Film Review: Finally, Sunday

"Finally, Sunday"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Finally, Sunday" (1983) is a love letter from one filmmaker to another.

Yes, French filmmaker Francois Truffaut goes "psycho" in his attempt to create a Hitchcockian thriller in his final film.

Truffaut literately wrote the book on Hitchcock. In 1966  his "Cinema According to Hitchcock" was published. It also served as the basis for the documentary, "Hitchcock / Truffaut" (2015). Truaffaut, back in his days as a critic for the famed magazine, "Les Cashiers du Cinema", always championed American cinema and adored the films of Hitchcock (as did fellow French filmmaker and Cashier du Cinema critic Claude Chabrol). So, it was no surprise Truffaut would take on such a homage to one of his heroes.

"Finally, Sunday" however is more Hitchcockian in theme than execution. There is the element of the wrongly accused man, but, Truffaut takes this material, based on the novel "The Long Saturday Night" by Charles Williams, and adds a dash of 40s noir and throws in plenty of humor for good measure. Truffaut is still able to put his signature on the movie.

The always terrific Jean-Louis Trintignant stars as Julien Vercel, a real estate agent accused of murdering Jacques Massoulier, who was found dead during a hunting trip. Police have ruled out suicide as all clues lead to Julien. His finger prints were found at the location and his wife (Caroline Sihol) had an affair with Jacques. But, Julien claims he is innocent and will prove it, with the help of his secretary, Barbara (Fanny Ardent, who was married to Truffaut).

What differentiates "Finally, Sunday" from other film noir or Hitchcock movies is the significant role the woman plays in the investigation, although Hitchcock's "Stage Fright" (1950) is an exception. The material also calls for Barbara and Julien to engage in verbal spats reminiscent to a lovers' quarrel often seen in screwball comedies like "His Girl Friday" (1940). And, like those screwball comedies, will the two come together in the end? Can murder bring two people together as it did in Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (1954)?

Perhaps because she was sleeping with the director, Fanny Ardent's beauty becomes a preoccupation of the camera. In its initial review in the New York Times, critic Vincent Canby called Ardent's performance "sexy" and referred to her as "ravishingly beautiful". When we first see Barbara, she is walking down a sidewalk. A man notices her and begins to follow her. Anticipating her to turn a corner with him, she doesn't, disappointing the man. If it does nothing else in relation to the movie's plot, it establishes Barbara is a desirable woman. In a later scene she poses as a prostitute.

Barbara's take charge attitude and street prowess serves as a counter to Trintignant's Julien, who must rely on Barbara to find the real killer while he is in hiding. Of course, it doesn't stop him from complaining about her techniques, which many times results in the movie's humorous moments.

Where "Finally, Sunday" may go wrong, is it is not a great mystery. There is no suspense building up to revealing the killer, strange when you make a movie as a homage to the "master of suspense". Some may say that is not the point. The emphasis here is comedy. If that is the case than I must say the movie isn't funnier than "The Thin Man" (1934), the multiple Oscar nominated comedy / mystery based on a novel by Dashiell Hammett. 

Others though may interpret the movie as really a love story in disguise. They wouldn't be too far off but as a real love story there is an element of chemistry missing between Julien and Barbara. Individually they are fun to watch. Some of the witty banter between them is amusing. Which is why I like the movie. But, to be taken serious as a love story, "Finally, Sunday" would fall flat.

The movie works best if viewed as a slight dessert, a light diversion, a mixture of romance, mystery and comedy. It doesn't juggle these genres perfectly but if you don't take it too serious, it has a pleasant quality. It was recognized by BAFTA with one nomination in the foreign language category and two Cesar nominations (the French equivalent of the Oscars), one for Ardent's performance and the other for Truffaut's direction. Unfortunately the cinematography by Oscar winner Nestor Almendros, who shot several Truffaut and Eric Rohmer films, didn't receive any nominations.

Originally released in America as "Confidentially Yours", the movie is no longer available on VHS or DVD and has never been released on Blu-ray. It is however available as part of a UK collection set - The Francois Truffaut Collection on DVD and Blu-ray. Each title is also sold separately. This is the copy I personally own. It is a major improvement over the American VHS copy I saw many years ago. Sadly the status of availability of this Truffaut film is the same for many of the great director's films here in America.

Though never intended to be Truffaut's final film, he passed away one year later at age 52 from a brain tumor, "Finally, Sunday" is a worthy film in the great director's cannon. It possess his spirit and provides him with a wonderful showcase for his wife (their second movie together) who steals the show. It's not "great" Truffaut, but the master earned the right to make a fun lark now and than. And that, for me, is what "Finally, Sunday" ultimately is. A well made, beautiful photographed, witty lark with fine performances.

Film Review: Casino

"Casino"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

"The heart wants what it wants. There's no logic to these things. You meet someone and you fall in love and that's that."
                                        Woody Allen

Why am I quoting Woody Allen? And why this particular quote in relation to, of all things, a Martin Scorsese film. And not just any Martin Scorsese film, but his mafia themed "Casino" (1995).

"Casino" is as much a love story as it is a story of the mafia and Las Vegas. The film is operating on both levels. The root problem for the characters in Scorsese's film comes back to the Woody Allen quote - "the heart wants what it wants". The other quote that describes these characters goes back to my childhood and my mother. Whenever I would get in trouble my mother would disappointingly tell me, "I should know better". Where were these characters' mothers to tell them, "they should know better"?

The first image we see in "Casino" is of "Ace" Rothstein (Robert De Niro). He is walking out of a building while he begins narrating. He says "when you love someone, you've got to trust them. There's no other way." As he finishes this thought he sits in his car, turns on the ignition, and we see the car explode. Flames appear on-screen as a silhouette of "Ace" falls from the sky. The credits begin. The flames dissolve into neon lights. By the end of the credits flames appear again with "Ace" falling into them. Is this "Ace" falling from grace into hell? Do the neon lights represent Las Vegas? Is this "sin city" another hell on earth?

What a strange contradiction to hear a character talk about trust and then create the impression they have exploded in their car. I am reminded of Scorsese earlier mob film, "GoodFellas" (1990). A narrator says he always wanted to be a gangster  while we see a man inside of a car trunk being killed. Was the car explosion the act of a jealous lover? Or something completely unrelated?

Just within the first few minutes of "Casino" and the opening credits viewers should know they are about to see a sort of morality play. Characters falling from grace into fire.

"Ace" is a gambling handicapper, maybe the best. Through connections not disclosed, he is able to make the mafia a lot of money through his bets. For that they like him. As long as he keeps passing on the tips and everyone makes money, "Ace" will be a protected man. As a reward the mafia has chosen him to head their casino venture in Las Vegas, the Tangiers.

As "Ace" tells the story he describes it as a "paradise" for guys like him. Anywhere else he would be arrested for what he was doing but in Las Vegas he is a respected man. Some people even call him sir. But if there is a paradise there must be a hell. And hell surrounds this paradise, "at night" "Ace" says "you couldn't see the desert that surrounds Las Vegas". The desert is where a lot of bodies have been buried. It is a constant reminder of just how bad things can go. Death is all around.

For roughly the first 45 minutes of "Casino" it plays as a documentary. Based on the book "Casino: Love and Honor in Las Vegas" by Nicholas Pileggi, the movie knows the ins and outs of Las Vegas in the 1970s. It knows where the bodies are buried in the desert. And that inside information makes for a riveting beginning to Scorsese's story. We know how a casino gets started, where the money comes from, who is the front for what organization controlled by the mafia. We understand what goes in a a count room, where all the money is counted. We find out how it leaves the casino and gets to the mafia bosses in the Mid-West.

Along this journey we meet several characters but two stick out. An old friend of "Ace" and a "made" man himself, Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) and a high class prostitute and hustler, Ginger (Sharon Stone), the woman "Ace" falls in love with. It would seem to be the perfect arrangement but they would all fall victim to the bright lights of Las Vegas and their foolish hearts.

Knowing how a casino operates and who is really in charge of Vegas, "Ace" calls the town a place were dreams were sold for cash. "We (the casino) are the only winners, players don't stand a chance". Of course this may all be foreshadowing "Ace", Nicky and Ginger, players who thought they could beat the house.

The first time "Ace" sees Ginger she is shooting dice for a wealthy guy. She eventually craps out and asks the man for her share. When she feels the man is not offering a fair share of the winnings she throws his chips in the air for greedy hands to steal. This is when the narration tells us "Ace" fell in love with Ginger. And again, we are foreshadowing the characters. Ginger is a woman that is after money and wants her "fair share".

Just as in gambling "Ace" believes he has all the angles figured out. He knows what type of woman Ginger is and how to make a woman like that happy and yet he bets on the long-shot and proposes to her. Ginger doesn't love "Ace" and tells him as much and yet she agrees after he promises her she will get her "fair share" if things don't work out. She will be taken care of. Of course the marriage proposal sounds like a business transaction.

But is "Ace" like the gamblers he describes that can't bet low and eventually must up the stakes? He says those guys don't see it as losing money but gaining a fortune. Is "Ace" gaining a fortune in Ginger? He believes he can change her but he forgot the cardinal rule - the house always wins.

Ginger's heart belongs to a low-life pimp drug addict, Lester (James Woods). Why would a woman that seems so successful waste her time with a man that is unable to provide for her and offer the life she wants? Why would a street smart hustler fall for a con man? Are "Ace" and Ginger opposite sides of the same coin? But, what can you do, the heart wants what it wants.

With its tragic love story playing out, Nicky decides he wants to become to new boss of Vegas. As he sees it, Las Vegas is untouched, there is money to be made shaking down bookies, drug addicts and gamblers. Best of all, the Mid-West bosses have no idea what he will be up to. Nicky believes he has created a bullet proof system. But, again, he forgot the house always wins.

"Casino" has received a mixed reception from fans and movie critics (sheep). It was one of the few times critics were negative of Scorsese. Many believed Scorsese and Pileggi went over similar material in "GoodFellas". Even if that was true, so what? These are much different movies."Casino" has more of an epic feel. But that epic feel may be its downfall. At three hours "Casino" goes on a bit too long. You probably could have told this story in two hours. Structurally the movie seems to go in circles at times. Repeating itself over and over.

De Niro and Pesci may also be seen in similar roles to their "GoodFellas" characters. I don't quite agree, but, must say Sharon Stone is probably the standout from the trio. She would go on to receive a Golden Globe nomination for her performance and an Academy Award nomination. It would be the only nomination the movie received, once again shutting Scorsese out.

I've had a back and forth relationship with "Casino". I was 12 years old when my father took me to see it (he should have known better) and I loved it. I saw it years later and thought it was merely OK. On a third viewing I felt it was a stronger movie than "GoodFellas" and qualified as one of Scorsese's masterpieces. Fourth, fifth and sixth viewings have not reflected that overwhelming appreciation I once felt. Today I see "Casino" as an entertaining movie with flaws. Worth watching but not quite one of Scorsese's best.

Film Review: Eternity And A Day

"Eternity And A Day"  *** (out of ****)

Memories, longings and love last an eternity in Theo Angelopoulos' "Eternity And A Day" (1999).

There are some that consider "Eternity And A Day" to be Greek filmmaker Theo Angelopoulos' grand achievement. The former Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Wilmington declared it the best movie of 1999. It was the only film - directed by a man I call the master of imagery - to ever win the Palme d' Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It was his fifth nomination and some say sweet revenge for Mr. Angelopoulos, who three years prior was nominated for "Ulysses' Gaze" (1997), which came in second place, much to Mr. Angelopoulos' vocal disappointment.

But it is with "Ulysses' Gaze" that "Eternity And A Day" shares much in common with and because of my undying love and appreciation for "Gaze" I am unable to declare "Eternity" a masterpiece. It is not the popular opinion - even among Angelopoulos fans, the three of us that exist. "Gaze" is a movie I found to be a lyrical, poetic, haunting, philosophical exploration of a man searching for his soul and desire to return to that magical place called home.

To a certain extent one can describe "Eternity And A Day" in a similar way. They wouldn't be entirely wrong either. In both cases we are dealing with an artist. In "Eternity" it is a writer named Alexandre (Bruno Ganz) who is searching for the unsearchable. Life has turned into a bitter and disappointing experience and now the end is near. Alexandre has one of those fatal movie illnesses where a cough leads to death. He will check into a hospital the next day and anticipates it will be his last day alive.

In an early scene Alexandre and his housekeeper are saying their goodbyes. She ask if she may go with him to the hospital and he tells her, why make this harder than it has to be? Initially I thought Alexandre was putting on a brave face, so his housekeeper, whom he has spent three years with, would not cry. After taking another look and listening to his character's voice (which I don't believe is Ganz speaking Greek but a dubbed voice) Alexandre seems to have relinquished life. He speaks in a matter-of-fact way that he will die soon. He even tells the housekeeper, he hopes she didn't pack too much for his hospital stay. It is a defeatist tone.

Through a voice-over narration, as he speaks his thoughts to his already deceased wife, Anna (Isabelle Renauld), Alexandre tells us his regret in life is that his plans have always remained just that - plans. And so we are dealing with an unfulfilled life. It is not until later in the film however Alexandre breaks down to his sick mother (Despina Bebedelli) and cries why didn't life turn out as they wanted. Alexandre made bad choices, always putting his art before his wife and daughter. We hear letters Anna has written expressing her distance to her husband. He has decided to devote his time to completing a 19th century's poet unfinished poem - what else would a man who has lead an unfulfilled life do? And now Alexandre must live with his choices. He has lived a life of isolation. Now, at the end of his life, he realizes what that decision has cost him.

However, there may be a moment of salvation for Alexandre in the form of an Albanian refugee, a small child (Achileas Skevis). Alexandre rescues the child from a police crackdown and later from the black market, where wealthy foreigners buy the children. Alexandre must get the child back to the Albanian border. At first he tries to pay someone else to do it - a bus driver, a cab driver. But, remember, we are dealing with a man who says he has never followed through on plans. No, today, his last day, is the day he must complete a task.

There is a sense Mr. Angelopoulos is playing with time. Alexandre the past and the child the future. Could that also be Alexandre motivation? Is this a life he can protect? A life that may show promise and not make the same failed life choices Alexandre has made? That would recall Ingmar Bergman's masterpiece "Wild Strawberries" (1959), also the story of a man reflecting on a flawed life and the realization his son may be following in his footsteps. That may be at play but Mr. Angelopoulos doesn't provide direct answers.

The past and present weave effortlessly in this story as Alexandre keeps going back to the days when his wife was alive. But, if you pay close attention, often Alexandre is not present in those memories. He is nowhere to be seen when Anna shows guest their daughter. He is off to the side, with his mother, at a party. These bittersweet memories clash with the modern day tragedy (?) of trying to cross borders to save a child.

Theo Angelopoulos, who died in 2012 at age 76, never got his due in America. None of his films were ever nominated for an Academy Award. His movies are currently out of print on DVD and VHS and, as far as I know, not available on blu-ray. Movie critics (sheep) often ignored reviewing his films. Even the art-house crowd shied away from his work. Too bad. In the UK a DVD collection was released featuring all of his films in a three volume set.

Mr. Angelopoulos had a filmmaking style comprised of long shots, minimal camera movement, slow, deliberate pacing. Viewers are suppose to soak in the landscape. His movies were an experience. A collection of moods and tone. It isn't plot that so much droves his stories but our emotions, our reactions to the masterful images that were shown to us. It was a style of storytelling similar to Hungary's Bela Tarr or Italy's Michelangelo Antonioni. It was a kind of filmmaking that faded after the 1970s. That would explain the lack of appeal American audiences showed Mr. Angelopoulos' films.

While I have great affection of Mr. Angelopoulos' films, I placed two of them on my year end top ten lists, "Eternity And A Day" is one I can't call a masterpiece. I am not emotionally drawn into Alexandre's predicament. I didn't find the movie as meditative as other Angelopoulos films. It draws too similar a comparison to "Ulysses' Gaze" which I feel tackled these themes in a more poetic way. Still, "Eternity And A Day" should not go unseen. Twenty years after its American release the movie has charms and images to delight, not to mention a wonderful soundtrack.

The cinematic world is a lot poorer without Theo Angelopoulos, luckily we have many great works to take pleasure in (as soon as they become available again!!). "Eternity And A Day", for me, is not one of those great works, but, it is better than much of what is being released today.

Film Review: Yojimbo

"Yojimbo"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

The first words of dialogue we hear in Akira Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" (1961) are between a father and son arguing. The father accuses the son of wanting to run away from home to become a gangster. The son doesn't refute this statement but seeks to justify it. He is not going to live a long life, eating gruel he tells his father. He is going to eat good food, wear nice clothes and die young.

A wandering samurai (Toshiro Mifune) overhears the conversation and learns of the sad state of condition the town he has entered is in. The father complains to his wife, everyone is looking for easy money. Although the father is speaking about his son, you can't help but feel he is also referring to the unnamed samurai overhearing his conversation.

Whenever you hear someone discuss Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" they will very quickly mention the influence the movie had on Sergio Leone and his movie "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964) starring Clint Eastwood. They will also refer to "Yojimbo" as a dark comedy. These statements are true. But, there is more to "Yojimbo" that is being left out.

The town is divided into two gangs, each fighting for final control. The samurai sees an opportunity to exploit the issue. He can play both sides by pretending to offer his services to the highest bidder.

When you take this plot and consider the opening lines of dialogue, it would seem Kurosawa and his co-writer, Ryuzo Kikushima, are making a commentary on capitalism. The two gangs are led by businessmen. One is a silk trader and the other a sake merchant. There is actually more to "Yojimbo" than meets the eye.

Because movies are a reflection of society, it would benefit viewers to know a little something about Japan's economy during the time of the movie's release. After World War II Japan's economy would rebound tremendously. By the 1960s, Japan had America's backing as it began to industrialize and enact various domestic reforms. It would become one of the first developed countries in East Asia. Was Japan losing its identity? Was there too much of a Western influence? Would greed become all consuming? Fast forward a couple of decades and Japan would become the second largest economy, behind America, before the "lost decade" hit.

Interestingly Kurosawa was often accused by critics in Japan of being "too Western" himself. Watch Kurosawa's early movies; "Stray Dog" (1949), "Drunken Angel" (1948), or "Scandal" (1950), the movies were heavily influenced by American movies, in particular gangster movies. As a result, Kurosawa's movies were not always money makers in Japan. Contrasted with contemporaries, Yasujiro Ozu and Kenji Mizoguchi, who were regarded as the more traditional filmmakers. Making movies which reflected Japanese culture. Kurosawa on the other hand was making copycat American movies, ignoring tradition.

It is interesting then the way Kurosawa presents the samurai character and alters tradition. Much has been written about samurai culture. Generally speaking a samurai is an honorable, loyal man. He devotes himself to his master. Is the samurai in "Yojimbo" a honorable man? He doesn't seem motivated by honor but greed. He will work for whoever pays the most despite knowing full well neither gang is comprised of good men.

"Yojimbo" was Kurosawa's blending of the samurai movie and the American western. Of course this wasn't an entirely new concept for Kurosawa. His "Seven Samurai" (1954) served as the main source of inspiration for the American western, "The Magnificent Seven" (1960), released one year prior to "Yojimbo".

Our samurai is no different than the gunslinger that walks into the ghost town. There is the bad sheriff, inflicting fear in the townspeople. It is up to the stranger to restore law and order. That describes "Yojimbo" and "Seven Samurai" is essence.

Another way Kurosawa combines these two genres is by having a character, Unosuke (Tatsuya Nakadai), walk around with a pistol. He is literally the guy who brings a gun to a sword-fight. The character may remind you of Lee Van Cleef. The pistol, I believe, also symbolizes the end of an era. The sword, like the samurai, will become a thing of the past.

A majority of the movie's praise must be given to Toshiro Mifune, a frequent Kurosawa collaborator. The two worked on "Rashomon" (1950), "Seven Samurai", "I Live In Fear" (1955), "Throne of Blood" (1957) and "The Bad Sleep Well" (1960) and so many other countless masterpieces.

Mifune is a bit like Buster Keaton in this movie. He is always thinking. The viewer is constantly seeing a mind at work. The samurai is always devising a plan. Leaving the viewer to wonder, are his intentions noble? It may take a while but eventually we figure out what the samurai is after.

Who knew Mifune could be so humorous?

It has been suggested, though refuted by Kurosawa, that Dashiell Hammett's "Red Harvest" was the inspiration for the movie. Kurosawa says "The Glass Key", also written by Hammett, was what inspired him. I find this interesting because it is another example of the Western influence on Kurosawa. He was also a fan of John Ford. Pay attention to how Kurosawa films the landscape of the town.

"Yojimbo" proved to be quite a financial success which prompted a sequel, "Sanjuro" (1962), which is also entertaining and I would dare say funnier however it wasn't as influential as "Yojimbo".

I wouldn't say this is Kuroswa's best film, "Rashomon" or "Seven Samurai" may have the honor of that title, but "Yojimbo" is still essential viewing for any movie buff. 

Film Review: Our Relations

"Our Relations"
*** 1/2 (out of ****)

Family relations turn into double trouble in the Laurel & Hardy comedy, "Our Relations" (1936).

With the release of the Laurel & Hardy biopic, "Stan & Ollie" (2018), some younger movie fans may become curious to seek out the comedy team, to experience the real deal. What could I review to entice them? I've already reviewed some of the team's critically celebrated comedies; "Sons of the Desert" (1933) and "Way Out West" (1937). "Stan & Ollie" is set during the later years of their careers and I've reviewed some of those comedies as well; "Nothing But Trouble" (1944) and "The Bullfighters" (1945). What's left to introduce readers to?

I've settled on "Our Relations", which may be a comedy that gets lost in the shuffle. You might not come across anyone that will praise it as Laurel & Hardy's best comedy (I haven't). That is misleading though. "Our Relations" may not be the team's best effort but it does feature a lot of good visual gags.

The gags in the movie however haven't become part of mainstream culture the way routines in "Way Out West" have; the soft shoe dance routine, the "Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia" duet, the block and tackle sequence...ect. Nothing in "Our Relations" is as iconic. But, the movie is consistently funny.

Essentially the movie is a one trick pony, an elongated mistaken identity sketch. However, at 73 minutes, the movie remains fresh and entertaining and doesn't ware out its welcome.

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy play their iconic Stan & Ollie characters but with a twist. They are two happily married men; Oliver is married to Daphne (Daphne Pollard) and Stan to Betty, whom he calls "bubbles" (Betty Brown). They are financially stable and well respected in the community. Although there is a dark family secret they are hiding. They each have a twin brother that has taken the wrong path in life; Alf (Laurel) and Bert (Hardy). They are a couple of sailors that joined a mutiny and reportedly died, according to a letter Oliver receives from his mother. Desperate to save face the boys agree to burn the letter and never mention their brothers to their wives.

Of course, unless the boys are newlyweds, has the existence of their siblings never come up before? But, you don't ask such logical questions when watching a Laurel & Hardy comedy. You take all information at face value and go along for the laughs.

Naturally, Alf and Bert have not died. In fact, they have unknowingly set port in the same town Stan & Ollie live in. And, as you can imagine, there will be a lot of confusion among the residents of the town and lots of characters doing double takes.

While the twin plot device is not exactly original, fans of the boys will recall the two-reeler, "Twice Two" (1933), in which they play their own twin sisters, "officially" the movie is credited as "suggested by" W.W. Jacobs' short story "The Money Box". There may also be a whiff of Shakespeare's "The Comedy of Errors".

Coincidentally "Our Relations" may have served as an inspiration for the Three Stooges comedy "A Merry Mix Up" (1957), with the Stooges playing three sets of identical triplets, and the Bette Milder / Lily Tomlin comedy, "Big Business" (1988).

"Our Relations" though may out do them all in the big-laughs department. What would you expect with writers Charley Rogers and Felix Adler behind the script? Rogers and Alder often worked on Laurel & Hardy scripts. They both co-wrote "Swiss Miss" (1938), "Block-Heads" (1938) and "A Chump at Oxford" (1939). Rogers even directed some of the boys' two-reelers, among them, the Oscar nominated "Tit for Tat" (1935). Besides Laurel & Hardy, Felix Adler wrote for Harold Lloyd, Abbott & Costello, and the Three Stooges. In fact he wrote "A Merry Mix Up", which may explain its "Our Relations" influence.

The script is pretty lean with not much screen time wasted. When Rogers and Adler aren't creating comedy hi-jinks resulting from the mistaken identity, they create some great original bits along the way. A great one has Alf and Bert inside a telephone booth. There is barely enough room for the both of them but when a local drunk (Arthur Housman) needs to call his wife and enters the booth, chaos ensues.

Others humorous bits involve Laurel & Hardy's feet stuck in cement, goofy breakfast table banter, Oliver not realizing he can see just as good without his glasses than with them on, Alf and Bert getting conned into pawning their clothes, and a wild nightclub chase sequence.

What makes "Our Relations" work as well as it does is it resembles the team's two-reelers. The movie is a series of vignettes strung together. There is no time for a social message or moral. Except perhaps, life is better when you don't have a twin. The main objective is to make people laugh. That may stop the movie from being a masterpiece to some. It lacks ambition they will say. But, since when is trying to create a hilarious, non-stop comedy not ambitious? Can you do it?

The movie also provides supporting players a lot of screen time. James Finlayson, a regular Laurel & Hardy foil, plays Alf amd Bert's cunning best friend Finn. Alan Hale is a wise-talking waiter and Housman as the drunk has a lot of interaction with the boys.

The one thing missing is the use of a strong heavy to antagonize the boys. I suppose on some level that may have been Finlayon but that role doesn't suite his diminutive stature. Where's Walter Long when we need him?

So as not to confuse audiences too much when trying to keep track if they are seeing Alf and Bert or Laurel & Hardy, the movie plays musical cues. When Alf and Bert are on-screen the tune "The Sailor's Hornpipe" plays. When it is Laurel & Hardy, their theme song, "Dance of the Cuckoos" plays.

The movie was directed by Harry Lachman, a director of no great distinction. He directed the Shirley  Temple vehicle "Baby, Take A Bow" (1934), "Charlie Chan at the Circus" (1936), and "Dante's Inferno" (1935). Believe it or not the cinematography was done by Rudolph Mate, his brillance is not on display here but he shoot movies directed by Alfred Hitchcock, Carl Theodor Dreyer, and Ernst Lubitsch. Through-out his career he received five Academy Award nominations, all in succession from 1941 - 1945.

Also worth mentioning is this was the first of two occasions when Stan Laurel would receive credit for his work behind the camera. Although the dim-witted one of the team, Laurel was the brains behind the scenes, writing their gags and serving as an unofficial editor and director. For his efforts he was given the screen credit " A Stan Laurel Production". The second, and final time, would be for Laurel & Hardy's next comedy, "Way Out West". 

"Our Relations" is a fast moving, tightly structured comedy. Filled with plenty of visual gags it is one of the team's hidden gems. 

Film Review: Stan & Ollie

"Stan & Ollie"
*** (out of ****)

Will "Stan & Ollie" (2018) prove to be another nice mess Laurel & Hardy fans have gotten themselves into?

Growing up in the 1980s, I fell in love with the spectacular nature of movies after watching the best picture Oscar winner, "The Great Ziegfeld" (1936). Movies were woven into the fabric of my childhood, as I would watch them with my now deceased grandmother. Back in those days we would watch American Movie Classics (back when the channel stood behind its name) together, as she would tell me the Hollywood gossip on the movie stars of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.

One of the first things I remember making me laugh and putting a smile on my face was Laurel & Hardy in "Way Out West" (1937). To this day it remains my favorite of all the comedies the boys starred in. They were my childhood heroes. Because I watched, nearly exclusively, black & white movies growing up, I didn't realize these were "old" movies. I was heartbroken when I found out Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were dead and I would never get a chance to meet them. They would never know how funny I thought they were. How much they made me laugh. The impact they had on me.

Why am I telling you this? Because there will be a quiz on it later. No, I'm telling you this so you understand the "baggage" I brought in with me as I walked into the theater to see "Stan & Ollie".

Laurel & Hardy fans may react in one of two ways. They may be very disappointed with it, stating the movie doesn't do justice to the legacy of Laurel &  Hardy. Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy could never bring to the screen what made Laurel & Hardy so memorable. They could never capture the chemistry the real Laurel & Hardy had. Or, they could declare the movie is an epic celebration of the comedy team. They will sing the movie's praises. Maybe not so much because the movie is good but because some are such devoted fans, they are appreciative of anything made about these legends of comedy. Somehow I fall in the middle.

There are some fans that have expressed apprehension about the movie. To those people, I can say "Stan & Ollie" is a well meaning, affectionate story meant to be a celebration of Laurel & Hardy. Yes, I can take the cheap shot and say Coogan and Reilly aren't as memorable as Laurel & Hardy but who is? Of course Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly don't have the chemistry of the real Stan & Ollie. Was anyone expecting that? Believe it or not, some fans are criticizing the movie on this basis. Opinions vary on all movies whether they are good or bad. But, this is not a valid complaint against the movie. There are however valid criticisms to point out.

Others dislike the time frame the movie focuses on. In "Stan & Ollie" director Jon S. Baird and screenwriter Jeff Pope set the movie during the twilight of Laurel & Hardy's career. It is the 1950s and the boys are on a UK tour. Stan Laurel, the brains of the team, hopes the tour, if a success, will help secure financing for a Robin Hood spoof Laurel is writing gags for. Unless the boys have been deluding themselves they quickly come to the realization the movie going public, whether in America or the UK, has moved past Laurel & Hardy comedies. For people of a certain age the boys are a distant memory.The height of their popularity was twenty years ago. Audiences don't seem willing to see Laurel & Hardy on stage performing popular routines from their movies and short subjects.

I have no objections to the movie showing us the boys in their later years. Thematically this structure offers the most dramatic impact and creates the most sympathy for Laurel & Hardy from the audience's perspective. It helps enforce the theme of an artist coming to terms with their time being up. In the case of Laurel & Hardy it could also allow for a commentary on the financial troubles the boys faced. As with "Our Gang", comedy producer Hal Roach didn't pay royalties to Laurel & Hardy.

As much as I wanted to love "Stan & Ollie" I must admit the story is lacking.What is missing in "Stan & Ollie" is conflict. To create this, Pope has devised a fictitious riff between the men, resulting in bad feelings and resentment that has carried on through the years and surfaces once again during their tour. While this does keep in line with some of the themes the movie wants to address, it really wasn't needed because there was actual drama in Laurel & Hardy's lives that could have been used.

You could have taken nearly the same approach, showing Laurel & Hardy in their later years, hit the idea of the boys realizing their star has faded, and touch on their financial trouble by focusing the movie on their transition from Hal Roach (played by Danny Houston) to 20th Century Fox. At Fox, Stan Laurel in particular, lost creative control. It was a similar story with Buster Keaton a decade earlier. For whatever reason the big studios weren't a good fit for comedians. Best of all, a false narrative wouldn't need to be created by the screenwriter.

In Pope's screenplay, Laurel & Hardy are signed to separate contracts. Laurel's is set to expire a year before Hardy's. To put pressure on Laurel, during contract negotiations, Roach stars Hardy in a movie without Laurel called "Zenobia" (1939), which is never referred to by name. The co-star of the movie would be silent screen comedian Harry Langdon (also never mentioned by name). "Stan & Ollie"  implies Laurel was heartbroken over Hardy's decision to continue shooting the movie with Langdon.

These events are partially true. The contract dispute did happen. Oliver Hardy did film a movie called "Zenobia" with Harry Langdon (which honestly isn't a bad movie). What is false is the heartache Stan felt and his bitterness towards Hardy. Laurel was even friends with Harry Langdon.

Movie bios generally stray from the truth for artistic license. I can accept that. I'm not bothered by the bogus falling out between the boys but in movie terms, it isn't played out fully and as dramatically as possible. In a screenplay a conflict is established, characters work towards a resolution, and finally the conflict is resolved. Generally speaking that is a three act structure. In "Stan & Ollie" the "conflict" doesn't rear its ugly head until a hour into the movie. The conflict doesn't cause enough of a riff that a real resolution is needed to be worked through. The script goes to great lengths to establish Laurel &  Hardy had a genuine love for each other. That is what made their partnership so special and the reason for the great chemistry they displayed on-screen. 

There is nothing for us to root for or against. Imagine if we had 20th Century Fox executives to root against. Executives that didn't have a sense of humor or didn't care much for Laurel & Hardy and just thought their movies wouldn't bring a profit. Now as an audience we are more involved. The story we see on-screen is too goody two shoes.

The success of the movie rest on the shoulders of Coogan and Reilly. Neither man gives a Rich Little impersonation. These actors have taken their roles seriously and wanted to flesh out these men.Yes, they get vocal patterns and physical gestures correct, which will delight fans, as we see reenactments of famous routines, but these are two performances meant to capture some depth.The screenplay unfortunately betrays them. You get the feeling through their performances Coogan and Reilly have elevated this material.

Also worth praising is the make-up and the transformation of John C. Reilly. When I first heard Reilly was cast in the role I couldn't envision it. Reilly doesn't look like Oliver Hardy. And then I saw photos. Reilly is "lost" in the role. He looks as close to Oliver Hardy as one could expect. On the opposite end though I wasn't as impressed with Coogan's make-up. His younger Stan and older Stan look very similar. No distinction in age. Where are the wrinkles? Where is the visible aging process?

To put all my cards on the table, I hope a movie like "Stan &  Ollie" will help younger audiences "discover" the boys and bring in a new generation of fans. That is why I don't like the factual errors presented in the movie. Maybe I am just being too protective of my heroes but I hate for new fans to have this false impression of the boys and bitterness between them. 

I am reminded of a few years ago when the Farrelly Brothers directed "The Three Stooges" (2012), an attempt to revive the comedy team in a brand new story. It wasn't a very good movie but it did expose the team to a whole new audience that would seek out the real team. Will "Stan & Ollie" do the same? Underneath it all I believe that was the intention of Jon S. Baird and Jeff Pope.

"Stan & Ollie" isn't a failure and doesn't do damage to the legacy of the greatest comedy team in the history of cinema. To the degree the movie works it is because of the performances given by Coogan and Reilly. I can't help but feel however that the screenplay lacks central conflict. There is no meat on this story. It is well meaning and affectionately made which may be enough for long time fans.

Some may be interested to know, "Zenobia" was not the only movie Oliver Hardy appeared in without Laurel during the years of their partnership. Hardy had a role in the John Wayne western, "The Fighting Kentuckian" (1949). Can you imagine what Pope would have done with this information if he knew about it? He would have had Laurel challenge Wayne to a duel! Maybe Harry Langdon could have been Wayne's second.