[go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label Sidney Poitier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sidney Poitier. Show all posts

Monday, January 02, 2023

My Ten Favorite New-to-Me Movies of 2022

Happy New Year!

No time like the present to look back over my movie-watching for the past year and share what my ten favorite new-to-me movies were, right?  Here we go!



1. The Prisoner of Zenda (1952) A British hunter (Stewart Granger) masquerades as the king (Stewart Granger) of a small European nation so that the king's enemies (including James Mason) can't usurp the throne while the king lies ill.  Things get complicated when the fake king falls in love with the woman (Deborah Kerr) who is intended to marry the real king.  Much swashbuckling ensues.

2. 36 Hours (1964) A high-ranking Allied officer (James Garner) is kidnapped by Nazis just before the Normandy invasion so they can try to trick him into telling them where the Allies intend to invade.  This movie kept both my husband and I on the edges of our seats, in the best way possible.  Absolutely terrific.

3. Hamlet at Elsinore (1964) Marvelous production of Hamlet actually filmed in the Kronborg Castle in Helsingør, Denmark.  Hamlet (Christopher Plummer) must figure out if his uncle-stepfather Claudius (Robert Shaw) actually killed his father or not.  He's assisted by his friend Horatio (Michael Caine), but eventually loses his throne to Fortinbras (Donald Sutherland) after all.

4. Paris When it Sizzles (1964) A screenwriter (William Holden) tries to cure his writer's block and write his next smash hit with the help of a typist (Audrey Hepburn) with quirky and funny results. I feel like Alex and Emma (2003) is basically a remake of this movie, though I suppose they might both just be inspired by the true story of Fyodor Dostoyevsky writing a book under a tight deadline with the help of a stenographer that he fell in love with and subsequently married.

5. Lilies of the Field (1963) A wandering handyman (Sidney Poitier) gets conned into helping a group of German nuns build a new chapel.  This is an oddball movie, and no mistake, but filled with sweet charm.

6. Gold of the Seven Saints (1961) Two fur trappers (Clint Walker and Roger Moore) find gold and then try to keep two different bands of outlaws from finding and stealing it.  It's a story that's been told onscreen quite a few times, but I love that the treasure didn't actually make these two friends have a falling-out AND there is one line that Clint Walker says at the end that is so unequivocally perfect and unexpected and wonderful that I must love this movie.  Also, Roger Moore as a fur trapper must be seen to be believed.

7. The Beautician and the Beast (1997) A New York City beauty school teacher (Fran Drescher) gets hired to teach the children of an East-European Dictator (Timothy Dalton) because one of his aides thinks she's a science teacher.  I love how they fall in love because she's the first person who has told him the straight truth and treated him like a person in a very long time, and how her kind heart keeps her truth-telling constructive instead of destructive.  

8. Wild Harvest (1947) Two friends (Alan Ladd and Robert Preston) own and lead a group of combine harvesters who travel around harvesting crops for farmers.  They have a falling out over a woman (Dorothy Lamour) who marries one of them but desires the other.  Yes, it's a movie about guys harvesting crops.  Yes, the whole thing is held together by the buddies-to-enemies dynamic between Ladd and Preston.

9. Top Gun: Maverick (2022) An unruly pilot (Tom Cruise) teaches a bunch of hotshot pilots how to not get killed on an important mission.  Actually has more of a plot than the first Top Gun (1986), and I love how they were able to include Val Kilmer despite his health problems.

10. The Prisoner of Zenda (1937) A British hunter (Ronald Colman) masquerades as the king (Ronald Colman) of a small European nation so that the king's enemies (including Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) can't usurp the throne while the king lies ill.  Things get complicated when the fake king falls in love with the woman (Madeleine Carroll) who is intended to marry the real king.  Much swashbuckling ensues.


Um, yes.  Two different versions of The Prisoner of Zenda are on this list.  And what makes those wilder is that they used the exact same shooting script for both of them.  I like the 1952 better, mostly because I like all three leads much more, but the 1937 is really excellent too.

Some years, it's tricky to come up with a top ten because I watched so many good new movies, I have trouble deciding on ten.  Some years, it's easier because I didn't watch that many new-to-me movies that I loved.  This was one of those years -- I think I came up with 12 possibles for this list, so narrowing it down to ten wasn't hard at all!

Friday, July 29, 2022

My Answers to This Year's LOWCW Tag

Every year, Olivia and Heidi and I have a lot of fun coming up with the questions for our tag.  Every year, I look forward to answering them myself.  And, every year, there's at least one question that stumps me or makes me have to think really hard about my answer.  Which is all part of the fun!  (This year it was question #9 that I struggled with.  Now you know.)

You can find the original tag here, on my kick-off post.  Also, don't forget that today is the LAST DAY to enter my giveaway!

If I've reviewed a movie I talk about here, I've linked its title to my full review, in case you're curious to read more about a particular film.

1) Favorite western focused on a lone hero? 

That would be 3:10 to Yuma (1957), in which struggling rancher Dan Evers (Van Heflin) singlehandedly stands up against an entire outlaw gang to take its leader, notorious Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) to the train that will transport him to prison.  It is a moody, atmospheric, aesthetically pleasing masterpiece of tension.



2) Favorite western focused on a group of compadres? 

The Magnificent Seven (1960), no contest.  It truly is magnificent.  The acting is superb, the writing is taut and masterful, and the score by Elmer Bernstein is one of the finest movie scores ever written.  I never, ever get tired of this movie.



3) Favorite western with a female main character? 

The Rare Breed (1966).  It's about a British widow (Maureen O'Hara) and her daughter (Juliet Mills) who bring a prize Hereford bull to the St. Louis stockyards to auction off.  They get worried that something terrible will befall the bull while it's being shipped to its new owner (Brian Keith) in Texas, so they insist on accompanying the man (James Stewart) tasked with delivering him.  It's a pretty unusual western in a lot of ways, and really enjoyable.



4) Favorite western with a POC main character? 

That would be Silverado (1985).  It has three main characters: Emmett (Scott Glenn), Paden (Kevin Kline), and Mal (Danny Glover), who join forces to take down a common enemy.  Mal's trying to save his family's homestead and convince his sister to abandon some questionable life choices she's been more or less forced to make.


Now, since Silverado is an ensemble piece, I'm going to answer this question twice so I can also mention Buck and the Preacher (1972) , which Sidney Poitier starred in and directed.  It's about African American pioneers seeking new homes in Kansas after the Civil War.  I highly recommend it to older teens and adults.  It probably hits a little too heavy for kids.



5) Favorite western with kids in it? 

Shane (1953) is told through the eyes of a boy (Brandon de Wilde) who idolizes the gunfighter (Alan Ladd) that his father (Van Heflin) and mother (Jean Arthur) have befriended and hired to work on their farm.  It's a beautiful meditation on what happens when a child idolizes an adult, and the kind of influence that idolization can have on the adult in question.  Shane works as hard as he can not to let that little boy down, but he works even harder to convince the boy that his own father is the real hero of the story.



6) Favorite western set somewhere other than the United States? 

The Man from Snowy River (1982).  It's also my favorite movie of all time, and it's all about a young man coming of age in Australia, finding work and falling in love and generally proving himself.  I saw this in the theater when I was two years old and fell in love with horses, Australia, and westerns all in one fell swoop.  It's been my favorite ever since.



7) Favorite "western" that doesn't fit the genre's dictionary definition? 

Well, The Proud Rebel (1958) takes place in Illinois, and so it's not technically a western.  But it feels like a western, so I call it one anyway.  It's about a man (Alan Ladd) searching for a doctor who can cure his mute son (David Ladd).  They end up working for a farmer (Olivia de Havilland) who's being harassed by some neighbors that want to buy her land, or force her off it if she won't sell.  And they have to overcome a bunch of problems, but they also form a nice little family in the process.



8) Favorite funny western? 

Support Your Local Sheriff (1969), always and forever.  A quirky, clever drifter (James Garner) takes the job as sheriff in a lawless goldrush town, makes a deputy out of the town drunk (Jack Elam), falls in love with the mayor's daughter (Joan Hackett), and dispatches a family of ne'erdowells, all in the most unconventional ways possible.  It's a spoof of western tropes, but such a loving spoof that its humor completely works.



9) Favorite tragic/sad western? 

The Alamo (1960).  Almost every single character dies.  Gloriously, yes, but still!  Tragic.  And yet, I watch it over and over.



10) Favorite western TV show?

The Big Valley (1965-69).  I love every member of the Barkley family, most especially Heath (Lee Majors) and Victoria (Barbara Stanwyck).  I want to be friends with them and hang out with them and go on adventures with them and just... can I either get adopted into or marry into that family already?  Please?


There you have it!  I can't believe that today is the last official day of Legends of Western Cinema Week already!  Like I said, if you haven't entered my giveaway yet, do that here.  And if you haven't made your guesses about my movie poster game yet, do that here.

Thursday, July 28, 2022

"Buck and the Preacher" (1972)

Black pioneers?  Black cowboys?  Did those exist?  Why, yes, as a matter of fact, they did.  Not only did they exist, they were a major force in settling the west, especially after the American Civil War.  Black pioneers headed west by the thousands, looking for a place to start over far from the land where they had been enslaved -- forty thousand or more.  Many of them were part of the 1879 "Exoduster Migration" to Kansas, but many others went in small groups whenever and however they could.

Sadly, Hollywood has largely ignored this aspect of Old West history.   Buck and the Preacher (1972) is the only feature film that focuses on this mass migration.  Black characters show up in other westerns, sure.  But they're usually side characters, co-stars, or part of an ensemble cast.  Buck and the Preacher broke that tradition.

Former Army sergeant Buck (Sidney Poitier) leads wagon trains of hopeful settlers to new homes on land they've purchased in Kansas.  He's done this successfully in the past, many times, paying the native tribes whose land they cross for safe passage and even supplies.  He's respected by the natives and trusted by the people he leads.


Some plantation owners in Louisiana get angry when all their former slaves decide to move west instead of staying on as sharecroppers to work the same land where they were once enslaved.  Those owners hire a killer called Deshay (Cameron Mitchell) to kill Buck and take the would-be settlers back to Louisiana.  Deshay and a band of vicious followers attack a wagon train Buck has just lead to land they've purchased and mean to settle.  The night riders kill most of the livestock and draft animals and terrorizing the people.


But Buck isn't there.  He's finished his job and headed off to visit his wife Ruth (Ruby Dee) at their own homestead.  Deshay tracks Buck there and try to ambush him, but he escapes.  


Buck leads his attackers away from his home and wife, pushing his horse until it's exhausted.  Then he spots an isolated campfire with an unattended horse.  Desperate to keep ahead of his pursuers, Buck decides to trade his horse for this fresh one, since its owner is nowhere around.


As a matter of fact, the horse's owner, a slick-talking con artist called Preacher (Harry Belafonte), is sitting naked in a nearby creek, reveling in a nice, cold bath.  Preacher notices Buck saddling up his horse and tries to stop him, but he's unarmed and unclothed, so there's not much he can do.  At least Buck leaves his own horse in trade and doesn't just strand Preacher there.


Of course, that's not the last time Buck and Preacher meet up.  Before long, they have reluctantly joined forces to outwit Deshay and his men.  


Buck is determined to lead another wagon train to Kansas, but Deshay attacks it and not only brutalizes and kills many of the pioneers, but finds and steals the money they were saving to buy food for the winter and seeds for the spring.  Without it, they will starve.


Buck and Preacher come up with a daring plan to steal the money back, with Buck's wife Ruth's help.  When it goes awry, they come up with an even more daring plan.  Once they've returned the money to the settlers, Buck and Ruth plan to head to Canada to start a family in a land untainted by even the memory of slavery.  Preacher's plans for the future remain ambiguous, even to him.


Sidney Poitier not only starred in this movie, he directed it too.  He wasn't planning to direct it, but the original director left early in the shooting, so Poitier took over, even though he had never directed a movie before.  He proved to have a talent for it, and went on to direct eight more movies after that.

This is one of the very rare 1970s westerns that I actually like.  It doesn't try to provide entertainment by being crude or gross, or by trying to shock or titillate the audience, which far too many '70s movies do.  Yes, it's violent, but the violence is more like a '60s western, not relying on gore or spurting blood to keep you interested in the story.  

Aside from the violence, is this movie family friendly?  Well, probably not for most kids, no.  There's one brief instance of rear male nudity as Preacher skedaddles out of the creek in an effort to stop Buck from taking his horse.  There's a little suggestive behavior and dialog, enough that it would be rated PG-13 today, but that rating didn't exist back in 1972.  It's implied that a woman was assaulted and probably raped.  The night riders patronize a whorehouse, though no adult activities are shown.  There's some bad language here and there.  I would not call this movie family friendly, but it would be good for older teens and adults to see because it presents an often-overlooked part of history in a respectful and uplifting way.  Or, you could watch it with a filtering service if any of them carry it.


This review is my latest addition to our 2022 Legends of Western Cinema Week celebration!  And, yes, the button above is a shot from this movie.  Click here to go to the main post and see the list of all the other things people have contributed to this event.  And don't forget to enter my giveaway!

Thursday, February 24, 2022

"In the Heat of the Night" (1967)

It kind of blows my mind that Norman Jewison directed In the Heat of the Night (1967) because I associate him with the comedies The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming! (1966) and Moonstruck (1987).  And this movie is definitely not a comedy, though it has some funny bits of snappy dialog that make me laugh aloud.  But he also directed Fiddler on the Roof (1971), and that definitely has a lot of melancholy and dark parts, so... he obviously handles darker material well too.  Which is cool, to have that kind of directing range.

Anyway.  I first saw In the Heat of the Night about fifteen years ago.  I watched it for Sidney Poitier because I knew this was one of the three movies he made in 1967 that all made a huge splash -- the others were Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and To Sir, with Love, and I'd seen them both before I saw this.  Of the three, this is by far my favorite.  

The movie opens with a dorky white police officer finding a dead body in the alley of a small Mississippi town.  It's a rich white man from Somewhere Else who was spearheading the building of a new factory that was going to bring a thousand new jobs to the area.  But now, he's dead, his wallet's gone, and who in this sleepy little town could possibly have done such a thing?  Surely not anyone who belongs there.

Enter the perfect, most obvious suspect possible:  a stranger.  Not just any old stranger, but a black man in a nice suit with a lot of money in his wallet, waiting in a train station.  Obviously, he must have killed that rich white man and stolen his money.  Why else would a black man have a lot of money?  The white police officers who find this obvious suspect are filled with joy over having solved this murder so quickly and easily, and they can't wait to drag their obvious suspect down to the police station to impress their chief!  Never mind that their obvious suspect insists he is innocent and has no idea what is even going on.

But then, their solution falls apart.  The suspect's name is Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier), and Chief Gillespie (Rod Steiger) quickly discovers that Tibbs is also a police officer -- and not just a fellow officer, but a big-city homicide detective from Philadelphia.  Which the over-eager small-town officers didn't bother finding out before they arrested him.  Tibbs is just passing through, on his way back to Philadelphia from visiting family and changing trains in this little nowhere town.

Much to the chagrin, annoyance, and even anger of both Tibbs and Gillespie, Tibbs gets ordered by his superiors to help Gillespie solve this murder.  So he does.  Eventually.  But along the way, both Tibbs and Gillespie have a whole lot of learning and growing to do.


You see, this is 1967.  It's the height of the Civil Rights Movement.  In 1967, there were riots in black neighborhoods in more than 100 American cities.  Change had arrived, but not enough change and too much change all at once, and Americans of every color were having to examine their thoughts, beliefs, and behavior toward anyone who didn't look like them.  And it's that examination that is the core of In the Heat of the Night.  

Chief Gillespie begins the movie with a snide, condescending attitude toward Detective Tibbs.  Even after he finds out Tibbs is a fellow police officer, he talks down to Tibbs.  Pretends to humor him.  Pretends to allow him to work the case, even when it is very clear to Gillespie that he needs Tibbs's expertise.  He can't bring himself to admit, for a very long time, that Tibbs might be smarter, more educated, and more experienced than he is.  Because if he admitted any of that, he'd have to admit that Tibbs was at least his equal, if not his superior.  And that's not a view that's allowable by the culture Gillespie grew up in, lives in, trusts.

Detective Tibbs begins the movie knowing he's smarter, more educated, and more experienced than Chief Gillespie.  He knows that, if he doesn't work this case, they're probably going to pin the murder on the next person that suits them.  He believes himself above everyone on that police force.  He would never arrest someone because of the color of their skin.  He would never pin a crime on an innocent man because finding the guilty one would be inconvenient.  He would never look down on someone because they are a different race than he is.  Until, gradually, Tibbs begins to realize he's doing exactly that.  He's convinced that he's better than Chief Gillespie and the other police officers because he's not white.

Once Gillespie and Tibbs stop treating each other -- and thinking of each other -- as A Black Man and A White Man, they finally make progress on the case.  They both discover that they can respect and even like each other for who they are, not despite what they look like.  And that was a lesson that 1967 America desperately needed to learn.  It's also a lesson that 2022 America desperately needs to learn.  We've come a long way in learning to like people who look differently from us for who they are... and we have also not come very far at all in learning that we shouldn't like someone despite what they look like.  Does that make any sense?  I hope so.


Anyway!  Gillespie and Tibbs solve the murder, and Tibbs gets on a train for Philadelphia a couple days later than expected.  And he and Gillespie share a rueful smile as they say farewell.  I think they're both acknowledging how much they learned over the couple of days they worked together, and how hard it's going to be to hold onto that new knowledge.

Is this movie family friendly?  Well, no.  There's a smattering of bad language, violence, scary situations, and a lot of unsavory stuff going on.  (WARNING: the rest of this paragraph contains SPOILAGE).  Unsavory stuff like peeping tom behavior, accusations of rape, and discussions about illegal abortions.  There is some clinical discussion of cause of death for the murdered man, plus shots of his body on the street when discovered and in the morgue when examined later.  And there are a couple of very tense and possibly scary parts where Virgil Tibbs is threatened by white supremacists who gang up on him and clearly intend to hurt and then kill him.  

TL;DR:  This movie does not shy away from hard topics, and I would not show it to anyone under sixteen.  However, it is clearly not glorifying or condoning the kinds of behavior and actions listed above.  I do not find it a problematic movie for adults and mature teens to watch.  It is definitely not appropriate for children, in my opinion.


I'm contributing this review to my We Love Detectives Week blog party :-)

Friday, January 07, 2022

Farewell, Sir


:-(  Sidney Poitier died yesterday.  He was nearly 95.

I've been a fan of his since I was fifteen and saw Blackboard Jungle (1955) for the first time.  He's one of those actors that, if I see he's in a movie, it makes me want to watch it.  I've liked every movie of his I've seen, but I've only seen seven, so I can't do a top ten favorites list for him at this time.  However, I've got a couple of his movies I haven't watched yet, so... give me time.

I actually dedicated my book One Bad Apple to Sidney Poitier's honor because I loved imagining him playing the Reverend Eli Mallone, father to my Snow White character.  Poitier made what I believe is the only major motion picture about the Exoduster migration: Buck and the Preacher (1972).  It's a powerful western, and I will try to review it here sometime soon.

Monday, February 20, 2017

"Blackboard Jungle" (1955)


Blackboard Jungle stars Glenn Ford as Richard Dadier, husband, WWII veteran, and brand-new high school English teacher.  He gets a job at North Manual High School in what we assume is New York City.  He's diffident, quiet, nervous.  He has a pregnant wife (Anne Francis) who miscarried their first baby and is terrified she'll lose this one too.  And he's faced with an inner-city high school full of rowdy, surly, angry, combative teen boys.


Two of them, Artie West (Vic Morrow) and Gregory Miller (Sidney Poitier), give him an especially hard time in the classroom.  Dadier struggles to teach them, to reach their minds and hearts, to lead them.


This film is a product of its times, certainly -- the optimistic ideal it holds forth is that if teachers only care enough, only try hard enough, they can engage their students.  Sure, there are bad kids, but once you weed them out, the rest of the kids will learn and grow and flourish.  At first glance, this film can seem simultaneously naive and bleak -- love for your students will solve everything!  But inner-city schools are horrible garbage cans full of human refuse, so you're going to need a lot of love!  Not a lot of nuance there.  All the nice, white, middle-class teachers kindly trying to rescue the poor students, many of whom are black or Hispanic, all of whom are "depraved on account they're deprived," as West Side Story would put it.


But if you look at this film through the lens of time, if you keep in mind what was going on in 1955, Blackboard Jungle is amazingly progressive.  You've got a fully integrated school here -- black and white students mingling freely.  It was only one year earlier that the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" rights and the segregation of schools was unconstitutional.  And while this film does address race several times, it doesn't make that the point of the movie.  The "us vs. them" divide is about teachers versus students, all the students.  Maybe this is the most naive thing of all in the film, but I think that by not focusing on "let's all try to get along with people who look different" and instead showing black and white students simply interacting naturally, the filmmakers were presenting a positive look at how students really could get along.  With each other, anyway, if not with their teachers.


I mentioned above that Dadier's two problem students are played by Sidney Poitier and Vic Morrow.  In the end, it's Poitier's Greg Miller who Dadier connects with, while Morrow's Artie West gets kicked out of the classroom and sent to reform school.


Throughout the film, Miller is shown to be intelligent, and Dadier picks him out as the leader of the class, the one the other boys look to and follow.  He never says "even though you're black" or "because your black," he just sees that Miller has the charisma and attitude of a leader.  While Miller refuses to help Dadier by leading the class to cooperate with him for much of the film, in the end, he chooses to support the teacher against Artie West and rallies the classroom to do the same.  I find that pretty remarkable for a film made in the 1950s.


Yes, racial tension gets addressed in Blackboard Jungle.  Dadier, when lecturing his class on things NOT to call each other, uses several racial slurs.  A student then reports him as being racist and bigoted.  Dadier vehemently denies it, then goes right out and has a big argument with Miller, in which he starts to blame Miller's incooperativeness on his race, then realizes what he's saying, and apologizes.  So don't think they entirely sidestep this issue in a "La la la, racism doesn't exist here" way.


Both Poitier and Morrow turn in startlingly nuanced performances -- their characters could have been cliches, a black "uncle tom" helping the white teacher and a white "angry boy" striking out at authority figures.  But Poitier brings a dignity laced with resignation that makes us root for his character even when he isn't cooperating at all with the protagonist.  And Morrow puts so much feral, sly desperation into Artie West that you can't take your eyes off him whenever he's in the frame.


This was Vic Morrow's first film, but he knows already how to own a scene, and more than holds his ground with the big-name star, Glenn Ford.  In fact, I've read that Morrow beat out Steve McQueen for the role, both being relative unknowns at the time.  Way to go, Vic!


This was the first movie I ever saw Sidney Poitier in, and possibly the first I ever saw Glenn Ford in as well.  I didn't initially watch it for either of them, but this film made me a fan of both actors.  If you've ever seen To Sir, With Love (1967) and think this sounds a lot like that, you're not wrong.  To Sir is not a remake of Blackboard Jungle, but the two films share many similarities, and I personally like to imagine that Poitier's character in the later film is his character from this one, all grown up and following in the footsteps of the teacher who reached out to him many years earlier.


I watched this for the first time twenty-one years ago, when I was fifteen and freshly in love with the TV series Combat! (1962-67).  I'd stumbled across an article in Reader's Digest about a person reminiscing about their own teenhood in the mid-50s and this movie they went to see, the first major motion picture to play real rock 'n roll right in the film.  Not just in the film, but over the opening credits:  Bill Haley and the Comets' "Rock Around the Clock" blasted loud and clear for all the audience to hear.  What interested me particularly about this article was a tiny picture of one of the actors in the film, a very young and very delinquent-looking Vic Morrow.


I latched onto the idea of this film, Blackboard Jungle, with Vic Morrow in a black leather jacket and brandishing a switchblade.  I desperately wanted to see it.  I had no idea who else was in it, or what it was about other than '50s JDs, but I had a thing for juvenile delinquent movies already then -- I was in the middle of a West Side Story (1961) phase, you see.  I was fifteen, full of hormones and emotions, starting to figure out my identity, and realizing I could like things my parents didn't, and not like things they did.  Typical early teen stuff.

And like I said, I had recently fallen in love with Combat! (it's still my favorite show).  Vic Morrow played my favorite character on it, Sgt. Saunders.  I knew he had acted in lots of other things, but this was 1996.  You couldn't just watch movies and clips on YouTube, rent a movie on Netflix or Amazon, or find cool stuff on Hulu.  You had to find movies on TV or on VHS.  If you had cable and a great channel like AMC used to be, you could eventually get lucky if they decided to play whatever movie you were hungering to see.  Or, if you had a really cool entertainment store that stocked kinda obscure old stuff, you might be able to find what you were looking for there, or get them to order it.

We didn't have cable TV at my house, but we did have this store called Media Play that fed my burgeoning entertainment appetite.  And on February 15, 1996, I found Blackboard Jungle on VHS at Media Play.  I spent my carefully-hoarded and hard-earned money on it -- I didn't have a "real" job yet, but a friend and I made money painting faces at various local festivals, so I could buy a video now and then if it was something I wanted to see and my parents didn't.

But I didn't rush right home to watch Blackboard Jungle.  I waited.  I was afraid, to be honest.  I knew, from the synopsis on the back, that Vic Morrow was going to play the bad guy.  At that point in my life, I had a really hard time dealing with actors I liked playing Bad Guys.  I'm a little calmer about it now, but witness how annoyed I am right now at Luke Evans for playing Gaston in the upcoming Beauty and the Beast -- I want MY actors to play Good Guys, I just do.  So I worried about watching  Vic Morrow be the Bad Guy in Blackboard Jungle.  What if he was horrifying?  What if he played a character so awful in this, I would somehow stop loving his character on Combat!, Sgt. Saunders?  Worse, what if the whole movie was awful?  What if my parents hated it and banned me from ever watching it again?  That wouldn't be so bad if it was awful, but what if I liked it and they didn't?

For three days, I waited.  Waited for my parents to go somewhere and leave my brother and I home alone so I could watch this movie in peace and the relative security of no parents judging me and my movie choices.  And finally, on February 18, 1996, they left us home alone for a Sunday afternoon.  I've kept a journal since I was fourteen, so I know exactly when I bought and watched this movie, and exactly what I thought of it after that first viewing:
"Then Mom and Dad went to Hickory, so John and I watched Blackboard Jungle!!!!  We loved it!!!  WOW!  There was only, like, one swearword in it.  Vic Morrow played a knife-toting Artie West, Glenn Ford was a teacher named Richard Dadier, and Sidney Portier [sic] played Gregory Miller.  It was great!  Most Excellent!"
Um, yes, fifteen-year-old me was not the most coherent movie reviewer.  But I liked Blackboard Jungle so much, I watched it again the next day and declared it one of my second-favorite movies ever.  (It's still in my top 100 now.)  My instincts were correct, though -- neither of my parents cared much for this film at all.  Such is life.

I didn't realize until I looked up my first viewing in my journals the other day that I would be posting this two days after the 21st anniversary of my first seeing Blackboard Jungle, but I absolutely love that coincidence.  This film has been a big part of my life for a long time, and I'm glad I've gotten the chance to reminisce a bit about it.  Especially because I usually post something special in honor of Vic Morrow's birthday, which is February 14, and this year my Jane Austen blog party kind of took over the whole blog for a week, so this post is also my Happy Birthday to Vic moment, just a few days late.


This is also my entry into the 90 Years of Sidney Poitier Blogathon -- Mr. Poitier is 90 years old today!  Astonishing.  Please follow this link or click on the button below to read lots of reviews celebrating this legendary actor and his film legacy.


One last thing -- is this movie family friendly?  It does have two curse words, several violent fistfights, a tense moment where a student pulls a switchblade and threatens people with it, and an attempted rape scene that is non-graphic but still too much for younger children.  Also, a teacher flirts openly with Richard Dadier and asks him to leave town with her, then grumbles because he's married and won't cheat on his wife.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

"Porgy and Bess" (1959) -- Initial Thoughts

I watched Porgy and Bess with my mom over the last couple of evenings, the first time either of us has seen it.  I don't know what she thought of it, but I must confess to being a bit disappointed.

I've wanted to see this musical since I was in high school and learned, while doing a research paper, that George Gershwin wrote it while living on Folly Beach in Charleston, SC.  Folly Beach is one of my family's favorite vacation spots, you see.  I know a few of the songs from it -- I love "Summertime," I like "Bess, You is My Woman," and I've never liked "I Got Plenty O' Nuttin'."  And I'm well acquainted with Bobby Darin's version of "It Ain't Necessarily So."  But I'd never heard them in context, and really knew very little about the story line other than that it involves a crippled man named Porgy and a woman of ill repute named Bess.

A few years ago, I read a biography of Otto Preminger that discussed the making of this movie, though I remember very little of it anymore.  But I do recall that Sidney Poitier didn't really want to make this film, and that Preminger worked with the cast to change some of the dialog so that it was less offensive.  Remember, the operetta itself is based in the early twentieth century and was first performed in 1935 -- by the time the movie was made in the late 1950s, people's attitudes and behavior had changed a great deal.  

But anyway, why was I disappointed in this movie?  I felt a lack of emotional oomph in it, if that makes sense.  And it's not the storyline's fault, because the plot of two outcasts, the kind, sweet man who takes in the woman no one else wants anything to do with -- that's right up my alley.  But I never got really caught up in the story, never felt anything more than a half-hearted sympathy for any of the characters.  I've really enjoyed the other Sidney Poitier performances I've seen, particularly in Blackboard Jungle (1955), Pressure Point (1962), and In the Heat of the Night (1967).  Perhaps his unwillingness to play the role kept him from fully engaging in it, or perhaps it's just the lack of chemistry between his Porgy and Dorothy Dandridge's Bess.  Or perhaps the characters just aren't all that well-rounded -- we never learn more about Porgy than that he's sweet, kind, understanding, and crippled.  And we never learn more about Bess than that she's an addict and has a taste for the wrong kind of men.  The other characters are equally thin -- Sammy Davis Jr.'s Sportin' Life is only around to tempt Bess back into drugs and sin, Pearl Bailey's Maria is the Strong Black Woman, Brock Peters' Crown is the Uncontrollable Black Man --  none of the main characters had any real depth to them.  Since this is the only version of this story I've ever seen, I don't know if the original operetta digs into the characters more, or what.  

I have to say that my favorite character in the movie, and the most interesting, was Claude Akins' Detective, who was clearly out of his element in the black neighborhood, but trying to do his best in a thankless job.  He runs the gamut from uncomfortable to patient to exasperated to weary, and I kind of wished we could just follow him around and see what his life was like instead.  This might be partially because I admit I have a soft spot for Claude Akins, but still, it felt to me like he was doing more with a tiny role than the principals were doing with all their screen time.

The sets, the costumes, and the staging I have no quibbles with.  There was one scene I really liked a lot, where Bess changes an orphan's diaper while Porgy watches, his eyes shining with love for this beautiful woman who has brought his life so much joy.


Both characters felt very real, very alive, and very in love in this scene, and if the whole movie had been like it, I would probably have loved it all.  But I am very glad I got to see Porgy and Bess, and I hope I will get the opportunity to see another version some time, to see if I connect better to the characters then.