It seems most of the reviewers have concentrated on the historical and philosophical aspects of this movie, but I'd like to focus on it terms of its success as a film. In general, I love a good epic, but this effort simply is no match for such brilliant achievements as David Lean's best -- Dr. Zhivago, Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia. This is a compelling story, whatever the historical inaccuracies may be; also, it's well produced, directed and acted, largely gorgeous to see, generally effective for this kind of big film. What it lacks is the physical and emotional sweep, the irresistible suspension of disbelief, the ability to grab your attention and hold it -- in other words, the extraordinary talents of such as Lean and a few others (John Ford, Henry Hathaway and William Wyler come to mind). Despite all this, I really enjoyed it on many levels and would recommend it to any lover of large-scale films of the Golden Age of Hollywood. I think it would not have suffered a bit had it been filmed in black & white. Nor did I miss the electronic enhancements so common in today's movies.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Food of Love
(2002)
Why is it no one can spell Juilliard correctly?
22 April 2006
Forgive me, but I'm a retired proofreader, and Juilliard is almost never spelled correctly except by people directly connected with the school.
More to the point, I quite liked the film. Everything worked for me -- acting, direction, story, production. Not that I thought it a great film -- I did think there could have been more attention paid to motivation in several instances, such as Kennington's not answering Mansourian's many messages, Paul's involvement with Alden, and Paul's leaving Juilliard. Not to mention how Paul went from being good enough to get into the highly competitive Juilliard to not being good enough for a career as a musician in just a few years. Another 20 minutes could have fleshed out many aspects of the sometimes sketchy narrative.
While the wide range of opinion expressed by others above is not unusual in film commentary, the diametrically opposed views on so many points is fascinating to me. Perhaps hot-button subjects such as homosexuality, abortion, etc. inspire hyper-sensitive, if not hyper-critical responses -- pro and con.
What concerns me is how little or how narrowly most of the commentators -- gay as well as straight -- seem to understand the uniqueness of everyone's gayness, everyone's coming-of-age, everyone's taste and attractions. Of course, the same is no doubt true of heterosexuals.
For many, experimenting and/or interacting with peers is the "right" or "best" way to come to terms with one's sexuality. For others, far older or younger people are more appropriate partners, whether for short-term liaisons or for longer relationships. While some of this no doubt derives from our individual (sometimes twisted) psychological underpinnings, I'm convinced that such variations often are merely part of the great breadth of human nature.
Regardless of gender, many older people do gravitate to the younger for intimacy, but it's also true that many younger people gravitate to the older. Of course, some are manipulative, even predatory, but by no means is it always the older taking advantage of the younger. Regrettably, I think only one of the commentators above noted that Paul was using the older men, just as they were using him. Often, such "unequal" relationships are mutually beneficial.
Speaking of my own non-sexual experience, as a child and well into adolescence, I felt (and others observed) that I related more comfortably with adults than with my peers. In adulthood, it's been just the opposite -- I've been more comfortable with people 10, then 20, now 30 years and more younger. The only period when I was in-sync with my peers was my college years and shortly thereafter.
Frankly, my development as a gay person might have been much less difficult had someone 25 or 35 or 45 initiated an intimate relationship (sexual or not) with me in my adolescence. My few halting attempts to find intimacy with adult men were met with abject terror of even being suspected of pedophilia. Left to my own devices, I didn't really figure it out until I was about 30. Not that I ever thought I was, or tried to be, straight; I simply didn't have a sexual or emotional life. It's been rich and rewarding since, but I can't help wondering how much I might have missed. But enough about me.
It strikes me as troubling that so many, perhaps most people lack the certain instinctual knowledge that everyone's experience, everyone's psyche, is different. They may know it intellectually, but not viscerally. And so they can't help judging other people, as well as art and literature, as if everyone's life experience were much the same.
We're all entitled to our own thoughts, reactions, opinions. But to judge the characters, situations, motivations in a piece of fiction as unrealistic because they don't match one's own life experience is simply off the mark. Virtually everything in the novel as well as the film is familiar to me, so I guess that mean's it's realistic...no?
More to the point, I quite liked the film. Everything worked for me -- acting, direction, story, production. Not that I thought it a great film -- I did think there could have been more attention paid to motivation in several instances, such as Kennington's not answering Mansourian's many messages, Paul's involvement with Alden, and Paul's leaving Juilliard. Not to mention how Paul went from being good enough to get into the highly competitive Juilliard to not being good enough for a career as a musician in just a few years. Another 20 minutes could have fleshed out many aspects of the sometimes sketchy narrative.
While the wide range of opinion expressed by others above is not unusual in film commentary, the diametrically opposed views on so many points is fascinating to me. Perhaps hot-button subjects such as homosexuality, abortion, etc. inspire hyper-sensitive, if not hyper-critical responses -- pro and con.
What concerns me is how little or how narrowly most of the commentators -- gay as well as straight -- seem to understand the uniqueness of everyone's gayness, everyone's coming-of-age, everyone's taste and attractions. Of course, the same is no doubt true of heterosexuals.
For many, experimenting and/or interacting with peers is the "right" or "best" way to come to terms with one's sexuality. For others, far older or younger people are more appropriate partners, whether for short-term liaisons or for longer relationships. While some of this no doubt derives from our individual (sometimes twisted) psychological underpinnings, I'm convinced that such variations often are merely part of the great breadth of human nature.
Regardless of gender, many older people do gravitate to the younger for intimacy, but it's also true that many younger people gravitate to the older. Of course, some are manipulative, even predatory, but by no means is it always the older taking advantage of the younger. Regrettably, I think only one of the commentators above noted that Paul was using the older men, just as they were using him. Often, such "unequal" relationships are mutually beneficial.
Speaking of my own non-sexual experience, as a child and well into adolescence, I felt (and others observed) that I related more comfortably with adults than with my peers. In adulthood, it's been just the opposite -- I've been more comfortable with people 10, then 20, now 30 years and more younger. The only period when I was in-sync with my peers was my college years and shortly thereafter.
Frankly, my development as a gay person might have been much less difficult had someone 25 or 35 or 45 initiated an intimate relationship (sexual or not) with me in my adolescence. My few halting attempts to find intimacy with adult men were met with abject terror of even being suspected of pedophilia. Left to my own devices, I didn't really figure it out until I was about 30. Not that I ever thought I was, or tried to be, straight; I simply didn't have a sexual or emotional life. It's been rich and rewarding since, but I can't help wondering how much I might have missed. But enough about me.
It strikes me as troubling that so many, perhaps most people lack the certain instinctual knowledge that everyone's experience, everyone's psyche, is different. They may know it intellectually, but not viscerally. And so they can't help judging other people, as well as art and literature, as if everyone's life experience were much the same.
We're all entitled to our own thoughts, reactions, opinions. But to judge the characters, situations, motivations in a piece of fiction as unrealistic because they don't match one's own life experience is simply off the mark. Virtually everything in the novel as well as the film is familiar to me, so I guess that mean's it's realistic...no?
Fanny
(1961)
Unfathomable neglect
13 February 2006
With so many film-lovers ranking FANNY among their all-time favorites, and with so many still carrying a crush for Horst and/or Leslie, it's simply unfathomable why this wonderful film isn't on DVD. I do have an old Beta tape, but I long to see it in a digitized widescreen home-theater release. I saw it in Radio City Music Hall when it debuted 50 years ago and still recall it very fondly. There was controversy then about not making the film version a musical, as it was based on the fine stage musical. To all who still care about that, and to those who insist on comparing it to the old Pagnol trilogy, I say -- relax and let yourself enjoy this wonderful movie.
Home Before Dark
(1958)
Another Gem Sadly Unavailable
7 February 2006
Well known are the reasons why major films like the original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, 36 HOURS, et al. have been unavailable for home viewing for very long periods of time. But it really puzzles me why a film such as this excellent effort, with a fine story and an excellent cast, from a name director (Mervyn Leroy) should have gone virtually unseen for so many years. I saw it at age 17 when it premiered in 1958, and numerous times on TV until about the mid-80s. I don't recall it's running as long as 136 minutes, so except for its original release, I think I mostly saw it in an edited-for-TV version. As a lifelong night-shift worker, I can recall seeing it on very-late-night TV an average of once a year. Having seen it on local stations in Boston, New York and San Francisco before the mid-80s, I presume it was pulled from circulation nationwide or worldwide. Surely it's time new generations had the opportunity to see this solid psychological thriller.
Brewster's Millions
(1945)
where oh where?...why oh why?
28 January 2006
Where has this wonderfully funny movie been hiding all these years? And why? It's long been on my short list of films I wish would show up on home video, along with Mel Brooks' "High Anxiety" and Altman's "A Perfect Couple" and "A Wedding". Though most of what Allan Dwan directed before and after WWII was more or less serious, he made nothing but a dozen or so comedies/musicals from 1940 through 1945. And this may have been the best of them, certainly vastly superior to the 1985 Richard Pryor remake. The all-but-forgotten Dennis O'Keefe starred in the last several, including 2 that can still be found on VHS -- "Up in Mabel's Room" and "Getting Gertie's Garter". These may have constituted the last flowering of the screwball comedy genre that had produced so many hilarious films since the mid-30s. To be fair, "My Friend Irma", which introduced Martin & Lewis just a few years later, was probably the very last really worthy film of the genre. These Dwan/O'Keefe gems were not so much the Three Stooges/Marx Bros./Lucy breathless kind of silly as they were softer slapstick fare. In fact, they were the precursor of some of the earliest and funniest TV sitcoms -- Marie Wilson as "My Friend Irma", Elena Verdugo in "Meet Millie", Joan Davis in "I Married Joan" and Eve Arden as "Our Miss Brooks" -- all of which debuted in 1952. Granted, "Brewster's Millions" is by no means a great film, but it's typical of a kind of good light-hearted entertainment that many might enjoy today if given the chance.
Pushover
(1954)
Not Quite
16 February 2003
This is a fairly tight little thriller, a good but not quite good enough film noir to be counted among the classics. While it owes a lot to "Double Indemnity" and foreshadows "Rear Window," it just doesn't rise to their memorable level. Fred MacMurray offers an eerily familiar, though less inspired, repeat of his performance in the Wilder classic; Kim Novak (in her first film) is no match for Stanwyck, nor did she ever become one; Richard Quine simply was not as fine a director as Hitchcock or Wilder. And yet, it's a pretty good bit of entertainment, recommended to those who appreciate the genre as a whole rather than merely a short list of classics.
Tomorrow Is Forever
(1946)
My all-time sentimental favorite
27 September 2002
Since the first time I saw this wonderful film on late-night TV, maybe 30 years ago, it has been my sentimental favorite. Every time I've seen it since, once a year on average, it's made me weep; not many films ever have this effect on me, even once. I simply don't understand why it isn't better known, not to mention better regarded. The touching story, fine direction, good score and superb acting add up to a great experience. For me, the performances by Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles are their most effective; hers ranks with her work in "Three Came Home" and "Since You Went Away," while his is even finer than in "The Stranger." Anyone who loves a good old-fashioned love story, sob story, multi-generational saga of the type Hollywood used to make so well should give this one a try.
Tell Your Friends