Last night's movie was "She Played with Fire"(1957), an intriguing British thriller starring Jack Hawkins as "Oliver Branwell", an insurance investigator who meets an old flame while working on a case. The movie opens on Christmas Eve, with Hawkins being sent to a mansion named Lowis Manor to inspect the damage from a small fire. The gentleman of the house,"Tracy Moreton" (Dennis Price), shows him around. While looking over the living room, where a wall and several paintings were burned, the men are joined by a beautiful woman. "Mr. Branwell, I'd like you to meet my wife Sarah" (Arlene Dahl). They each nod hello, but there's recognition in their eyes. Sarah can't restrain a smile, though it's imperceptible to her husband, who's preoccupied about the fire. "Nice to meet you", Hawkins and Sarah say. We find out later, after Hawkins returns to the mansion, that they not only already know each other, but that they were once almost engaged.
But does Tracy Moreton know this, and is he setting Hawkins up? I mentioned that Hawkins returned to the mansion, but it arises from a coincidence. You see, while Hawkins is still working on the insurance case, which he finds possibly fradulent (because he thinks the fire might've been arson), he comes in to the office one day and Moreton is there waiting for him. His supervisor explains the situation. "Oh hello Branwell. I found Mr. Moreton in the parking lot, sitting in his car. He was suffering a terrible asthma attack, could hardly draw breath poor fellow. I brought him in here to rest, turns out he knows you". "Oh yes, I'm the agent on his case, hello Mr. Moreton". Moreton apologizes for the inconvenience, then asks if Hawkins can do him a favor. "Would you be so kind as to fetch my wife? I was supposed to pick her up from shopping, but I'm in no shape to drive now. Oh, and for your trouble I have tickets to the opera tonight. The way I'm feeling, I don't think I can make that either. Sarah would be disappointed not to go. Would you take her? My way of saying thanks".
Hawkins is somewhat flabbergasted at Moreton's sudden offer, but agrees to the tasks, and the next thing we see, he and Sarah are attending the opera. On the way home, we discover their prior history. "It's wonderful to see you again, Sarah, but why did you leave me in China"? "Me, leave you? I waited for you in Hong Kong". "Well, I guess it was a mix-up. And it has been five years. Glad you married well, but......I have to ask.......do you love him"? She hesitates. "Well, let's say he needs me and that's good enough".
When they arrive back at Lowis Manor, Tracy Moreton insists Hawkins stay for dinner. "It's pouring and I won't take no for an answer. And you might as well stay the night". What's going on? Does he know about Hawkins and Sarah? In the car, Sarah answered "no" to that question, but something's weird. Why is Tracey so friendly to his insurance investigator? Why is he so free with his wife? Hawkins tries to beg off the dinner invitation, and he sure as hell doesn't want to stay the night. He's thinking he might be getting set up for a "Double Indemnity" style frame job, or if not that, maybe the fire was caused by arson and Moreton is responsible. Maybe he's trying to butter Hawkins up, and worse, maybe Sarah's helping him! Better to concentrate on his job, maintain a professional demeanor. He hasn't - at this point - fooled around with Sarah anyway. She's married, they met by sheer coincidence. But something fishy is going on. Whatever it is, Hawkins intends to find out.
Meanwhile, he's been assigned another case. The wife of a popular theater singer (Christopher Lee!) has laid him up with a black eye. It seems he was seeing another woman. The producers of his show want him to put makeup over the shiner and forge ahead. "The show must bloody well go on". But Lee won't do it. They accuse him of faking it, trying to get out of his contract. As the insurance investigator, Hawkins must get to the bottom of the accusation because the producers will have a claim if it's true. He goes to the apartment of the woman with whom Lee's affair is alleged. She's a hot number played by Greta Gynt. She puts the make on Hawkins, who once again has to strive to remain professional. While he's there, though, he notices a painting in her bedroom. Where has he seen it before? Why yes! That's it! He's seen it at Lowis Manor. It's one of the paintings that was damaged in the fire, a landscape of the Manor itself. After wriggling away from Greta Gynt, he goes back to the Manor to see Tracy Moreton. "I have a question about one of the insured paintings". Moreton explains that he's taken it to a restoration specialist. After interviewing the man the next day, Hawkins thinks he knows what has taken place. Moreton, or someone he hired, set an arson fire in an elaborate art fraud scheme. I should probably stop there and give you no more of the plot (and it's tempting to keep going), but there's still the issue of Hawkins and Sarah Moreton and I want you to discover it yourself because this is a really good mystery. Remember, there's the whole issue of "is Hawkins being set up by Sarah's husband Tracy", who comes across as too accommodating, too smooth, as if he doesn't notice what's right in front of him.
In the early stages, while the backstory is being established (i.e. Hawkins and Sarah's prior relationship), the direction has a light touch, with slightly whimsical music and an almost rom/com sensiblity demonstrating Hawkins foibles as he struggles to maintain his composure first with Sarah and then Greta Gynt (in an exaggeratedly sexy role). But then in the second half, director Sidney Gilliat brings the hammer down hard. Things get serious fast when a game changing event takes place. That's all you need to know. We love Jack Hawkins here at the blog. He's one of those actors who can do it all, from the self-effacing ladies' man (ala Cary Grant) in this movie, to a grim Navy captain about to go down with his ship (in "The Cruel Sea"). We just saw him as the prevaricating Communist colonel in "State Secret". He was great in that film and he's even better here because he's the star. Arlene Dahl is good as Sarah Moreton, who may or may not be in on the fraud scheme, and Dennis Price is the epitome of the Veddy Brrrittish gentleman as her husband Tracy. Two Big Thumbs Up for "She Played with Fire" (verging on Two Huge). The picture is once again widescreen and as usual razor sharp. It's very very highly recommended! ///
We've been on a roll lately. The previous night we saw an out-and-out masterpiece entitled "Sons and Lovers"(1960), featuring a tremendous performance from the late, great Dean Stockwell as the eldest son of an English coal miner and his independent minded wife. The time is the early 1900s. Stockwell is a talented artist whose mum (Wendy Hiller) wants him to develop his ability to prevent him from surrendering to the grubby, dangerous miner's life that's the lot of her husband and younger son. "I want you to remain 'above ground' " is how she puts it, "your art's your ticket out". Her husband - Stockwell's father - disagrees. "All this sketchin' and paintin' ain't gonna getcha nowhere. What? The mines ain't good enough for ya? Afraid to get your hands dirty like your brother Arthur"? As played by Trevor Howard, father "Walter" is by turns verbally abusive, raging drunk, physically violent (to housewares if not to family), and sheepishly apologetic on mornings after. Really, he feels unappreciated for what he does do, which is bust his butt in a soul-deadening job that kills a lot of men, in order to put food on the table. So what if he drinks away a lot of his salary? "Wouldn't none of ya have a roof over your head if it wasn't for me".
Still, momma Gertrude (Hiller) wants a better life for young Paul (Stockwell), a spirited, intelligent boy whose capabilities are far above his station. Paul tries to remain above the fray but his Dad is forever egging him on. He starts to believe it when Walter tells him he'll never make a living with his art. "Maybe I should just go down the mine", he says one day. But Gertrude won't have it. Neither will his girlfriend "Miriam" (Heather Sears), a loving soul who comes from a fundamentalist background. Her mother is so rigid, she tells Miriam that sex is only for procreation, and even then is to be gutted out without lust and never enjoyed. "That boy you're seein' (Irish brogue), he's no good for thee, he's got 'is 'ead in the clouds". But Miriam loves Paul and encourages him to stick to his guns. One day, Paul gets a showing for his paintings. He thinks everyone will hate them, but an art patron sees his potential and offers him a full scholarship to an institute in London.
Paul wants to go, but that would mean leaving Miriam. He's getting restless however, and Miriam, though she's given herself to him in spite of her mother's orders, doesn't satisfy his desire to find someone equally yearning for some unknowable sense of freedom. Miriam's too tied to the ways and morals of the village. Paul wants a bigger life, whether through his art or a yet undiscovered pursuit. He shuns the scholarship offer to take a job at a local clothing factory. The employees there are all women, including the supervisor, a suffragette. "Pay no attention to Miss Dawes", the owner (a man) advises Paul. "She likes to spout her philosophies in the workplace. I wish she'd save 'em for the soapbox, but she's a good employee, so I just ignore her. You should too".
"He's got a thing against women's rights", Clara Dawes (Mary Ure) tells Paul as he settles in. "Do you"?
"Why, no. No ma'am", Paul replies. Miss Dawes is very pretty. He stammers his way through his first day of training, but later attends one of her rallies. He finds her independence fascinating. Possibly it reminds him of his mother who is also his champion. But with Clara Dawes it's also alluring because she's not only beautiful, her feistiness offers him a challenge. He sees her as an equal in the philosophical sense, a kindred spirit, but as a woman he wants to possess her. Paul pays lip service to her womens' rights stance, putting her on the spot at her rally by asking in front of the crowd if she believes in free love. "Why, in fact I do"!, she declares, standing up to him. Then she adds, "but that doesn't mean I'm free with my love". Paul pursues Clara after that, even when he learns she's married! "Why didn't you say so"?, he asks her. "Because we're separated", she replies. Soon they are in love, and Clara's estranged husband - who also works at the clothing factory - threatens Paul to stay away from his wife. "He means it", Clara says. "He'll kill you too". The guy's a big brute and Paul wonders what's up with this woman. "Do you still love your husband on not"? And it's the same deal as in "She Played with Fire". "He needs me", Clara admits. Unlike in "Fire", where the marriage was part of the mystery, i.e. were Mr. and Mrs. Moreton part of a doublecross against Jack Hawkins? - here, in "Sons and Lovers" it's just one more stop on Paul's highway of life. That's a lousy metaphor, I know, but you get my drift. His story is a saga. He's a young, yearning artist who's trying to find his way, and one of the obstacles he comes up against is The Married Woman, who - even though she's a budding feminist - isn't about to divorce her husband to marry Paul, because divorce just isn't done in 1904 England, not even for Clara Dawes. So, young Paul, sadder but wiser, goes back home to the village, where Miriam loves him still.
I did feel that too much time was spent on the Clara Dawes subplot, because even though Mary Ure is great in the role, Clara is - to me - an unlikable character. She's self centered and even bland despite her strong beliefs. What happened to Paul's burgeoning career as an artist? To me it's unlikely he'd give it up entirely, just over his infatuation with Clara.
Having said all of that, this is a tremendous film with a Capital T. In fact, we need Big Dorky Dan from the last days of College Records (when it was called Aaron's Too) to slam his fist down on the counter and declare it "Tra-MENN-Dous"!! like he did when we asked him about "The Late Great Planet Earth", because that's where that exclamatory version of tremendous came from. Dan was the guy who originated it, and that's how great "Sons and Lovers" is. It deserves a fist-pounding Big Dorky Dan exclamation. I later read on Wiki that it got seven Academy Award nominations. In addition to the career-making performance by Dean Stockwell (who was way more than just The Candy Colored Clown They Call The Sandman, an incredible actor he was), you also get stupendously authentic turns from Trevor Howard and Wendy Hiller as Paul's parents, stuck in their depressing situation with no way out because, where they're from it's the mines or nothing, unless you were born with a special talent.......like their son Paul, who mother supports but Dad does not. Howard was nominated for Best Actor for his role. I think Stockwell should've been nominated also, and either of them could've won. Mary Ure was nominated for Supporting Actress, though as good as she is I think Wendy Hiller should've been a shoo-in for an Oscar. As it turned out, the movie only won for Best Cinematography, which was well deserved also. But it could've easily ran the table and I'm surprised it's not more well known. I'd never heard of it, which is either an embarrassment on my part or a measure of how much it's been forgotten, but it's time for a whole new audience to see this epic motion picture : it gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, our highest recommendation. Absolutely don't miss it, it's another one of those movies that might not be up on Youtube indefinitely, so watch it soon. The picture is widescreen and razor sharp. ////
Wow, I'm out of breath. But I mean, we've been having some great luck recently, and with our last four films in particular. We've even extended our running times of late. "Sons" ran 103 minutes, which would've seemed an eternity not long ago, when we only had the attention span for 60 minute Shortinos. Now don't get me wrong, because Short Films still rule, but just the fact that we were able to sit through longer fare means the movies were exceptionally good. As an aside, I think our preference for shorter films mostly has to do with the fact that we're watching movies on a computer. While it's turned out to be quite tolerable - and a boon for older films - I don't know if we could sit through, say, three hours of "Andrei Rublev" on a laptop, which would be no problem in a theater. Anyway, I'm blathering on now so I'll shut up, and besides.......it's time to watch a movie. So, I'll bid you good night and wish you a wonderful weekend. Thanks for reading. I send you Tons of Love, as always. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment