kwindrum

This movie often seems surrealistic, sometimes comic, sometimes despairing and it has musical numbers which come from another dimension entirely--they are a mix of Busby Berkeley and 1960s design. The film seems like an eccentric comedy at first with 15 year-old tomboy Daisy (Natalie Wood) and her wacky mother (Ruth Gordon) both competing over who can chew scenery faster. Suddenly, she's plucked by sinister studio head Christopher Plummer and turned into a star. The studios of the time were certainly often sinister, but I found the dispatch of Ma Clover to the mental institution a bit of a stretch. The film has other implausible moments plus a tone of anachronism as the songs, by Andre and Dory Previn, are 1960s Broadway in style. Many scenes of loneliness and isolation--a strangely deserted Santa Monica pier,an empty desert motel, a studio that always seems empty, even the sound stages seem empty. You rarely see the bustle you expect in a film set at a studio or in Hollywood. This is an odd, fascinating, 1/2 successful film.

I agree with other comments about this being a little-known gem with a terrific cast and that it is a pleasure to see Thelma Ritter in a leading role. Cukor's direction is efficient and he's particularly good with long, unbroken takes which help the actors gain momentum and relate to each other. What I found interesting was that the film is very direct about marriage as an economic proposition and how it is often a business arrangement. The other interesting quality is that many of the scenes are almost surreal in their grotesqueness. I really like seeing Scott Brady in a romantic lead, he's very fresh. The film is interesting as a Fox film made right before their turn to CinemaScope the next year with the somewhat similar, and inferior, How to Marry a Millionarie. This film would have been in color and 'scope if made later. It also has some location shooting which was a growing trend at Fox and other studios during this period yet the pacing and dialogue-driven quality of the film is much like a screwball comedy from 10 years earlier.

I don't think this is a typical western at all. For the first half-hour it keeps viewers in the dark about situations and at points its twists seem more like those of a film noir. It also has an odd shift in tone. The first 1/3 is pretty light and it gets progressively grimmer and darker as the characters head south into Mexico. I think the key to its excellence is that there is a moral drama going on here between James Stewart and Dean Martin and they are both excellent and very moving. The fact that they are two of my favorite actors obviously has something to do with my opinion. In particular, Dean is much better then his reputation would suggest. The film has a very exciting climax, good supporting cast, some good dialog and is nicely shot, in Panavision, by western specialist William Clothier and has a Morricone-inspired score by the great Jerry Goldsmith.