Born Yesterday (1950)

OK, first thing I need to say about this movie is NOTE the date - do not accidentally rent the remake starring Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson. That movie is terrible, this movie is wonderful. Judy Holliday died when she was only 43 which is a shame because she was one of the greatest comedic actresses ever. Luckily she left us with a dozen or so sweet and funny movies, almost all romantic comedies like this one. I personally think this is one of the best.

Synopsis:

The movie begins with arrival of Harry Brock (Broderick Crawford) and his girlfriend Emma 'Billie' Dawn (Judy Holliday) in Washington, DC. The amount of luggage they have and the multiple furs that Billie hands to a porter immediately identify them as rich. Then Brock complains that he's only being given a wing of the hotel instead of an entire floor. His accent and his attitude immediately make it clear that he is not old money. A reporter named Paul Verrall (William Holden) tries to ask him a question as he gets in the elevator and is brusquely rebuffed. Soon Brock's lawyer Jim Devery (Howard St. John) arrives to go over the 'business' that Brock has in Washington. We learn that Brock owns a number of salvage yards throughout the country and is town looking for a favor from Congress to improve business and is planning to bribe a congressman to get his way. Devery has set up an interview with the very reporter who was shut down at the elevator. He is clearly suspicious of Brock and interested in exposing him, but he also manages to charm Brock by showing he's not afraid of him.

After a disastrous dinner that night with the congressman and his wife, Devery and Brock decide that Billie needs to be smartened up and Brock decides that Verrall is just the man for the job. Devery warns against it but Brock likes him so he hires him for an astronomical sum and introduces him to Billie. She takes an immediate liking to him in a much less cerebral way, making a pass immediately. Holden demurs and pursues Brock's plan showing Billie all around Washington and giving her reading about the country and the government. A crash course in civics and macroeconomics apparently. Billie's education soon grows out of control however and begins to endanger Harry's plans much more than her prior crassness ever had. And Holden's interest in her becomes less and less cerebral them more time they spend together.

This is a marvelous romantic comedy. It's based upon the play by Garson Kanin which he helped to adapt for the screen though he wasn't given credit. The comedy part of romantic comedy is as strong as the romantic part which makes it so much fun to watch. Holliday had starred in the Broadway version and frankly it's difficult to imagine any other actress ever playing this role. She and Holden were both masters of romantic comedy and their chemistry here is lovely. Crawford is wonderful playing the kind of gruff character he was known for and is a great foil for both Holliday and Holden. George Cukor, another master of the genre is the director and he gets perfect performances out of all of his players, including the supporting ones. This is a perfect date night movie, I promise.

Director ......................................................George Cukor

Writers ........................................................Garson Kanin (Play)
                 ....................................................Albert Mannheimer (screenplay)
             
Judy Holliday .............................................Emma 'Billie' Dawn
Broderick Crawford .................................. Harry Brock
William Holden ......................................... Paul Verrall
Howard St. John .........................................Jim Devery
Frank Otto ..................................................Eddie
Larry Oliver ............................................... Congressman Norval Hedges
Barbara Brown ...........................................Mrs. Hedges
Claire Carelton ...........................................Helen

The American President (1995)

The movie that gave birth to the TV show The West Wing because Aaron Sorkin's research for this movie led him to admire the people who work in the White House so much that he decided to dramatize what they saw. That piece of trivia aside, this movie is a real stand out all by itself. If you know The West Wing or A Few Good Men or anything else that Aaron Sorkin has written you know that he is probably the most talented writer working in Hollywood today. Add to that some brilliant performances and a great and unusual love story and you have a really wonderful movie to watch.

Synopsis:

The movie opens with President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas) is being briefed about his itinerary for the day - we begin to get a behind the scenes look at his life while also learning key information about the current state of his democratic presidency. We also learn that the President is a widower and that he has a teenaged daughter. He is joined gradually by more and more members of his staff. Meanwhile across town at an environmental lobbying group a new political strategist is being hired, Sidney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening). As the President is ushered from one meeting to another, Ms. Wade and a co worker arrive at the White House to meet with the Chief of Staff (Martin Sheen). While they are in the meeting with the Chief of Staff, Ms. Wade gets particularly tough on the administration just as the President pokes his head in. He then asks her to step into the oval office and discusses the issue with her further. There is an immediate spark between the two although she is as much in awe of the office as she is attracted to the man.

Soon the President decides to ask her out - or rather over to the White House - for a date. The occasion of the date is an upcoming state dinner so the publicity is immediate. Soon after that they are dating in earnest and soon the press, the opposing party, her boss and his staff are following the romance and all of its fallout. The rest of the movie deals with the issues that arrive when a modern day president is dating as well as the issues that arrive between the two of them.

Review:

This is a wonderful and unusual romantic comedy. Unusual because the situation is unique. Beautiful because it is well written, well acted and well directed. Aaron Sorkin has a turn of phrase that is memorable and lyrical. His characters talk like we all wish we could, sounding both down to earth and erudite at the same time. These actors are all tops in their field and give fantastic performances. Martin Sheen does such a great job as Chief of Staff in this movie that he got promoted to President for The West Wing. Annette Bening is so much more than beautiful, she has an obvious intelligence that can sometimes be lacking in the lead of a romantic comedy. Michael Douglas is at his liberal best with a presence that is unmatched on screen. The director of all of this is Rob Reiner who not only is a great director, he knows his politics having been an activist for years. If you like any of these people you owe it to yourself to see this movie.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

This movie is so well known that it's title has become a cliche used to describe any relatively inexperienced person recently elected to national office. Political reporters regularly use this as the frame of reference for filibusters - assuming that people have seen the filibuster from the movie. In reality, many have seen clips of the filibuster but not the actual movie and that's a shame. It is a wonderful look at the capital as it used to be which, sadly, is not that different from how it is now, except the news moves much, much faster. There is corruption involving moneyed interests, cronyism, scapegoating and all the greatest hits. Unlike life, however, the movie was directed by Frank Capra so you know it will all turn out OK in the end.

Synopsis:



The movie centers around Mr. Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) who is appointed to the Senate after the junior Senator from an un-named western state dies.  He's chosen because he's a local hero who is seen as too green to object to some of the slimier deals that already exist between the head of the State's political machine (Edward Arnold), the State's bumbling Governor, and the other Senator from the State (Claude Rains).  The very wise secretary of the dead Senator (the sublime Jean Arthur) is ordered to babysit Jeff Smith and be sure he doesn't get into any trouble - or uncover any trouble for the public. Instead she becomes so disgusted with her job and feels so sorry for this sap that she put him wise as only the hard charging broad from a movie in the 30s could do.  Jeff decides to fight and stand up for the people (hardly a surprise given his resume).  His fight culminates in the famous filibuster scene - can you imagine someone putting a filibuster scene in a movie today!  

Review:

Mr. Smith was nominated for 11 Oscars - only two fewer nominations than Gone With the Wind received. Though it won only for screenplay - it's important to keep in mind that 1939 is widely regarded as the best year in history for movies so competition was steep. Besides which, Jimmy Stewart frankly admitted in his life that he believed the Oscar he won for Supporting Actor for The Philadelphia Story was given to him at least in part because he did not win in 1939. Furthermore, the reason he did not win in 1939 was not the powerhouse that was Gone With the Wind, it was the performance by Robert Donat in Goodbye Mr. Chips in which he didn't portray Mr. Chips he really seemed to become Mr. Chips. All of this is to say that this is probably the best performance of Jimmy Stewart's career and that is saying something. He even had a method actor moment on this film choosing to stay up all night and take something to sound more horse when doing the filibuster scene.

Just as important is the performance by Jean Arthur. She was one of many tough, sometimes tough-talking women who were real stars of the movies they were in in the 30s and early 40s. These women were not simply the girl waiting to be rescued by the hero. These were true partners on screen even if it all ended in very traditional marriages. These were, to use the vernacular, broads and Jean Arthur was one of the best. She joined Katherine Hepburn, Rosalind Russell, Irene Dunne and to some extent Ginger Rogers. This is a great vehicle for that kind of woman. Think of some of the great political roles for women that now exist on TV, in VEEP and House of Cards there are at last women of this strength level on screen again, but this was the 1930s!! Her character Saunders knows so much more than Jimmy Stewart does about Washington it's not clear they are on the same planet. Yet she isn't hard, from the beginning her humanity shows through and her vulnerability. That's hard to do but she does it with aplomb and she too was nominated for an Oscar. The other smaller parts are well done as well - particularly Claude Rains playing the senior senator who long ago gave up his ideals in order to get re-elected. His interactions with Stewart's Jefferson Smith bring those ideals back to him in a very uncomfortable way.

Henry V (1989) or (1944)

Actually the technical title of Olivier's Henry V - the 1944 movie is The Chronical History of King Henry the Fift with his Battel fought at Agincourt in France but that is just too much of a mouthful for me to deal with so I will treat both as being titled Henry V. I just returned from Forest Park in St. Louis where I was rained out from seeing Henry IV so I had Shakespeare on the brain. While there are no really famous movies of Henry IV these two versions of Henry V are both excellent and well worth seeing.

Synopsis:

When he is Prince Hal in Henry IV this member of the British Royalty was very worrisome to his relatives - running around with a bad crowd, drink, debauchery and even some law breaking. Now however, his father has passed and Prince Hal is Henry V faced with an important decision. Should he go to war with France winning back the territory originally held by his Norman ancestors - thereby continuing what would become known as the 100 years war? He decides that God is indeed on his side and the side of his ancestors and so he raises an army and invades.

Meanwhile in a MUCH seedier part of London, Sir John Falstaff, Henry's close friend in Henry IV, dies. The other former friends of the younger Prince Hal decide to follow their former friend to war. Meanwhile, in France, Charles VI and his son the Dauphin disagree about how big a threat is posed by Henry V. The Dauphin still views Henry as the playboy from Henry IV, while his father takes the threat more seriously. Next the action moves to the battlefield in France. We see not only the battle, but all of the doubts and worries that fill the minds of the various players the night before.

After the battle, (Spoiler alert if you don't know history) in which the British win handily over the numerically superior French forces, Henry and the daughter of the French King Charles VI meet and decide to marry, meaning that Henry's heir will be heir to France as well.

This is one of Shakespeare's best known history plays and both movies really do it justice. They are both faithful to the text (for the most part, there is always need for some cutting when Shakespeare is filmed to avoid a four hour movie) Despite Olivier's iconic status when it comes to filming Shakespeare, I personally prefer the 1989 version filmed by Kenneth Branagh. He was more age appropriate for one thing (Branagh was 29 which is exactly the same age Henry was while Olivier was in his 50s.) Furthermore, Olivier's version begins as if it were being performed on stage at the Globe - a device praised by many but one I find off-putting and distracting. Either way though, the play/movie is a must see. You won't believe how many well known lines originate in the play. The casts are excellent though most of the names in the Oliver version will be unknown to today's audience, Branaugh's version includes Derek Jacobi, Ian Holm, Paul Scofield, Judi Dench and Branagh's then-wife, Emma Thompson.The direction of both could not be better as each is a demonstrated master of film directing.

Reds (1981)

Reds was released in December of 1981. That Spring semester the enrollment in Soviet History doubled at Yale. Why, because the Soviet Union has never seemed so sexy before or since than it was in this movie.  A sweeping, beautifully filmed, magnificently acted, tour de force this movie is a must see no matter what your politics are.

Reds is based on the true story of Jack Reed (Warren Beatty), writer journalist and political activist who went to Russia in 1917 to cover the Russian Revolution in person. The movie is based partially on his memoir of that trip, Ten Days that Shook the World. It doesn't limit itself to that trip, however, we see Reed before and after those fateful ten days. The movie examines his role in founding the Communist Party in America and his other trips to and involvement with the early Soviet Union,  ultimately resulting in his being the only American buried in the Kremlin. The movie also focuses on the people in Reed's life beginning with is girlfriend/wife Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). Their relationship and hers with others including Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) is where the sexy comes into the movie. The community they were part of in Greenwich village is filled with fascinating characters like famous/infamous anarchist Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton), some of whom were interviewed about that time by Beatty and those interviews are interspersed with the scripted drama in the film. Among the testifiers from the period are people like Henry Miller, Adela Rogers St. Johns, Rebecca West and George Jessel. Their comments alone and the chance to actually see them instead of reading about them or by them make the movie worth seeing all by itself.

 Beatty was nominated for writing, acting, directing and producing this picture a feat that he alone has equaled with Heaven Can Wait (although Orson Welles came close with Citizen Kane).  The movie won three Oscars, for Beatty's direction, Maureen's supporting actress performance, and for Vitorio Storaro's cinematography. I would argue that all three were well deserved.  Why didn't it win best picture? Good question, an upset from tiny but brilliant Chariots of Fire is why, but don't let take away from the impressive quality of Reds. From the minute details of the relationships to the vast sweep of landscapes as varied as those covered by the Soviet Union itself it succeeds at all levels.  If all you know of the Soviet Union is Reagan's rhetoric, you owe it to yourself to see how idealistically it came into being - even if those ideals were compromised almost immediately.