports. She rebuffed his attempts at rekindling a relationship-- I imagine his alcoholism was a big turn off too. From reading about Hepburn over the years, I always felt Hepburn was happiest with her final romantic partner, Robbie Wolders.
The Doc/LulaMae subplot in BAT is so creepy without the filmmakers or actors overly leaning into how perverse that relationship really is, the way a more modern film probably would. Doc seems easygoing and thoughtful (the comment about Holly needing to eat more), but there's a possessive undercurrent (the lowkey threat of Fred getting into trouble if Holly doesn't return) that makes him sinister, as you said.
One has to wonder why Doc, if he wanted a maternal figure for his children so badly, why he'd marry a young teenage girl, especially someone as flighty as Holly. But then again, Holly is "a phony," the effervescence an act. Considering how protective Holly is of Fred, maybe Doc thought that concern equaled motherly potential... but even so, surely there were eligible older women in their neck of the woods? Or maybe Doc's just a pervert and he's good at hiding it behind concern for his kids needing a mom.
Holly's attitude towards Doc is interesting too. She's cordial to him and in some ways even affectionate. But she definitely doesn't mind seeing him go on that bus back to Kansas. Then she wants to get drunk-- that child bride stint was hardly some little mistake. It's left scars and trauma.
This dark undercurrent is why I can never dismiss BAT the movie so easily. People disparage it compared to the novel, but there's a melancholy core to the story and I've always felt even its happy final image, with Holly and Paul kissing in the rain, has a desperate hope to it, that maybe these two lost people can make each other happy in spite of their pasts and psychological hang-ups.
Oliver Reed is great as the head ruffian likely because he was a drunken brawler in real life. He has that captivating Brando aura, but with a more sinister bent.
--
100% agreed. Reed's nasty character is what I remember most about this movie, beyond the striking opening credits sequence in the car.
--
Although it may be kind of boring to modern viewers, "The Shuttered Room" works so well (for me) because it creates an eerie mood, has striking characters played by quality actors and has a handful of memorable scenes. It's a mystery/horror flick not in the sense that it's uber-scary and gory, but rather weird, creepy and disturbing in an understated way.
--
Yes, it has really powerful atmosphere, very gothic and gloomy without going for the usual old dark house cliches.
Interesting points! I really wish one of those was the case but the movie is so vague about it.
Wait Until Dark is among the likes of a host of other Hitchcockian thrillers (including some made by Hitch himself like Vertigo and Dial M for Murder) where if you analyze the plot too closely, it's incredibly implausible. I say this as someone who calls WUD one of her top 5 favorite movies of all time. In real life, Roat would have just walked in and held the Hendrixes at gunpoint. However, Frederick Knott-- much like Hitchcock in many of his films-- isn't interested in pure plausibility (Hitchcock called audience members who nitpicked about plot holes "the plausibles"). He just likes the mind games between the characters, and the idea that a blind housewife could get one up on criminals too arrogant to see her as anything but a victim or assume they don't have the situation under control. (And for me, their arrogance (and fixation on the safe) makes them not considering the kid plausible. Also, a lot of the people I have watched this film with never consider Gloria having the doll either. I recall being surprised by that on first watch.)
I once listened to a podcast where the commentators were trying to figure out the logisitics behind Roat's community theater charade. One was coming up with all these psychosexual motivations (certainly valid-- Roat sniffs Susy's underclothes during the apartment exposition and his demand that she go into the bedroom is heavily suggestive), while the other basically said, "The plot doesn't matter. It's an excuse to get the criminals in the apartment to terrorize Audrey Hepburn." I'd have to agree.
As for me, the plot is largely a lark, a structure from which we get thrills, entertaining character interactions, and most vitally Susy's excellent arc from insecure victim to active heroine. That it isn't plausible-- well, it matters to me about as much as Vertigo also being bats**t insane when you analyze the murder plot in that, a plot so convoluted it makes Roat's seem minimalist. But to each their own, of course. Everyone has their taste.
For I took Roat as a mix of "a hired Mafia enforcer" and a straight up sadistic psychopath. How drugs can MODIFY that personality(given what little I know about how drugs affect behavior as something one can SEE) makes Roat...that much more dangerous. I mean, this guy heads into a job assignment that requires killing people(Lisa, at the beginning) and acting out several parts, and planning his counter movies against his partners...and he's ON DRUGS?
--
There are only two scenes that deal with the whole "he's a druggie" angle. In the first apartment scene, Roat pulls out a small box and takes out a small white pill from it, then puts in on his tongue while talking. The other time is a bit more subtle-- in the scene where the guys are playing cards in the van, Roat's leaned back and seems a bit spaced out. But that's about it. Otherwise, he seems very in control of himself, the opposite of an addict.
technically, it is a feature length film. I've seen quite a few silent feature films that only run 45-55 minutes.
Interesting: the woman is named Claire Clouzot. I wonder if she was related to Henri Clouzot of Diabolique/Wages of Fear fame? Or maybe Clouzot is a common name in France.
--
Just did a google search. She's Clouzot's granddaughter and she was a filmmaker in her own right.
I found this poignant: Arkin says he will start work on Catch-22 "in January" (1969.) I always find these old interviews poignant because WE , listening TODAY, are hearing an actor talklng about "something in the future that is now very much in the past." Catch-22 has been made, and released, and over 50 years have passed. Shoot, when he gave this interview, Arkin had no idea that he would be making "Freebie and the Bean" in four years.
--
I always feel that way too. It makes you realize that time never stops.
It's also a bit eerie because CATCH-22 was not a pleasant filming experience for Arkin-- or anyone on that production really.
I don't know what crawled up his ass before that interview. In an on-set interview made during production of WUD, he sounds a bit nervous but remains mostly cordial to the interviewer. However, there are other interviews from the period where he puts on this "grr I don't like publicity, it's beneath me" air. So who knows? He could certainly be a very neurotic guy, a quality that becomes apparent if you read his 1979 New Agey memoir HALFWAY THROUGH THE DOOR: AN ACTOR'S JOURNEY TO THE SELF. That was... something.
--
Woman: So the deaf man commits suicide over the woman...
Arkin: (ANGRILY) NO! He did NOT commit suicide over the woman! That's not why he did it.
(Hey I saw that movie and I thought that was PART of it...)
--
God, he's so defensive. You know, he also mentions casually when the interviewer asks him about WAIT UNTIL DARK that the critics "didn't get" what he was doing in the movie. And following WUD, he got bad notices for INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU. Maybe he was just super defensive after that one-two blow from the critics? (Interestingly, he also says he had "fun" playing Roat, which is a total 180 from the endless wailing and gnashing of teeth when asked about the part years later.)
In several interviews, Arkin says the key to Roat(an enforcer for the drug trade) is that he's on drugs -- MANY drugs -- all the time. An interesting take on a villain.
--
And the characterization was allegedly based on actual addicts he'd met in Chicago in the early 60s.
--
I pretty much can't remember Alan Arkin AS a heavy in anything else. I will note that while he was a "good guy cop" in the hard comedy Freebie and the Bean(1974), he and James Caan did beat up suspects and baddies brutally.
--
Yeah, he literally never played anyone that evil ever again. Some characters were certainly rougher than others-- though even as the Bean, he has a softer side evidenced by his deep affection for Freebie-- but no one was ever quite THAT evil again.
--
That's a heckuva an interview. So refreshingly more honest and combative than a lot of the "pap" that passes for movie star interviews today.
--
Isn't it? It's insane how lacking in filter Arkin is. He openly disses WOMAN TIMES SEVEN, a movie he shot only two years ago! I will say, I absolutely agreed with his assessment of Godard as "boring," though I like those "pretentious" European movies generally.
--
Arkin and the woman certainly argue a lot(which through today's eyes seems a bit bullying of the loud man against the rather cute sounding young woman), but she makes the mistake of offering her personal viewpoints and somehow just bugging the heck out of Arkin
--
He was super argumentative for no reason. She does snap back at him eventually. She retorts at one point, "How stupid of me" and he backtracks-- "*chuckles nervously* You're not stupid." She also tells him she doesn't "share your optimism" about American cinema getting beyond road show spectaculars.
CONTD
...as Anthony Perkins did with Norman Bates...somewhere around the time he agreed to make Psycho II in 1982. I guess he hated Norman mainly in the 70s.
--
That often seems to be how it goes. Mark Hamill had a similar attitude trajectory about Luke Skywalker. In recent years, he's been very successful as a voice actor and character actor. A-list stardom just didn't work out for him.
--
Yeah, well..as long as he didn't REALLY harm or terrify her.
--
And it doesn’t seem like he did, which is why I don’t get the excessive guilt. I’ve never heard any stories of him being inappropriate as in that Mitchum anecdote you mentioned. There is a story Richard Crenna tells in the Warren Harris Audrey Hepburn biography about Arkin constantly screwing up takes during the scene where Roat shoves burning newspaper in Susy’s face—he screwed up the lines or the action, and kept insisting something about the scene wasn’t working for him. Hepburn was reportedly patient, but Crenna said “I would have jumped up and down on Alan’s head.” But that’s not abusive behavior, that’s an actor being off his groove. That has to be common.
In interviews about his performance style, Arkin says back then, he used to try to completely inhabit his characters, to the point where he felt emotionally exhausted and “hungover” when the workday ended. He also claims acting involves some degree of dredging up parts of yourself—and maybe the parts he dredged up for Roat were parts of him he didn’t like. I don’t know. At any rate, if he had been an ass to Hepburn on set (as was George Peppard in BAT), I think we more than likely would have heard about it. From all reports, there was a lot of joking on that set, just to keep everyone from getting too gloomy.
Ha. I found so many Alan Arkin interviews over time where he pretty much had to confront the fact that Roat was going to be his legacy role.
--
Well, Roat is certainly one such for Arkin. Younger audiences tend to remember him as the cokehead grandpa in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and some might argue Yossarian was Arkin's signature part. The thing is, the guy was so versatile that he could convincingly play so many different roles and leave a great impression.
--
When you think about it, its not too far removed from how Anthony Perkins suddenly BECAME "Scary psycho Norman Bates" after he made Psycho, but Arkin seems to have come along at a time where you could play a psycho and move on to other roles without being typecast. Or perhaps Wait Until Dark wasn't the blockbuster that Psycho was...(though I know it was a big hit. I saw it with full houses in BOTH 1968 and re-release in 1970.)
--
I think Arkin got let off the hook easier because 1) the critics hated his performance at the time (I assume audiences didn't have the same problem though) and 2) WUD was indeed a hit and influential in its own way, but not groundbreaking the way PSYCHO was. Like, my grandmother (she's 79 now) still talks of PSYCHO being so disturbing and insane when it came out. That a mainstream, A-picture could be like THAT! WUD is less transgressive in terms of violence or sex, or even in terms of cinematic style-- though obviously it didn't need to reinvent anything to be effective or entertaining.
I think Arkin also benefited from being billed as a character guy (one bit of publicity for WUD compared him to Alec Guinness playing multiple roles in KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS) and before the late 70s, he was much harder to define in terms of "type." I think Perkins' undermining his wholesome boy next door image with the Norman Bates role had such a big impact on audiences that they could never look at him with that complete "trust" again.
--
I recall reading a memoir or book of some sort by a guy who worked with Ferrer on a TV Disney film in the 1980s. He said Ferrer actually screened WUD for him at one of the screening rooms at the Disney studio and that he was very enthusiastic about it as they watched, commenting on many of the creative decisions made. He essentially got a live commentary experience. So Ferrer was indeed very proud of the film... even if it was made at the lowest point of his marriage to Hepburn.
--
I think Hepburn almost simultaneously quit movies AND Ferrer after Wait Until Dark.
--
Their marriage was going downhill by that point. The two were having affairs with other people (Hepburn had just had a fling with Albert Finney-- and there were also rumors Mel Ferrer was involved with Samantha Jones, who played Lisa in WAIT UNTIL DARK). Hepburn wanted to be with her son while Ferrer wanted them to be a Hollywood powerhouse couple. WUD is often seen as a last ditch attempt to salvage the union (if that was the case, then I would certainly hope he wasn't seeing Jones romantically)-- and indeed, Hepburn got pregnant shortly after production wrapped-- but by September, the pregnancy ended in miscarriage and the two announced their separation.
--
(Yes, she came back 9 years later to movies, but only once in a truly good one: Robin and Marian.)
--
I still think THEY ALL LAUGHED is lowkey enjoyable. Not a classic, but it has good moments in it and Hepburn gives a good performance, even if it's more of an ensemble movie than a star vehicle.
The less said about BLOODLINE, the better.
You know, Scaramouche DID enter my mind when starting to discuss Ferrer and I discarded the thought but -- man, does that have a GREAT swordfight at the end(Stewart Granger vs. bad guy Ferrer)...in a live theater with a full audience -- from stage to seats to balconies to staircase to lobby. Janet Leigh's in it, too.
--
That swordfight is so awesome. A truly stunning bit of choreography back before CG took all the fun out of action scenes.
Another cool villainous role for Ferrer: the blind schemer who helps poison Alec Guinness' Marcus Aurelius in THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. He was chilling in his few scenes-- a real rat.
--
Yes, I remember that too and I realize that Hepburn probably married the guy when he still had a shot at stardom approxmating her level --- but it didn't work out that way.
--
I think she saw him as sophisticated and intelligent. He was very involved in the theater and such. Also, she really wanted children-- part of why she and Bill Holden didn't work out was because he was infertile.
Hepburn eclipsing Ferrer as a star had to get under his skin I imagine. He was more likely to be seen as "Mr. Hepburn" than she was as "Mrs. Ferrer."
--
Mel Ferrer is on the DVD documentary of Wait Until Dark. He got a producer hat on that and talks of the movie as if it were "his baby."
--
In a sense, it was his baby. He was given the script of the play before it opened on Broadway and then he immediately saw potential in it as a dramatic vehicle for Hepburn. He also claimed it was his idea to cast Alan Arkin as the villain. THAT was certainly a creative, not obvious choice, given Arkin was famous for comic work onstage and onscreen, even that early in his career. And from what I've read, he was usually the one fighting with Jack Warner anytime Warner disagreed with something on set, be it the tea breaks, Terence Young as the director, Hepburn not wearing Givenchy, etc.
CONTD.
I would like to note, moreover, that I find North by Northwest to be JUST as revolutionary and ground-breaking as Psycho, but in a different way.
--
Oh absolutely. The spy craze of the 1960s would hardly exist the way it did without NxNW. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE in particular is very influenced by so much in the Hitchcock film-- the banter, the action scenes, the suspense on the train, the sexual tensions amidst international intrigue.
--
No, it seems like by the time he reached the original screenplay of North by NOrthwest(and scenarist Ernest Lehman's desire to "make the HItchocck picture to end all Hitchcock pictures")...Hitchcock HIMSELF dug it: to compete with TV and to take movies into the 60's ahead...there had to be MORE action, BIGGER action.
--
That becomes even more apparent when you compare it with Hitchcock's earlier spy films like THE 39 STEPS and THE LADY VANISHES. Two of my favorite films, but certainly more sedate and genteel in comparison to NxNW.
Man, I really need to rewatch NxNW now.
--
And poor Hitchcock, he never really topped the double-whammy of action and horror that were NXNW and Psycho.
--
No and it's so weird because those movies pushed such boundaries while his later work doesn't. I suppose one could argue FRENZY is an exception, though I'm not so sure. FRENZY is very of the early 70s in its extreme violence-- Truffaut once said it feels more like a young man's film than the work of an old pro-- but you could say it wasn't pushing boundaries so much as freely running among the debris of the old onscreen taboos.
If one adds Vertigo to the mix, you get the perfect "Big Three" in my estimation, largely because these are the ONLY Hitchcock three with a Bernard Herrmann score and a Saul Bass credit sequence -- the three are "packaged together as the epitome of thriller making" -- and the music is as important as everything else. As for Saul Bass, his were and are the greatest credit sequences of all time -- and Hitchcock got three of them for, arguably, his three best movies (Fans of Notorious and Rear Window, well, no Herrmann and no Bass. Notorious has a particularly dated credit seqeunce and score.)
--
Absolutely on all counts-- though NOTORIOUS is one of my top 5 Hitchcocks. I rewatched it yesterday and it's exquisite romantic suspense.
Saul Bass' openings are divine. Really an opening title sequence should give you a foretaste of the tone and/or themes of the film to follow, and for me, the VERTIGO opening in particular is so wonderful. I saw that one on the big screen and those spirals combined with Herrmann's score gave me chills.
--
Anyway, my reading of "No Bail for the Judge" is that it sounds indeed like one of Hitchcock's more "standard" mystery-suspense films(Dial M is a great example) but mixed in with SOME attempt to "modernize" (sexually in the main.)
--
The kinkiest thing about it would have been the gimmick of Audrey Hepburn in an openly erotic role-- I think Hitchcock really liked the idea of subverting her virginal image. Even now, that is what predominantly intrigues people about the project, moreso than the mystery angle or the irony of a stern judge getting accused of a sensational crime.
It probably wouldn't have been bad-- but I wouldn't trade PSYCHO or NxNW for what could have been.
...ER is strangely sensitive to the time in which it's viewed so that it looked dated in the 1980s, not dated at all in the '90s and so on. I watched ER again about a decade ago and it definitely seemed better than I'd remembered it being. E.g.. the amateurish acting aside from Nicholson no longer bugged me much at all. So my own personal evolution on ER fits QT's model.
--
That is a fascinating observation. I think in more recent decades there's been more of a sanctified attitude regarding the New Hollywood movement as a rare moment in which Hollywood somehow prized ART above commerce. Not that that's necessarily true-- as always the reality is more complicated-- but I imagine nowadays a lot of film connoisseurs see the rough edges of ER as refreshing and "honest" rather than amateurish.
But that's just a guess. I don't really know how New Hollywood was seen come the 1980s, when the momentum from that period was stilled by-- whatever historians like to blame it on, be it Star Wars or New Hollywood directors getting too indulgent with fare like Heaven's Gate.