Would you believe I found another Roger Corman movie? No no no........I mean, I understand what you're saying. Of course he's made over 400 films, so you're right : "How hard could it be to find another Corman movie, Ad"? What I meant was, another good Corman movie, one from his classic early period, before he turned into a non-stop exploitation film producing machine. I thought we'd used up all his good ones (and there were indeed a lot), last year when we had such a blast watching sci-fi and horror monster movies on Youtube. That's when I was forced to reassess the talent of Roger Corman and conclude that he was a very good filmmaker. But yeah yeah yeah, okay Ad, shut up. What was the Corman movie you found?
Wouldja believe it was a Roger Corman war movie? And a doggone good one, too. It was called "Ski Troop Attack"(1960), and the title tells the basic tale. In World War Two, a troop of American soldiers on skis are on a secret mission in the Ardennes mountains in Belgium. The Battle of the Bulge has just begun; Corman shows us stock footage of Panzers firing away in the snow. The ski troop has been cut off from it's regiment and is operating behind German lines. The troop's lieutenant decides to continue with the mission, which is to map the area (roads and bridges) and report back via wire about German troop movements.
The LT has a loudmouth sergeant he has to deal with, who's always complaining about not getting a chance to fight. The sarge is old school Army, he hates being second banana to a by-the-book lieutenant. "Is this how they teach things in Officer Candidate School"?, he asks snidely. The sarcasm doesn't play well with the LT. "Listen up, Sergeant - we're here to do a job and we'll do it until it's finished. I give the orders and I'll not have them challenged". "Okay", says the Sarge, "But I'm here to kill Krauts. That's how I was taught to win the war". The friction between the two will continue for a while, and you're expecting a confrontation. I won't tell you if one occurs or not, but for now "let's move out"! (that was the LT talking).
When they finish mapping the area, the troop commandeers the mountain home of a German woman, whose husband is off fighting the war. The sergeant verbally abuses her and she gives it right back. "You blame us for the war, but do you ever look at yourselves? And what about the Poles? They started it". It's a frank exchange that continues with the woman declaring victory. "No matter what you do to me, there'll be thousands of German soldiers waiting for you in the forest. You'll never get out alive and America and your allies will soon lose. Our fuhrer has developed secret weapons, you won't even know what hit you". The LT orders his men to kill her chickens so they'll have food. "Leave her two", he adds magnanimously. If you remember the scene from "Platoon" with Kevin Dillon (which was a Lt. Calley/Mai Lai reference), this is in a similar vein, albeit far less horrific. What's astonishing is that it's depicted in a low budget war film made in 1960, 25 years before "Platoon", when American GIs were rarely portrayed as anything less than heroic. It's a blunt political assessment, and while I'm not taking a position on it's veracity, it's worth noting that the script was written by the great Charles W Griffith, who wrote the best of Corman's films. You could say he's doing an Oliver Stone here, or a John Milius, in analyzing the morality of the situation.
The troop ends up killing the German fraulein (I won't tell you why), then they leave and and hole up in Bronson Cave. Meanwhile, a German ski patrol discovers the fraulein's body. Their leader is none other than Roger Corman! Knowing some Americans must be in the area, they track them for the rest of the movie.
You know how we always say we love short movies? Well what about films that are models of simplicity? We often talk about scripts that include "everything but the kitchen sink", and we're especially impressed when that is pulled off in sixty minutes. But what about the opposite? "Ski Troop Attack" runs only an hour, and instead of giving us the proverbial "Ton of Stuff", Griffith focuses instead on just one event : the demolition of a bridge.
Because the troop is cut off and is now being pursued by the German ski troop, the LT decides on a do or die effort to blow up a bridge that is crucial to German transport. It crosses into Belgium and the Ardennes forest where the Battle of the Bulge is taking place. The troop is down to just four men. The LT directs one of them - the best marksman - to cover the other three, each of whom will climb one of the support columns and place explosive charges. In the course of this operation, the Sarge slips on an icy metal beam. He's hanging on for dear life from hundreds of feet in the air, but the LT -with whom he's had so much friction - scales the column just in time to save his life. From then on, the Sarge cooperates with every order, realizing that his lieutenant is more than just a pretty boy. The third member of the demolition team is a can-do G.I. who volunteers for all the toughest jobs. Just as he's placing his charge beneath the bridge, along comes a German troop train. On the far slope, the German ski patrol arrives simultaneously. The loyal marksman, a Southern boy who graduated from West Point, tries to hold them off, but they're shooting at him and the G.I. who's still on the bridge. Will either of them survive? Will they succeed in blowing the bridge? These are things I cannot reveal, but it's incredible how Griffith and director Corman take this single incident and make it the last half of the film, how they're able to maintain both suspense and surprise.
The movie was surprisingly good, so good that it merits a restoration, in my opinion. Criterion, are you listening? The economy of filmmaking, breaking things down to their bare essentials, the way the actors invest in the material, even though it's clear they only had one take for most if not all of their lines. The LT and the Sarge were played by Michael Forest and Frank Wolff, both Corman regulars. I thought it was one of his very best pictures, a serious war film in which he (as usual) gets the most out of a very limited budget. If you're thinking of seeing it - and you should be - pay no attention to the rating on IMDB. I just checked it, and it's only a 3.5, a number usually reserved for the worst of the worst cheapies. The nitwits who gave it such a lowball oughta have their heads examined. You can take it from Your Dedicated Reviewer that "Ski Troop Attack" is a very good film, one which gets Two Big Thumbs Up and is highly recommended. ////
The previous night we were back with the Crime Doctor, in "The Crime Doctor's Gamble"(1947). This time the Doc's on vacation in Paris. He's there to enjoy himself; he doesn't even wanna think about crime. He says as much to his host, the Prefect of Police, but then wait just a doggone minute : what's the Prefect of Police doing in this movie? Wasn't he just Claude Rains in "Casablanca"? Also, if the Crime Doc doesn't want to talk shop, why is he hanging out with the freakin' Chief of the Paris Police? Well anyway, that's how the movie opens. They're inside a Parisian casino, watching a knife throwing act.
Then the Chief gets a phone call. "Sorry about this", he tells the Crime Doc after hanging up, "but a man has just confessed to a murder. I'm to meet him at the prefecture in ten minutes". So much for the Doctor's vacation.
At the prefecture, the suspect appears dazed. He repeats his confession of how he killed his own father because the father disapproved of his fiance - the girl in the knife-throwing act. After the Chief locks him in a holding cell, the Doc offers his analysis. "That man is innocent. He shows signs of hypnotic trance. The way he spoke was like a programmed recitation. He's not the killer, of that I'm certain".
"Well, you are the expert", replies the Chief. "Will you help me solve the case"?
The Doc nods in assent. His vacay may be ruined, but otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. The trouble is that it's very confusing. The Chief and Dr. Ordway are led to the studio of an artist who's a friend of the confessed killer and his fiancee. The artist feigns ignorance of any knowledge of the crime, but Ordway takes note of his ability as a copyist. "You paint copies of famous masterpieces"?, he asks. "Why yesss", comes the reply (said in French accent). "How ellse am I to make money.......withh theese"? (points to his own paintings).
Using his psychiatric powers of observation, The Doc suspects the artist of forgery. This leads to the discovery of an art theft ring : "They're stealing the originals from museums and replacing them with that man's copies. Then they sell the originals to collectors on the black market for millions of dollars". It's a brilliant deduction, but I'll be damned if I know what it has to do with the murder, or why someone did a Sirhan on the confessor, to get him to cop to the killing. It may be indicative that this was the ninth entry in the ten film Crime Doctor series, and it's possible the writers were being rushed or just plain out of gas. But I'll admit that I couldn't follow it, and I love the Crime Doc as you know. The script moves from one indecipherable plot point to another and then makes use of exposition between two characters to explain everything in the closing minutes. And even when they explained it, I still didn't understand. It wasn't one of the better Crime Doctor movies, not worth ruining his Paris vacation for at any rate, and much as I hate to do this, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to give it Two Thumbs Down, or One Down and One Sideways, just because we love the series. But yeah, unless you're a completist you can skip it. /////
That's all for tonight. I'm writing from home, off work for a few days, and in a surprise announcement I'm going to Disneyland tomorrow (oh boy!). I haven't been there since October 2011, so you can bet I'm excited. It'll be late when I get home, but I'll try to give a report. See you then.
I send you tons and tons of love, as always. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment