MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar > Replies
ElizabethJoestar's Replies
She takes my breath away in FUNNY FACE.
Even by Hepburn's usual slight standards, she was very thin in both of her 1967 movies, TWO FOR THE ROAD and WAIT UNTIL DARK.
She was going through hard times in her marriage to Mel Ferrer during filming. Apparently, this movie (which he produced) was kind of a last-ditch attempt to salvage their marriage, but they ended up divorcing in 1968. She was also feeling guilty about working and not being with her son, who was in Switzerland with grandparents (I believe) while she was filming WAIT UNTIL DARK in Burbank.
So yeah, she dropped some pounds from the stress. Plus, WAIT UNTIL DARK itself is not the most cheerful movie in the world-- I'm sure playing an insecure, terrified woman did not ease her pain.
THIS.
Yes, Susy was risking setting the whole place on fire, but she's standing opposite a man who is more than willing to torture, rape, and kill her. When she tried attacking him with the cane earlier, he easily overpowered her, implying she wouldn't stand a chance against him physically. The matches were meant to keep him at arm's length so she could get to the door and try to escape the apartment.
Oh and don't remind me of how Mancini was robbed of FRENZY. I wish we had his score on CD or streaming, much like how Bernard Hermann's unused TORN CURTAIN score got a release (that score was also better than what was in the finished movie). I don't even remember a single cue from the Goodwin music. Unlike Hermann, he added no real personality to the movie.
It's a shame that Mancini didn't score more thrillers in general. He did great work on a 1971 horror movie called THE NIGHT VISITOR, which has this bleak medieval sound. It builds on the discordant style of WAIT UNTIL DARK, only it eschews the warmer sections entirely.
Ha-- you know, it feels like I'm saying that a lot in this board. Mancini, Hepburn, and Arkin could have used more thrillers in their careers. Hepburn only had the godawful BLOODLINE after this one, also directed by Terence Young who rips off his own work in WAIT UNTIL DARK for the climactic scenes. Heck, he even rips off CHARADE with the twist and turn romance subplot.
The Charade score is definitely super "classic Mancini"-- or at least, mainstream Mancini. Same with ARABESQUE, which is pretty much "CHARADE but not as good." I do agree the music in WAIT is very effective. I remember those discordant pianos making me queasy from that first scene where Old Louis slices open the doll and its cotton innards rise towards the frame (once again, an old-school suggestion of gore in place of any actual red, red kroovy).
And yes, that last song is just hilariously out of place. It's jarring because literally two minutes ago, we have Susy trying not to get stabbed to death, cowering behind a fridge with her hands and shirt front stained with the blood of her would-be murderer-- and then we get a love song!! Then again, I find a lot of films in the 60s had weird title songs: CHARADE, THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY, etc. I guess they were intended for marketing? Mancini's love theme in the movie was more in tune with his public persona than the eerie Theme for Three.
One person has defended the use of the song at the credits though. John Caps is a critic who wrote a book on Mancini's work and he claims that the song is acceptable because "the audience is so eager for relief after forty minutes of unreleased tension, and maybe because the song in question here has already been referenced throughout the film." A sensible argument, though I still chuckle a bit at the tonal whiplash-- particularly because the music that plays during the jump is so oppressive, bleak, and frightening.
(Indeed, I'm starting to worry now, as with Michael Caine -- when will age FINALLY stop these guys from even appearing briefly in movies? Together they were old-buy bank robbers a few years ago in Going in Style.)
-
Yeah, that's the way of things. It's sad but inevitable. Sometimes I get a kick out of seeing older actors in new stuff-- like how shocked I was to see Robert Redford in the MCU.
-
I'll again surmise that Hitchcock had he directed Wait Until Dark would not have allowed Arkin the great visual flourishes he gave Roat -- the flamboyance of his leather jacket, greasy hair, sunglasses and (sometimes) hat. Hell, Hitchcock might have cast Richard Crenna as Roat -- "as is!"
-
I thank God Hitchcock was not the director for those reasons. Roat might have still worn the sunglasses though (if you look at images of Duvall in the part, he also has shades, though he pairs them with an unbuttoned red shirt and dark pants-- less beatnik, more... well, I don't even know. The unbuttoned shirt throws me off-- romance novel cover Roat?). However, that gross greasy hair and even the weird yellow turtleneck under the jacket definitely leave a bizarre impression even Hitchcock might have found too out there. Though maybe he would have tried making Roat more Bob Rusk-like: normal-looking and seemingly jovial, but with a rotten, violent center. But he wouldn't have had the hipster, mob vibe and that just seems inseparable from the guy.
Actually, maybe they just seem inseparable becaue Arkin left such an impression. Just from a casual search on Google images or YouTube, I find a lot of productions of the play have their Roats dress like Arkin, even though the play's script doesn't call for any of the visual trademarks he associates with the character-- not even the glasses.
Yes, Arkin came to movies FROM stage comedy(Second City, maybe?) and eventually found his niche doing "anxiety humor" and "exasperation humor."
-
Yes, it was Second City, though he also had a background in music.
I do think CATCH-22 was kind of what punctured him from becoming a major leading man. It's sad because I actually really like that movie, which I did not expect having read and loved the book first. I confess an additional heresy: I actually enjoy it much more than the more celebrated THE GRADUATE.
However, Arkin often cites the movie as a negative on his career and harbors no good feeling about it. Apparently the filming was hell. He still got some interesting parts in the 70s beyond the comedy stuff (I liked him in THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION and the TV film THE DEFECTION OF SIMAS KUDRIKA; I even liked his more admittedly uneven work in THE MAGICIAN OF LUBLIN, even though I consider that an Oscar-baity misfire otherwise). Now the 80s-- that was his dark period. I still haven't worked up the courage to try CHU CHU AND THE PHILLY FLASH.
Pretty much this. The movie kind of hints that mob politics, as well as monetary profit, is involved in the pursuit to get the doll back. Remember, part of Lisa's crime is "going into business for herself."
Also, as Hitchcock points out, the McGuffin itself is irrelevant. It could have been anything. The point is everyone wants it.
"There is this: sometimes I go back and watch Roat and -- unfortunately -- I all too clearly see and hear the Arkin of the In-Laws and Freebie and the Bean -- he was there, hidden, all the time."
You know, it's weird, because my experience is a bit the opposite.
WAIT UNTIL DARK is the movie that made me an Arkin fan. Though I've been a fan of older movies since I was a teen, I had never heard of him before watching WAIT (to be fair, I kind of worked my way up to the 1960s and 1970s-- from ages 15-19, I was more interested in pre-WWII movies than anything else). I watched WAIT on TCM for the first time mainly for two reasons: I loved Mancini's title theme, which I had been listening to on a playlist for a few months then, and as a movie geek, who can resist a movie mostly known as "that one where blind Audrey Hepburn has to fend off homicidal narcotics smugglers"?
After seeing the movie, I recall being so blown away by Arkin that I immediately went onto his IMDB page to find out what else he'd been in. I was initially shocked he's more of a comedian (when I saw he appeared on SESAME STREET, my initial gut reaction was, hilariously enough, "They let this freak on SESAME STREET??") and I recognized I had seen him in one other movie: God's gift to cinema, THE SANTA CLAUSE 3. You can forgive me for forgetting that movie even exists, let alone Arkin's small role.
Arkin did have more of a particular persona later on, and you can see hints of that in WAIT, though I think more in Jr. and Sr. than in Roat. What keeps that performance as my favorite of his is how unrecognizable he is--so different from his signature parts, from the voice to the gleeful, sleazy violence.
Actually, I think his 60s and most of his 70s films are his most interesting work before he got locked into a certain type of role. He had all of these diverse, interesting parts that really showed off his range. Watching WAIT and THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER back to back is particularly astonishing.
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed
Curse of Frankenstein
I agree it's underrated-- its age and being connected to a pre-existing franchise have often made it overlooked, but I consider it one of the best adventure/heist movies of all time. It has this perfect mix of fun, excitement, and bittersweetness. Miyazaki might have made better movies, but they were rarely as delightful.
In terms of her most technically impressive performance, I think she never topped her work as Sister Luke in THE NUN'S STORY. Her work there is so internal and understated, and she couldn't rely on glamor or charm to pull it off. It's the movie I always think of when people claim she had no talent. That final scene with her walking down the alley alone is really one for the ages.
But my personal favorite performance of hers is Susy Hendrix in WAIT UNTIL DARK. Aside from portraying blindness well, she does great juggling her character's vulnerability, bitterness, fear, and inner strength-- for me, that was one of her most fully realized performances, full stop, and it was my movie that made me a fan after years of not thinking much of her as an actress. It made me go back to her other movies to re-evaluate them.
So anyway, here's my list:
THE NUN'S STORY
WAIT UNTIL DARK
ROMAN HOLIDAY (her first big role and she is just amazing, especially with portraying Ann's gradual arc from frightened young woman to dutiful leader)
HOW TO STEAL A MILLION (the best of her comedic roles-- her timing and charm are fantastic)
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S (I know some feel she was miscast, but I think her work is great here and despite it being her signature role, it is one of her least characteristic)
Ah yes, WAIT UNTIL DARK-- actually my favorite of her movies! I've seen it a ridiculous number of times. It's such a strange kind of movie for Hepburn to be in, but it works so, so well.
There her character was paired with Efrem Zimbalist Jr, who was only 11 years older than Hepburn. Honestly though, in that movie she has more chemistry with Richard Crenna, who plays the most sympathetic of the criminals out to con her. He was only three years older.
Btw, I forgot about Garner, but yes, he was also closer to her age and very cute at the time. I recall them having decent chemistry, though I've only seen the movie once because it made me cry so much.
I completely agree. While I think she had good chemistry with Cary Grant in CHARADE, the older man thing tended to come off more as creepy in the other movies.
I think she had the best romantic chemistry with George Peppard in TIFFANY'S and Peter O'Toole in HOW TO STEAL A MILLION, both men much closer to her age. Gregory Peck, though kind of older, was at least still a believable enough romantic interest in ROMAN HOLIDAY.
One closer to her age co-star I don't see mentioned is Anthony Perkins, who played opposite Hepburn in GREEN MANSIONS. While that movie isn't terribly good, they played off one another well from what I can recall.
Technically it is not a remake-- I would go a bit more on the ripoff side. Or at least "heavily inspired by the Frederick Knott play."
A lot of the same elements are at play: blind woman in peril, ruthless criminals out to get some illegal merchandise from her apartment, a cat and mouse game in a single setting, etc. However, I found PENTHOUSE NORTH mostly tedious. The heroine is neither as likeable as Hepburn nor is the plot as good at sustaining tension. WAIT UNTIL DARK builds to its violent climax after the bad guys have exhausted their non-violent options, while here, the criminals are torturing the woman right from the start. Contrary to what modern filmmakers might think, this high-tension from the start doesn't make the movie more exciting-- it just makes it all get old fast.
I wish Terry Gilliam had gotten to do the first Harry Potter movie. I once heard he was in the running for the job. As much as I enjoy the early Potter movies, it's more for nostalgia than due to their cinematic merits and I find the direction uninspired. Gilliam would have been brilliant, I think. He'd already proven he could make a roaring great kids' movie with TIME BANDITS back in the 1980s.
I adore this film as well. It's certainly not for everyone, but I find it disturbing, funny, and thought-provoking all at once. While Kubrick arguably made better movies, this is easily my favorite and certainly a desert island pick.
He's one of my favorite actors, just so underrated. The guy's got such great range. I'd watch him in absolutely anything lol.
I love them both, but ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN was a far more intense experience for me. Everything about that movie is phenomenal.
I've seen CHARADE several times, but I can say I've never found Matthau gross. He's definitely comical and slowly becomes threatening-- but I can't say gross. Different strokes, I guess.