Film Review: Easy Money - 40th Anniversary

 "Easy Money"

*** (out of ****)

There may be a general consensus among movie fans that the two best comedies starring Rodney Dangerfield were "Back to School" (1986) and "Easy Money" (1983). And yet neither really gives the Rodney persona the respect it deserved.

Based upon Rodney's stand-up routines, I always envisioned the character as something of a working class schlub - which is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as "a stupid, worthless or unattractive person". I assumed the character would have had a menial job, lived paycheck-to-paycheck, sometimes fell behind on rent payments, lived in a tough neighborhood - "every time I close a window, I hit somebody's hands" - and probably only owned the one suit we always saw him in. But the character was probably a bit of Ralph Kramden from the TV show "The Honeymooners". The kind of guy with big dreams of one day becoming a somebody who had a million and one get rich quick schemes in his back pocket. He was in a loveless marriage and had ill-behaved children which combined probably led him to drinking. In the middle of one of his sleepless nights he may have thought to himself once or twice, what does it all add up to? What's life about? What's the point of the meaningless job, the house, the family? So much burden. So much responsibility. And no immediate return on your investment.

That Rodney never found his way in a movie. There were elements of it in "Back to School" and "Easy Money" but no movie ever fully capitalized on the Rodney Dangerfield persona. The two closest things to reach that potential had nothing to do with Rodney. They were the sit-coms "Married...With Children" and "Roseanne". Ironically enough they both debuted around the same time. "Married" in 1987 and "Roseanne" the following year.

How can this be? I blame the comedy "Caddyshack" (1980). Rodney wasn't the original choice for the Nouveau riche character that collides with a Country Club world but because of the movie's box-office success, I think Rodney lost his way and oddly didn't understand how the public viewed his persona and what made it special. So many of his movie roles centered on a conflict between Rodney's character clashing with high society. That wasn't what his stand-up was about. It feels as if Rodney kept trying to create characters and plots similar to "Caddyshack" hoping lightning would strike twice. That did a disservice to his character, who deserved more respect. Instead of "Caddyshack", Rodney should have looked to W.C. Fields and Jackie Gleason for inspiration.

In "Easy Money" Rodney plays Monty Capuletti, a baby photographer who loves to drink, smoke cigarettes, take drugs, gamble and eat poorly. He married Rose (Candice Azzara) against her mother's (Geraldine Fitzgerald) wishes which even today causes friction between the son and mother-in-law. This is despite the fact Monty and Rose seem happily married and have two daughters, one of whom is about the get married, as the fate would have it, to a man Monty doesn't approve of.

Unlike Monty, Rose comes from a wealthy family. Her mother owns a department store which caters to the fashion sensibilities of the well-to-do. Two things about this scenario are never explained however. How did Monty ever met Rose if they come from two different worlds? Secondly, Rose speaks with a kind of New York-ish accent meant to imply a working class background. She sounds nothing like her mother. Did Rose pick up Monty's accent or did the writers simply not think this through? My money's on the latter.

Late one night terrible news is delivered. Rose's mother has died in a plane crash. At a reading of the will it is discovered Rose and Monty will only receive an inheritance if Monty can change his ways. For one year Monty must go on a diet, stop drinking, smoking, gambling and taking drugs. It is a tall order. How on earth can Monty ever accomplish such a feat? And yet at the same time, how can he afford not to try and pass up an inheritance? And so, for the benefit of his wife and children, Monty agrees to the terms.

Initially it seems as if the world is conspiring against Monty. A new young couple moves next door to him. The wife likes to sun bathe in the nude and the husband (comedian Jeff Altman) can get Monty all the pot he wants. His daughter, Allison (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is already having martial troubles as she moves back home. And it is difficult to still be around his friends, like Nicky (Joe Pesci) who's bad habits may prove to be too tempting for Monty. 

As far as comedy plots go, this one is pretty good. Unfortunately, the movie's writers - Michael Endler, Dennis Blair, P.J. O'Rourke and Rodney himself - don't take full advantage of this comedic situation. This might be explained by the fact none of these men had much experience writing movies. O'Rourke may have been the most experienced writer of the team, having written for "National Lampoon" magazine but Blair for example never wrote a movie before or after this. It is the last movie writing credit for Endler too. The writers knew how to come up with funny, self-contained visual jokes but not how to create a funny linear plot.

I could break the movie up into several sequences and show you those segments and it would make it appear the movie is funny and create the illusion "Easy Money" is some kind of comedy masterpiece but when you connect all of these pieces of the puzzle together oddly it doesn't add up to the comedic heights it should have been. The movie tosses around a lot of ideas that sound funny on paper but they don't fully materialize. Why create a father / son-in-law conflict and not resolve it? What if the son-in-law wanted to help Monty succeed? Why come up with a scenario where Monty inspires the department store to change their men's fashion line? That plot alone could have been its own movie. Why create a sequence where Monty destroys his daughter's wedding cake and not show us how this is resolved? How does Monty explain this to his wife and daughter? Not enough is done with the movie's "villain" (Jeffrey Jones) who stands to benefit if Monty fails. There are some half-baked gestures made to show how the character tries to tempt Monty but not enough and the actions aren't fully developed. 

The idea of "sequence comedy" can also be explained by the movie's director, James Signorelli, who hadn't directed a feature-length comedy before. His career is comprised of directing "Saturday Night Live" episodes. His only other feature-length comedy credit is "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark" (1988).

But this all makes it seem like I don't enjoy "Easy Money". I admit, I've had to watch the movie a few times but I've come to accept it, shortcomings and all. All I can do is view it just as I would comedies starring Bob Hope, Jack Benny or W.C. Fields. Sometimes those movies weren't great either but you watched them because the comedians were funny in them. That's the best I can say about "Easy Money". It isn't a great comedy but it has moments when Rodney is funny. I would still argue however those Bob Hope comedies for example understood his character more and the expectations audiences had than "Easy Money" understands Rodney but I laughed either way watching the movie.

My favorite moments are the first third of the movie. I enjoyed watching the bickering between Monty and his mother-in-law. I also liked seeing Monty at work as a photographer and his interaction with children. When he is entertaining children at a birthday party, a few joints fall out of a hand puppet he is about to put on a show with. Finally I like the friendship between Monty and Nicky. It is a mixture between Ralph and Norton from "The Honeymooners" and Martin Scorsese's "Mean Streets" (1973). 

Even though he is well casted what an odd role for Joe Pesci to have accepted. He was only a few years removed from his Academy  Award nominated performance in Scorsese's "Raging Bull" (1980). Never to be confused for a dramatic leading man, audiences may not have expected a comedic turn from him at this point in his early career. But the movie does take advantage of that street smart New York working class attitude Pesci displayed in "Bull" and would further explore in later Scorsese films.

If you are looking for a meaning behind "Easy Money" it might be that no amount of money can really change who people are. In something of a spoiler alert I love the way the movie ends. It reminded me of the W.C. Fields comedy, "It's A Gift" (1934). After everything Monty has been through, once he has the money and lifestyle in hand, he reverts back to his old ways. Monty, and maybe even by extension Rodney himself, isn't going to change who he is for anyone. No moral is learned. End spoiler

Interestingly, the movie has a title song song by Billy Joel. If you are of a certain age you may recall Joel had an album released the same year as this movie, "An Innocent Man", which featured the song "Tell Her About It". In the music video for that song, Rodney, I assume repaying a favor to Joel, appears in the video - along with forgotten comedian Will Jordan, doing an Ed Sullivan impression.

The reason I wanted to include "Easy Money" in this special "year of me" is because Rodney was one of my all-time favorite stand-up comedians. I was nine years old when Johnny Carson retired from the "Tonight Show", so I didn't get to see that great interaction between Carson and Dangerfield live. I did however grow up watching Rodney as a guest when Jay Leno hosted the show. Back than I would watch the "Tonight Show" every night with my father and always looked forward to seeing Rodney.

How does "Easy Money" hold up 40 years later? Somewhat well. The basic premise holds up well but I do wonder how well would Rodney's humor hold up in today's social / political times? I have a very bad suspicion he wouldn't make the same cultural impact today that he did during his era. A lot in "Easy Money" would have to be changed.

"Easy Money" isn't a great comedy and it isn't a great Rodney Dangerfield comedy either. For Rodney at his best, you'll have to buy some stand-up albums and watch his guest spots on the "Tonight Show". There was a lot of pain and trauma beneath those laughs that  Rodney gave us. It is a shame and a missed opportunity no one was ever able to fully explore that. For what it is, "Easy Money" is light entertaining fare.

Film Review: Whoopee!

"Whoopee!"

**** (out of ****) 

It's the season for love, romance and mischief in "Whoopee!" (1930).

Throughout the year, which I have proclaimed "the year of me" on this blog, I have been reviewing movies either starring my favorite artists or films directed by my favorite filmmakers. "Whoopee!" doesn't necessarily fall into either category - although I do consider myself a fan of Eddie Cantor. "Whoopee!" however was one of the first movies I remember ever watching.

I was around 4 or 5 years old when I watched this movie with my grandmother. It aired on American Movie Classics (AMC) - back in the early days of cable, when the channel actually lived up to its name. In those days some movies played twice during the day (I haven't watched AMC for about 20 years so I don't know if this is still the case) which means I saw "Whoopee!" two times in a single day. I also vividly remember AMC host Bob Dorian would introduce a movie and make a few comments afterwards.

Why has "Whoopee!" stayed with me some 35 years later? One reason is because I watched it with my grandmother. She was the movie buff in the family who shared her love of movies with me. She was my own personal Bob Dorian. As we would watch a movie, she would tell me all of the Hollywood gossip and bio information of the stars. A majority of the personal tidbits I know about all of the Hollywood stars from this era I learned from her. Secondly, it was the first time I actually saw Eddie Cantor. I knew Cantor at this time primarily as a singer. I had heard him sing his hits like "Ma! He's Making Eyes at Me" and "Making Whoopee", which he sings here. Having lived with my grandparents you must keep in mind they were born in the 1920s and like practically every person on he planet, they continued to enjoy the pop culture of their youth throughout their life. So, in terms of music, I grew up listening to songs sung by Eddie Cantor, Al Jolson, Bing Crosby and Rudy Vallee. The third reason why "Whoopee!" has stayed with me all of these years is because it's funny. 

"Whoopee!" was based on a very successful 1928 Broadway musical - of the same title - produced by the legendary Florenz Ziegfeld - who also produced it on Broadway. Eddie Cantor - who was already a major theatrical star - reprised his stage role. Despite his popularity on the stage, this film version of "Whoopee!" is often credited as having cemented Cantor as a movie star. He had appeared on film prior to this however, most notably in "Kid Boots" (1926), a silent comedy also based on a Broadway show Cantor had starred in.

The movie follows much of the plot of the Broadway show, although several songs were cut. Today is the wedding day of Sally Morgan (Eleanor Hunt) and Sheriff Bob Wells (John Rutherford). We slowly come to discover Sally doesn't love Bob and is only marrying him to please her father. Sally is really in love with a childhood friend, Wanenis (Paul Gregory). Sally's father has forbidden them from ever getting married since Wanesis is half Native American. Seemingly accepting his defeat, Wanenis leaves the town and his Reservation in order to school himself in the ways of the white man. Perhaps hoping to one day be deemed "acceptable" to marry Sally. As luck would have it, he unknowingly returns to town on the day of the wedding. 

With its "Romeo & Juliet" - ish story line "Whoopee!" tip-toes around the then controversial issue of interracial romance. The movie doesn't firmly take a position on the issue but unlike other Hollywood movies prior,  the non-white character isn't treated as a villain. Wanenis isn't a dastardly "foreigner" going after a white woman. Compare the attitudes presented here to the silent movie "The Sheik" (1921) with Rudolph Valentino or Cecil B. DeMille's melo-drama "The Cheat" (1915). Audiences will want Sally and Wanenis to get married and it is the father and Bob Wells that are the antagonists in the story. Modern younger audiences - whom I do not advise to see this movie - will look upon "Whoopee!" unfavorably - to put it nicely - but its presentation of this issue is handled in a rather liberal manner.

The appearance of Wanenis stirs up old feelings for Sally, who simply cannot bring herself to marry Bob. She seeks the help of Henry Williams (Cantor) by tricking him. Sally tells Henry that Bob doesn't want a big wedding ceremony and would like Henry to drive her to the next town so she and Bob can elope. Meanwhile, she left a note informing everyone she and Henry have eloped! This causes the whole town to search for the two with Bob vowing to hang Henry.

None of this is good for Henry's health. In fact very little seems to be good for Henry's health. He's the town's hypochondriac. Henry seeks a nice stress-free life, where he can die peacefully in bed surrounded by a team of doctors. Death by hanging wasn't in his plans. And imagine what it would do to his neck! Henry is assisted by his nurse, Mary Custer - get it? A reference to General Custer, who fought in the American Indian Wars - (Ethel Shutta), who despite Henry's wimpish ways loves him. I simply love the banter of their dialogue.

Nurse: Do you know why I studied nursing?

Henry: No. Why?

Nurse: Because I'm romantic. Most girls like big, strong, healthy men.

Henry: Husky! Husky!

Nurse: Not me. I like weak men. I have a positive passion for a weak man.

Henry: I suppose if I was paralyzed, you'd be absolutely cuckoo over me!

Henry however has no time for romance and routinely tries to gently let Mary down. Henry instead prefers the company of his calf. Which leads to another theme slightly at play in the movie - masculinity. "Whoopee!" takes place in the old west. A time of rugged male machoism. Henry is a complete contrast to this. He even declares he hates guns! It is the contrast of a "modern" sensibility against old western clichés that provides much of the movie's humor. 

Watching the movie again I was also struck by the overt "Jewishness" of Cantor's humor. Cantor was born Isidore Itzkowitz to Russian Jewish parents. While many of the great comedians and comedy teams of the era - the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, Fanny Brice, George Burns, Phil Silvers and the Ritz Brothers - were Jewish, none of them directly identified themselves as such in their movies. When Wanenis pours his heart out to Henry, telling him he has studied among "his people", Henry jokes, oh, you went to Hebrew school. It is a funny joke that I laughed at but it makes an interesting point. Wanenis looks at Henry and sees a "white man" but Henry identifies himself as "Jewish". This topic of self-identity is one still being had today. Some individuals don't separate Jewish from "white people". Famously, one celebrity, declared the Holocaust wasn't about race, implying Jews weren't part of their own separate race. In our current society it seems we prefer not to differentiate between skin color and ethnic identity. And identity is an issue in the movie with the conflict between Native Americans and whites. 

It is because of the racial attitudes presented in the movie I do not recommend younger college age and / or politically motived individuals see this movie. They will not place the movie in its proper historical context and simply feel the movie doesn't "reflect the values of today". While I normally don't divide my recommendations on the basis of age or an individual's political motivation, I do want to be cognizant of the delicate nature of these viewers and warn them. As I explained in my post on the 15th anniversary of this blog, I feel I am a "gatekeeper" of pop culture from the era. There are individuals that have went their entire lives without knowing who Eddie Cantor was or seeing "Whoopee!". I see no reason for them to engage with the movie now. My fear is it will lead to Eddie Cantor being "cancelled". Despite the fact that God ultimately "cancelled" Cantor in 1964. Because of the natural progression of time, Cantor is primarily forgotten. Only I remember who he was. Once I die, these individuals will have nothing to worry about. 

If the movie's depiction of Native Americans isn't enough to offend young viewers, the fact that Eddie Cantor appears in blackface will. Cantor, like other performers whom I will not name, were known for appearing and singing in blackface. In "Whoopee!" they actually come up with a clever way to get Cantor to go into a blackface routine. Afraid Bob has tracked him down, Henry hides in a stove. When someone drops a match in the stove it causes an explosion. Henry jumps out of the smoke filled stove with his face covered in soot. While in blackface Henry performs a rousing rendition of the great tune, "My Baby Just Cares For Me". 

This does however lead to one of the real flaws of the movie. "Whoopee!" was released one year after all studios essentially scrapped silent movie projects for "talkies". It was also a year after the movie musical genre was created. All of this presented new technical challenges in relation to sound equipment and camera movement. Silent film is really a creative, artistic artform. Cinema had developed and matured greatly since the days of pioneers like D.W. Griffith and Edwin S. Porter. But sound, unfortunately, caused cinema to almost regress. It went back to essentially being "theater on film".

Pay attention to the staging of two of Cantor's signature pieces - "My Baby Just Cares" and "Makin' Whoopee". Notice how the background is comprised of an immobile chorus and only Cantor is moving. It was believed too much movement in the background would be a distraction for the audience. Cantor should be front and center. With only him moving around, your eyes will be focused on him. Believe it or not the choreography was done by Busby Berkeley. We don't quite see that famous Berkeley touch but we do get some characteristic aerial shots. In terms of highlighting Berkeley's talent, the musical number "Stetson" is probably the best showcase.

There is also a very theatrical, almost vaudeville nature to the movie's acting. This is most prominent in Cantor's performance. It is his energy and "ham" performance however that I think makes "Whoopee!" so enjoyable to watch. Cantor was at the height of his creative powers here. But I can see others merely being off put by the performances giving the movie unintended laughs.

What also may not be fully appreciated by young viewers is the "pre-code" nature of the movie. Many musical sequences for example feature scantily clad female chorus members. And Cantor's double-entendres give the movie a kind of "naughty" feel. Especially his eye rolling after delivering a suggestive line. 

By the movie's end, whatever liberal messaging seemed to be suggested in the movie's attitude towards interracial romance, it is quickly reverted much like the already mentioned "The Sheik". Audiences weren't quite able to seemingly handle such a topic and it appears to explain the presentation of the Wanenis character.

After "Whoopee!", which received an Academy Award nomination for its art decoration (!), Cantor would go on to star in a sting of wonderful comedies including "The Kid From Spain" (1932), "Roman Scandals" (1933) and "Kid Millions" (1934). It is unfortunate he is forgotten. Today's audiences probably wouldn't be able to understand what made him such a star.

"Whoopee!" will always have a special place in my heart. I wouldn't go so far as to say the movie is a great piece of cinematic art but it is a terrific example of old-fashion Hollywood escapism. If you are the cinematic adventurous type, I would recommend "Whoopee!" for Cantor's performance and the very good songs.

Film Review: Fanny & Alexander - 40th Anniversary

 "Fanny & Alexander"

**** (out of ****)

At the beginning of Ingmar Bergman's Swedish epic, "Fanny & Alexander" (1983) we see a young boy playing with a puppet theater. It has a sign on it that translates into English as "Not For Pleasure Alone". Isn't that the purpose of art? Not to merely entertain us but inform. Art can nourish the soul and become much more than "popcorn entertainment".

Few filmmakers had devoted their careers to making great art the way Bergman did. His career was spent holding a mirror to society, making us confront our ugly truths. He delved deep into the soul of man and asked the tough existential questions - is there a God? What is man's purpose? That was enough for me to refer to him as my favorite filmmaker.

I was a teenager when I had my first Bergman experience. I had already mind up my mind that I was going to become a filmmaker myself. I began to take a serious deep dive into the world of cinema, so I could expose myself to all of the great masters. The first Bergman film I saw was "The Seventh Seal" (1957), arguably his most popular work. When the film was over I said to myself, well, I'll never be able to make something like that! It's amazing how quickly our limitations can be made apparent to us.

When "Fanny & Alexander" was released in the U.S., Bergman had announced he was retiring from filmmaking - after a near four decade career. It was still too soon for retirement.

Originally airing on Swedish television as a five hour mini-series, "Fanny & Alexander" was released in the U.S. theaters as a three hour feature-length film. Not until Criterion released the film on DVD were U.S. audiences able to see both versions. I was mixed about which version I myself should review despite knowing the fact Bergman had preferred the five hour version. In the end I decided on the original theatrical three hour version even though there are small touches I like in the mini-series version.

Going back to the opening sequence with the young boy, whom we come to discover is Alexander (Bertil Guve), we see him hide under a table. The soundtrack is now comprised of the ticking of a clock as it begins to strike on the hour. At that moment Alexander sees a statue come to life. In the five hour version Alexander also sees Death as he drags his scythe against the floor. Suddenly everything quickly evaporates as reality sets in and Alexander sees his grandmother, (Gunn Wallgren, in her last film role). 

This sequence is the heart of the film. I believe Bergman foreshadows what the rest of the film will be about in this sequence alone and the themes at play - art, death, fantasy vs reality. Throughout the film we are presented with a world where happiness and sadness seem to go hand and hand. The ominous presence of Death is never too far behind.

It is an interpretation I really haven't come across in many reviews of the movie by "critics" (sheep). As part of his "Great Movies" review, former Chicago Sun-Times critic, Roger Ebert, suggested the movie "may be seen through the prism of children's memories, so that half-understood and half-forgotten events have been reconstructed into a new fable that explains their lives." Vincent Canby, in a glowing review for the New York Times wrote, "Though most of the film is seen through the eyes of Alexander....Mr. Bergman succeeds in blending fact and fantasy in ways that never deny what we in the audience take to be truth."

For a lot of people the elements of childhood is the glue holding Bergman's masterpiece together. I can't deny the movie is in a way about childhood, if for no other reason the main character is a child, but this wasn't the most gripping theme in "Fanny & Alexander" for me. For me it was the clash between joy and sadness, life and death that captured my interests. I think that was Bergman's greater intention.

How else can we interpret the jubilant Christmas gathering that starts off the film and is used to introduce us to all the characters in the Ekdahl family? Within this sequence alone we see characters happy and others sad. Helena sits with an old family friend and lover, Isak (Erland Josephson). Helena tells Isak she feels like crying but quckly can't bring herself to. They then discuss their youth and when they were caught by Helena's husband and they share a laugh. One of the grandchildren sits next to one of the maids at the dinner table and notices she is sad and asks her why. Helena's son, Carl (Borje Ahlstedt) argues with his wife, Lydia (Christina Schollin), presumably because she stopped him from drinking so they wouldn't be late for the Christmas party. Even Helena's other son, theater owner, Oscar (Allan Edwall) when at first seemingly happy, as he is about to give a Christmas speech to his actors, suddenly become melancholy. He talks about the "little world" - the theater - and the big world - reality - and how sometimes the "little world" can help us reflect and understand the "big world". Remember, art is "not for pleasure alone".

The joy of the Christmas gathering is further contrasted by the next large family gathering that occurs. It isn't a spoiler alert to reveal but Oscar suddenly dies, leaving behind his wife, Emillie (Ewa Froling) and their children, Fanny (Pernilla Allwin) and Alexander. Sounds of laughter are now replaced with tears. But this too shall pass as from this sadness comes unexpected joy when Emillie reveals to her children she is going to remarry.  She has fallen in love with Bishop Edvard Vergerus (Jan Malmsjo).

Of course the joy of the mother's marriage is not met the same way by Fanny and Alexander. Not only because they miss their father and love him dearly but because the Bishop, like practically all religious people, is very cruel and strict. The relationship between Alexander and the Bishop reflects Bergman's own relationship with his father. In Bergman's autobiography, The Magic Lantern he writes about his father in a less than flattering light. When told his father may be on his death bed, Bergman initially refused to visit his father. He also writes of the beatings and being shut in a cupboard. After a punishment the children - Bergman had a brother and sister - had to ask their father for forgiveness. There is a heartbreaking scene in "Fanny & Alexander" which mirrors incidents like this.

It is around the time of the father's death Alexander begins to conflate fantasy and reality. Both Fanny and Alexander believe they are seeing the ghost of their father. These appearances by the father recall Hamlet, which the father was rehearsing at the theater before having a sudden attack. Alexander though doesn't necessarily "revenge" his father's death. He wouldn't however mind if any danger came to the Bishop. This picks up on other themes in the film - guilt and trauma. We don't believe Oscar has really come back from the dead but clearly it is a coping mechanism for Alexander to deal with the trauma of his father's death.

By the end of the film, I was left with the impression Alexander will forever be haunted by the memories of these experiences. One trauma will simply replace another. From the death of his father to the emergence of the Bishop in his life. Just as there is a dance between life and death and sadness and joy in our life, so too must there be a dance between fantasy and reality in our life. To paraphrase the film, the "little world" must help us confront the "big world". That seems to be the message Ingmar Bergman is leaving us with in "Fanny & Alexander".

It's not hard to see Bergman intended "Fanny & Alexander" to be his last film. Just the cast alone seems like a celebration with all the old Bergman regulars coming out one last time in honor of the great master himself. I have already mentioned we see Erland Josephson but there are brief roles for Harriet Andersson and Gunnar Bjonstrand. All that's missing is Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson! The film also goes over a greatest hits of Bergman's favorite themes. Even Death makes a cameo!

Forty years after its U.S. release "Fanny & Alexander" holds up very well. The film has a tenderness that may not often be associated with Bergman as well as joy. The entire Christmas sequence is so exquisitely done. There are times when it feels like a warmth is emitting from the screen.

When "Fanny & Alexander" was released several U.S. critics placed in on their annual ten best lists including Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, Vincent Canby, Andrew Sarris and Jeffrey Lyons. The great critic, Michael Wilmington, than writing for the LA Times, declared it the best film of the 1980s. It was nominated for six Academy Awards, four of which it won, including best foreign language film. It was also Bergman's third and final best director nomination.

Luckily, Bergman didn't exactly stay true to his word. Bergman continued writing and directing though only for Swedish television. A year after "Fanny &  Alexander", another Bergman film hit U.S. theaters, "After the Rehearsal" (1984). Then there were other TV movies that were never seen in the U.S. Isn't there a way someone could release these movies on DVD and Blu-ray?! I've been wanting to see "In the Presence of a Clown" (1997) for nearly 30 years! And though Bergman said he would never direct another feature-length theatrical film, he did write screenplays that were directed by others. His son Daniel directed "Sunday's Children" (1994), Billie August directed "The Best Intentions" (1992) and Liv Ullman directed two masterpieces - "Private Confessions" (1999) and "Faithless" (2001). These screenplays were more confessional and personal as Bergman approached old age. And then it happened! Bergman directed "Saraband" (2005), a sequel to "Scenes From A Marriage" (1974) which had a theatrical U.S. release. I rushed to the movie theater as I knew this would be my only time to ever see a new Ingmar Bergman film in a theater.

Oddly enough, for a man I credit as my favorite filmmaker, I haven't reviewed many of his films on this blog over the last 15 years. Only a small handful. When I conceived the idea of having a special celebration this year - the "year of me" - to honor my own milestone birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog, one of the films I immediately knew I wanted to discuss was "Fanny & Alexander" for its 40th anniversary. Then I thought why not pay special attention to other films released in the year of my birth and celebrate their 40th anniversary as well. And while I may not have reviewed many Bergman films, one of the very first posts I wrote the day I started this blog was about Bergman and my favorite films of his.

"Fanny &  Alexander" remains one of the great Bergman films. While it may seem intimidating to watch the five hour mini-series version, I do recommend it. In some ways it is a richer experience. Regardless however I would recommend seeing either version of this film. After 40 years the film has lost none of its power.

Film Review: The Lady Vanishes

 "The Lady Vanishes"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Does she or doesn't she? Exist that is. She seemed real. She spoke to me. I can recall the sound of her voice, the clothes she wore. Even her favorite brand of tea. But did I make her up? No one else seems to remember her.

That is the situation Iris (Margaret Lockwood) finds herself in aboard a train when a sweet elderly lady, Ms. Froy (Dame May Whitty) disappears. No one on the train admits to having seen the lady. Is Iris losing her mind or is there a conspiracy at play?

The movie is "The Lady Vanishes" (1938) directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is usually ranked among Hitchcock's best British films - along with "The 39 Steps" (1935) - and is my personal favorite of his pre-Hollywood movies.

I remembered the basic premise of "The Lady Vanishes" but I had forgotten how fluid the story is. How briskly it is paced. I needed to be reminded of the movie's humor. Hitchcock may be thought of as a suspense director but there were moments of dark humor in his movies. I often thought "Rear Window" (1954) was the best example of the effortless ways Hitchcock would interject humor into one of his stories but "The Lady Vanishes" is right up there too. 

Hitchcock does something else with "The Lady Vanishes". Just as with his Hollywood movies, Hitchcock is able to make a social / political commentary within a mainstream picture. An American audience today may not recognize the political implications of "The Lady Vanishes" but I would have to guess British audiences in 1938 noticed what Hitchcock was doing. Although the movie was made one year before the beginning of World War 2 is it merely a coincidence that the movie was released the same year British Prime Minister Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement? Today it is more commonly known as when Chamberlain appeased Hitler and gave him the Sudetenland. Looking back on this historical event, we often wonder how could everyone have been so blind as to not see the danger in front of them? "The Lady Vanishes" is a movie were characters deliberately blind themselves to danger around them, all for their own self-interest. Also, the movie's villain is from Czechoslovakia. 

Many little touches and the villains' motivation were changed by Hitchcock from the novel the movie was based on - "The Wheel Spins" by Ethel Lina White. Hitchcock, we can only then assume, purposely meant to invoke an air of Nazi Germany and create an atmosphere comprised of paranoia, life and death suspense, and authoritarianism. 

The movie begins with a group of characters stuck at a hotel in the fictional country of Bandrika. An avalanche has caused a train delay, forcing everyone to have to extend their visit at the ill-equipped hotel. This provides the movie with a clever way to introduce many of the characters at once and foreshadow their urgency for leaving the country and boarding the train. It also creates an opportunity for Hitchcock to get in some humor.

The characters include Caldicott (Naunton Wayne) and his friend, Charters (Basil Radford, who else!) - two cricket obsessed Englishmen. These characters provide much of the movie's dry wit. For younger audiences, Wayne and Radford were a popular British comedy team, often playing characters with a cricket obsession. "The Lady  Vanishes" marked their first film appearance together in these roles. Next there is Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) - a musician and ethnomusicologist, who has come to the Bandrika to study its folk music. This creates a meet-cute for Gilbert to be introduced to Iris. He is making too make noise with his clarinet while Iris is trying to sleep. She wants him removed from the room above her. Rounding everything out is Mr. Todhunter (Cecil Parker) a lawyer traveling with his "wife" (Linden Travers) and sweet ol' Ms. Froy.

The following day, prior to boarding the train, Iris is hit on the head by a flower planter, purposely pushed off of a window sill, seemingly intended for Ms. Froy. Acting in a kind of grandmotherly way, Ms. Froy keeps Iris company on the train. Still feeling the effects of the planter, Iris decides to take a nap with Ms. Froy watching on in their shared compartment. After Iris awakens, Ms. Froy is gone. The other passengers in the compartment claim to have never seen the elderly lady. Only Gilbert agrees to help Iris search for the woman, while a doctor, Dr. Hartz (the great Hungarian actor Paul Lukas) tries to suggest Iris may have been hallucinating the appearance of Ms. Froy. The result of being hit on the head. 

Of course the audience knows Ms. Froy was real and Iris is not hallucinating. And so do some of the characters on the train like Caldicott and Charters. When confronted about the existence of Ms. Froy the two men deny having seen her despite the fact they have spoken to her. They want no more delays as they eagerly want to get back to London to watch a cricket match. And Mr. Todhunter, we discover is not traveling with his wife. In reality the two are having an affair and don't want their presence known. The only questions an audience can ask themselves is why was Ms. Froy kidnapped and who took her?

The script written by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder creates a terrific back and forth patter for Gilbert and Iris, not unlike what you would find in a screwball romantic-comedy. So that even in this perilous situation there is still room for humor and romance. Hitchcock would do this often as in "The 39 Steps" and "Rear Window" where murder can bring two people together. It's not difficult to imagine the material in "The Lady Vanishes" being played solely for comedy. In fact, in its original 1938 movie review, the New York Times critic Frank Nugent wrote "If it were not so brilliant a melodrama, we should class it as a brilliant comedy." Maybe to some that might suggest a flaw. The actors aren't giving performances that reflect the danger of the situation. To me however, this shows a director in full command. Hitchcock is able to play us like a piano, taking us on a roller coaster of emotions, effortlessly balancing elements of suspense, drama, comedy and romance.

Astonishingly "The Lady Vanishes" was Michael Redgrave's first significant movie role whereas Margaret Lockwood had appeared in several movies. Redgrave is a very suitable "stand-in" for the kind of role Robert Donat performed masterfully in "The 39 Steps". But he also had a quality to him that reminded me of Melvyn Douglas - just an affable, all-round nice guy. Lockwood on the other hand does have a kind of cool detachment often associated with Hitchcock's leading ladies. Here it isn't quite perfected. I still think Grace Kelly was the best of all of Hitchcock's leading ladies.

By the end of "The Lady Vanishes" it should have become clear what the movie's political objective was. Unfortunately, I find the movie's climax, involving a shoutout sequence somewhat disappointing, especially considering how inventive and fast paced the movie is. But it is here I believe we can see the Chamberlain connection with Mr. Todhunter as a symbolic stand-in - an Englishmen willing to surrender himself to the enemy as a means to avoid further conflict. Then there is the issue of why did all of these events happen. Hitchcock must resort to his old standby, the MacGuffin. I don't know how emotionally satisfying audiences will find it but I suppose it gets the job done. In Peter Bogdanovich's book, Who the Devil Made It, he sits down with Hitchcock, going over his career. Without revealing too much, Hitchcock admits the plot's reveal doesn't make much sense. He also calls the movie "light".

"The Lady Vanishes" was Hitchcock's second to last British film - "Jamaica Inn" (1939) was his final one - before coming to America to direct the Academy Award winning "Rebecca" (1940). From there on Hitchcock's movies would only get better and better and become more and more popular. Making him probably one of the most influential filmmakers in cinema.

Over the last 15 years I haven't reviewed enough of Hitchcock's movies. I have though tried to split my attention between the British movies and the American ones. I like going back to watch Hitchcock's early works and seeing how he matured and his talent grew. That's what makes "The Lady Vanishes" so special to me and why I wanted to include it in the "year of me" - celebrating not only my 15th anniversary writing on this blog but a year's worth of reviews dedicated to artists I admire. Hitchcock was really coming into his own with this movie. It is difficult for me to state where it ranks in popularity with modern audiences but if this movie was made with American actors, I believe it would be considered one of Hitchcock's very best movies.

"The Lady Vanishes" has been remade over the years. One of the better known remakes starred Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould back in 1979. For years it was hard to find on VHS before it was released on DVD. I allowed curiosity to get the best of me and bought it. It serves the purpose of demonstrating what value Hitchcock added to this material. A movie doesn't direct itself. This 1938 version of "The Lady Vanishes" has the ability to work on multiple levels. As escapist entertainment or a political commentary. Hitchcock shows a great talent for being able to juggle several genres at once. For me, it is one of Hitchcock's best movies.