Hero at Large: A Review

 HERO AT LARGE

Television has an unfortunate habit of killing film careers. A case in point is John Ritter. He had massive success on the television comedy series Three's Company, a showcase for his exceptional physical and verbal comic skills. His television success, however, would not translate to film. I don't know why Ritter could not cross that threshold. Apart from a highly praised turn in Sling Blade which to be fair I have not seen as of this writing, John Ritter's best-known film I imagine is Problem Child, hardly the stuff of American Film Institute tributes. Hero at Large, made during his Three's Company heyday, did not get him the film career boost that he perhaps had hoped it would. It is a nice film that covers familiar territory: not groundbreaking but not embarrassing to those involved.

Struggling actor Steve Nichols (Ritter) does not want to do any more commercials but wants more serious theatrical fare. Still, beggars can't be choosers, so he opts to do promotional work for the new Captain Avenger film by making in-character appearances at local New York City theaters. After one such promotional event, he stops by a grocery store to pick up some milk. There, he stops a robbery while still wearing his Captain Avenger costume, not having removed it after the promotional event.

News of a real-life Captain Avenger saving the old couple who ran the grocery store secretly thrills Steve. Is it enough to get the attention of his next-door neighbor, commercial film director Jolene Marsh (Anne Archer)? Well, in a roundabout way, yes. Despite her relationship with her fiancée Milo (Rick Podell), she finds herself drawn to this goofy, guileless figure, enough to let Steve stay when he is locked out of his apartment and later to end her engagement.

Also drawn to Captain Avenger is political consultant Walter Reeves (Burt Convey), who thinks that Captain Avenger is just the man to help pull Mayor John Woodson (Leonard Harris) out of the dropping polls and back to the Mayor's Office. Despite the misgivings of Woodson's aide Calvin Donnelly (Kevin McCarthy), Reeves tracks down Steve and presents him with an offer. In exchange for staged events and an endorsement, Reeves can help Steve get theater work through Reeves' connections. Will Steve agree to this Faustian deal? Will he literally be unmasked? Will Steve Nichols rise to be the hero the city needs?

I thought, after finishing the film, that Hero at Large is like Meet John Joe in tights. You have an average man, basically plucked from obscurity, to play a role that will inspire millions but is really just a front for crooked politicians but who will ultimately end up doing the right thing. I found A.J. Carothers' screenplay hokey but harmless, one that clearly wanted to send a message about the importance of doing good while having some amusing moments.

Hero at Large is a film that has its heart in the right place, which is why the simple but cliched story worked for what it was.  I think the film hammers home its message about a sincere man caught in political machinations a bit too hard. I also think that on some levels, Hero at Large is almost comical in how it presents things.

Take for example the conclusion. Nichols, unmasked and named as a fraud for participating in staged robberies, has decided he needs to go back home to at least put his stage career hopes on hold. On his way out of the city, he comes across a burning building, complete with a woman screaming, "Where's my baby Johnnie?". Far be it for me to look with raised eyebrows at things, but a child inside a burning building does not strike me as the most original of ideas. 

Still, Hero at Large has a sort of innocent charm to it, like someone eager to please and doing what he can do please everyone. This is due in large part to John Ritter's performance. He has a guileless manner, almost a sweetness and innocence, to his Steve Nichols. Ritter does not make Steve look like a nutjob when he decides to take on the thief at the grocery store. He, rather, has to think about it, deciding that not only is it the right thing to do, but that his costume will give him anonymity. It is to where one wonders whether Steve is either naive or dumb in not seeing that he is being used, but one does not mind too much. Ritter played the part, I believe, correctly: as an actor who got into character too much but who also struggles with doing what is right and living by Captain Avenger's code of justice, loyalty and courage.

Some of his best scenes, however, are not as Captain Avenger. Rather, it is with Anne Archer's Jolene, who throughout the film is called "Jay" for reasons unknown. While not completely escaping comparisons to Jack Tripper, his Steven Nichols here is sweet and even a bit protective of her. Forever attempting to flirt and looking a bit silly doing so, Ritter does a strong job. 

That is more than can be said for Archer, who came across as stiff and false throughout. It takes a lot to be out-acted by Burt Convey as the villainous Walter Reeves, but somehow, he out-acts Archer. In something so deliberately broad to campy as Hero at Large, I think Convey did well to try and play the part with a hint of metaphorical mustache twirling but not go full-on camp. 

People may be surprised to find Kevin Bacon make a small appearance as "2nd Teenager" who mocks "Captain Avenger" at a theater promotional appearance. There's another way to connect Hero at Large with its spiritual ancestor Meet John Doe. 

Meet John Doe's Barbara Stanwyck worked with Kirk Douglas in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers.

Kirk Douglas worked with Michael Douglas in It Runs in the Family.

Michael Douglas worked with Anne Archer in Fatal Attraction.

Anne Archer was in Hero at Large, which had Kevin Bacon in a small role. 

I think director Martin Davidson was aiming for a slightly camp manner with Hero at Large. One indicator of that is in Patrick Williams' score, which I can best describe as comically rousing. It has a grand, almost thrilling theme but one where we can hear some lightness to it, suggesting that while it may center around the fictional superhero of Captain Avenger, it is still about mortals. 

Hero at Large is harmless fun, light fare that tells a pretty familiar story in a simple way. It may be a bit hokey, but I found that it meant well. Like the lead character, Hero at Large just wants to do good, and I don't fault a film for hitting its intended goals. 

DECISION: C+

What Price Hollywood? A Review

WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD?

I am told that What Price Hollywood? should be included in any A Star is Born retrospective in that the film hits on similar themes. I am not convinced that What Price Hollywood? is the original A Star is Born due to certain differences between the films. I won't argue for or against the idea, however. What Price Hollywood? is a fine film separate from any connection to the oft-told tale of one star's rise and another's fall.

Waitress and aspiring actress Mary Evans (Constance Bennett) finds drunk film director Max Carey (Lowell Sherman) amusing and nice even if he is sloshed. Carey has stopped by the Brown Derby for more than a few aperitifs before heading towards his film's premiere. Almost as a lark, he invites Mary to join him, and she does. Soon, she manages to get thanks to Max a screen test, and a Star is Born with Mary becoming "America's Pal". 

Mary also finds love and romance with Lonny Borden (Neil Hamilton), a dashing polo player who has no idea who Mary is, much to Mary's irritation. Despite that, a love affair blossoms between Mary and Lonny. She, however, will not be denied her career, costing her the marriage to Lonny. One good thing came about from that, however: her son Jackie. For his part, Max's career is going down while Mary's continues to rise, his drinking shifting from amusing to dangerous. 

Mary does her best to help her friend and mentor, bailing him out and attempting to encourage him to make a comeback. However, his troubles are too great, and he takes his own life as he attempts to dry out at her mansion. The scandal causes her to flee to France, where coincidentally Lonnie is staying too. Will Mary find love again or will she find that she is willing to pay a price for Hollywood glory?

I can see why people hold that What Price Hollywood? is the original version of A Star is Born (the latter's first adaptation premiering five years later). You have an ingenue and her creator, the female's rise as a counter to the male's fall, drunkenness, suicide and scandal. I do see some differences, however. In all versions of A Star is Born, the female marries the male mentor. This does not happen in What Price Hollywood? You have a love interest for the female separate from her mentor. You also have a child, something missing from all four A Star is Born films. Are those enough to make A Star is Born different from What Price Hollywood? I lean towards yes, but barely. At most, I think one can say that A Star is Born was "inspired" by What Price Hollywood? but I won't belabor the point. It is up to those who have seen both What Price Hollywood? and A Star is Born to come to their own conclusions. 

Separate from that, let's look at the film itself. What Price Hollywood? is a well-acted piece of drama. Constance Bennett, I imagine, is at most a faded name from the so-called Golden Age of Film. That seems a pity, for she gives an excellent performance in the film. She is funny and charming and even is able to show Mary as a strong woman who is an ambitious little minx. Her determination, for example, to redo a screen test that went badly showcases Mary to be no shrinking violet. Her genuine anger at not being known, followed by genuine love and heartbreak for both Jackie and Max's eventual fall reveal a strong actress.

An element that did surprise me when it came to Sherman's Max Casey was on any suggestion of romance between him and Mary. Perhaps I am reading too much into things, but I thought that Max came across as slightly fey to gay. I never got the sense that Max was in love with Mary, at least sexually. He seemed fond of her, amused by her, but I never saw anything close to desire. Jealousy perhaps, but more of a possessive sort than an erotic one. Yet I digress.

Sherman did well as the ultimately self-destructive Max. He was amusing, almost endearing as the happy drunk who was at heart a nice fellow. As What Price Hollywood? went on, however, we saw how Max could also be snippy and harsh. Still, at the end, we see the tragedy of Max Casey. In another moment eerily similar to A Star is Born, Max calls Mary. "I just wanted to hear you speak again, that's all".  To be fair, I cannot remember if this was a telephone call or when he was trying to dry out at her home. However, I found this moment sad, almost resigned.

Again, it should be noted that this line, with its echoes of A Star is Born's "I just wanted to take another look at you," comes at the end of the film, not at the beginning like all the A Star is Born versions. In those versions, that line suggests the start of a beautiful but doomed romance. In What Price Hollywood? it is closer to the acceptance of the end of a beautiful but doomed friendship.

Interestingly, What Price Hollywood? has a good number of clever lines in Gene Fowler and Rowland Brown's screenplay. Early on, Max mocks Mary's suggestion that he is any kind of genius by recounting a past marriage. "I proposed to her once for saying just that," he says. "She turned around and sued me". "For being a genius?", she asks. "No, for fifty grand", he replies. At the premiere, Max continues with a gag that Mary is an unknown aristocrat. Playing along with the bit about her being "the Duchess of Derby", she tells the premiere radio host, "I must go now. Mr. Cary is waiting there is nothing so exasperating as waiting on people". As they leave, she wisecracks to Max, "I ought to know".  

That does not mean that What Price Hollywood? is a comedy. It manages to also have strong dramatic moments, even cutting ones. When, for example, Lonnie objects to his wife continuing to work on film, he is told by one of her directors, "Why don't you let me direct Miss Evans and you be Mr. Evans?".

I would argue that the weak link in What Price Hollywood? is Neil Hamilton. To be fair, it is all but impossible to not see Commissioner Gordon from the 1960's Batman television show when you see Hamilton on screen, making it hard to see him as a romantic lead. Even if I were unaware of Hamilton as the ultimate camp square facing off against King Tut or Marsha, Queen of Diamonds, I found him rather stiff to silly as Lonnie. He was acting with a Capital A, making their long scene of romance a bit hard to take. Still, even here we have some of the film's wit. "I'm in pictures," Mary tells Lonnie, miffed that she is not recognized after an initial altercation. "Well don't blame me," he replies.

What Price Hollywood? may or may not be first version of A Star is Born, but on its own, it is a good film worth finding, if only to decide to yourself whether what came after was a homage, an inspired by or a plain old rip-off. 

DECISION: B+

Born Yesterday (1950): A Review (Review #1965)

BORN YESTERDAY

If Born Yesterday is remembered today, it is because Judy Holliday pulled off one of the greatest upsets in Academy Awards history. In a field with Bette Davis and Anne Baxter in All About Eve plus Gloria Swanson's comeback for Sunset Boulevard, for the relative newcomer in a comedy to come in and beat out those powerhouse dramatic performances now seems strange. Nevertheless, Holliday won, the film's only win out of five nominations. It will be another time when I rank the five nominated performances (Eleanor Parker in Caged seems always to be an also-ran). For now, let us look at Born Yesterday. Pleasant, knowing and charming, Born Yesterday still looks like a filmed play but works in the tale of a woman's mental awakening.

Boorish junk king Harry Brock (Broderick Crawford) comes to Washington, D.C. to get some favorable legislation from any Congressman he could get by hook or crook. With Brock is his showgirl girlfriend and seven-year-fiancée Emma "Billie" Dawn (Judy Holliday). Billie is the perfect pigeon for Brock and his crooked attorney Jim Devery (Howard St. John), for she signs whatever Deverey puts in front of her without bothering to read it. As such, Billie is totally unaware that she is essentially a front, with a lot of Harry's holdings under her name to avoid government intrusion.

After a get-to-know-you meetup at Harry's suite with a congressman and his wife goes wrong, the loud and bellicose Harry doesn't blame himself for the fiasco. He blames Billie and decides that she needs to be polished up to be a classier broad. For that, he turns to crusading reporter Paul Verrall (William Holden), who has come to do a profile on Brock. In exchange for $200/week, Verrall is to educate Billie on proper speaking and make her presentable. He would have done it for free, and Billie thinks he's a sucker for not asking more. "I'm stupid and I like it," she tells him on their initial meeting.

She might like it, but Billie is not stupid. As Paul begins to guide her into learning about the world outside her own, Billie Dawn has a dawning of her own. She learns not just words but also about government and the crooked ways of Harry Brock. No longer willing to be the ditzy blonde bombshell, Billie soon starts looking into what she is signing. She also has fallen in love with Paul, feelings that are reciprocated. Will that, however, be enough for the two people Harry dismisses as the "dumb chump and crazy broad"? 

Judy Holliday had originated the role of Billie Dawn on Broadway, but the studio was not convinced that she should recreate her performance on film. Ultimately, it proved a winning formula for both Holliday and Born Yesterday, as she is exceptional as this seemingly simple girl who is smart enough to know that she is not smart. She makes Billie into a delightful character, one whose whole motto can be summed up in what she tells Paul early on.

"I've got no questions," she tells him when he asks if she has any questions about their working together. Billie is not a bad person. She seems good natured and has a vulnerable side. Billie, attending an outdoor concert with Paul, has a monologue about her fraught relationship with her father, who cut off most contact with her when she went off with Harry. Surprised to have received a letter from him after seven years, she comments that she would love to see him again, but that he still opposes her essentially being Harry's mistress. For something often seen as a comedy, this was a strong piece of dramatic acting.

Holliday was charming and sweet as Billie, but she also revealed that she was not a dumb blonde, merely an unaware one. Once she started studying things, asking questions of and to herself, we saw the evolution to someone able to realize that she had been a patsy for far too long. A particularly effective moment is when she stubbornly refuses to sign more documents, aware of what is going on and wanting nothing to do with the "cartels". Brock responds angrily but goes too far, slapping Billie repeatedly in a moment that took out all the fun and frivolity that there was. Seeing her in tears, rubbing her cheeks as she signs, is a deeply disturbing sight.

I do not know how that played both on stage and/or in 1950. I can say that today, it would not play, especially if Born Yesterday is billed as a comedy. For the most part, it is. Holliday has a great way with barbs, even when directed at herself. When asked about the Supreme Court, she asks in her slightly nasally tone, "What is it?". Later, when Paul asks what she thought of his latest column, she replies, "I think it's the best thing I ever read. I didn't understand one word". When confronting both Brock and Devery, she tells them that Paul told her that this was the biggest swindle since the teapot...something. It is obvious that she wants to know more now but still struggles to phrase it correctly. 

Broderick Crawford is equal to Holliday as the loud, bullying Harry Brock. Shouting and raging all over the place, Crawford's Brock is equally ignorant but unlike Billie, he uses what few smarts he has for his own selfish reasons. It is not as if there are not some good qualities with him. He takes great pride in having started working at age 12, and in how he started out his wheeling and dealing by hoodwinking others. However, when asked to name what is a peninsula, he offers that "it's that new medicine". Holden is the straight man in this set-up, and he is fine as the intelligent intellectual who falls for the pretty young thing. If he has any flaws, it is that Paul is rather fond of his big words when he could compress it to something simpler.

As a side note, while Garson Kanin (surreptitiously adapting his stage play with credit going to Albert Mannheimer), may not have seen it, I saw Born Yesterday as a variation of Pygmalion. Here is the educated man, taking the uneducated woman and transforming her into a new figure while falling in love with his own creation. It may have, intentionally or not, inspired the Goldie Hawn vehicle Protocol, another tale of a ditzy blonde removed from things outside herself who grows after reading and understanding how she is the government. 

I think that, despite director George Cukor's best efforts, Born Yesterday could not escape its stage origins. Even the on-location footage of Paul and Billie wandering through the nation's capital, Born Yesterday still is staged and acted as if it were a play. The hotel suite is the primary location for events, and the blocking too looks as if it were being performed in front of an audience.

Born Yesterday is light, amusing fare. It is a good film about how knowledge really is power. With strong performances all around, I think people will end up loving Billie Dawn, who turned out is a smart cookie. 

DECISION: B-

Witchfinder General: A Review

WITCHFINDER GENERAL

Evil comes sometimes in the form of those who insist that they are doing good. Such is the case with Matthew Hopkins, the title character of Witchfinder General. With a malevolent performance from Vincent Price, Witchfinder General (also known as The Conqueror Worm) is maybe a bit stodgy but on the whole, passable viewing.

In the chaos of the English Civil War in 1645, we have Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy). He is a young Roundhead (a supporter of Parliament against King Charles I), engaged to the beautiful Sara (Hilary Dwyer). She and her uncle, Catholic priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies) have been harassed and threatened by the local Protestants who see them as heretics for keeping to the old religion. Also coming is the very shady Matthew Hopkins (Price), who claims to have been appointed by His Majesty to find and execute witches. His assistant, John Sterne (Robert Russell) is a rough, coarse man who delights in torture. While Hopkins appears too urbane for such things, he does not shy away from profiting financially from them. Outwardly moral, he is not above finding some women innocent if the price is right. Whatever that price actually is, one can guess at.

Richard is off to fight when Hopkins and Sterne sweep into town. As the Catholics in the area, John and Sara are prime suspects for sorcery and witchcraft. Hopkins will not be denied his pound of flesh, and neither will Sterne, though granted they are not after the same kind of flesh. Richard, outraged at what has happened to Father John and his fiancée, swears revenge against this greedy lawyer and his brutal henchman.

There is still, however, the matter of the Civil War, which is getting in everyone's way. Hopkins and Sterne are briefly separated avoiding the Roundhead troops going about. However, in that time Richard has come close to killing Sterne. He survives and manages to reunite with a visibly irritated Hopkins, now alarmed at the news of Richard's plans for revenge. Fortunately for him, Sara has attempted to flee to safety in the same town where they are headed. Now, Hopkins and Sterne set a trap for the young lovers, potentially killing two birds with one stone. Will Richard and Sara end up together or in the clutches of The Witchfinder General?

At a brisk 86 minutes, Witchfinder General moves relatively fast, an impressive feat given how much story it has. Screenwriter Tom Baker, who shares writing credit with director Michael Reeves, has this direct manner with the sometimes more gruesome aspects of the story. I cannot say how close or far it veered from Ronald Bassett's novel, which is loosely based on true facts. It certainly bears no connection to the Edgar Allan Poe poem The Conqueror Worm, especially given the different time settings between the events of Witchfinder General and when Poe wrote The Conqueror Worm. I figure the title of The Conqueror Worm was used to cash in on star Vincent Price's series of successful Edgar Allan Poe adaptations of various degrees of faithfulness to the source material.

Minus that, Witchfinder General finds Price giving a strong performance as Hopkins, this eerie man of apparent morals who is loathsome and cruel. He is someone who has no interest in finding witches, and more than likely does not believe them to be real. Rather, it is purely monetary success that drives Hopkins on. The more witches he finds, the more money he makes by bilking those in the community. Hopkins delights in his cruelty, such as when he brings his accused coven and gives them the water test. If they drown, then they are found innocent due to them having made false confessions. If they float, they their forced confessions are true, and they are to be killed. It is the most insidious form of "heads I win, tails you lose".

Price makes Hopkins this cold menace, forever looking down on everyone. Reeves' camera work shows this by having Price many times looking down on others, suggesting that contempt for those around him. It is a cold but effective performance. 

So too is that of Russell as his more sadistic aide Sterne. He too delights in cruelty, but he has none of Hopkins' faux-urbane manner. He is a ruffian, interested only in money, booze and broads. When asked what business he is in, Sterne replies, "Extermination", a very apt description. Dwyer as the busty Sara, victim of Hopkins' cruelty, was good as was Ogilby as the heroic Richard driven to madness.

A good element that perhaps has not been given as much credit as it should is Paul Farris' score, which does not sound of the Carolinian era, but which has some great work such as when Richard on the chase against Hopkins and Sterne. 

I think sometimes Witchfinder General does look like it could have done with more financing. It also at times felt as if it was indulging in too much cruelty as entertainment, which I am not fond of. However, Witchfinder General has a strong performance from Vincent Price that makes it worth watching. 

DECISION: C+

Godzilla Minus One: A Review (Review #1963)

GODZILLA MINUS ONE

For better or worse, Godzilla at times has turned into a joke, this big lizard roaring and stomping his way through Tokyo. It does not help that recent American productions focus more on spectacle and CGI destruction than plot. Now, this iconic figure goes back to his roots with Godzilla Minus One. The film manages to balance what people expect in a monster movie with an intelligent and moving human story. 

In the waning days of the Second World War, kamikaze pilot Kiochi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki) is on a small island with a group of other Imperial Japanese soldiers. There, they find a giant lizard has risen from the waters and attacks the garrison. Kiochi, who does not want to perform his divine mission for Emperor and country, becomes paralyzed with fear at everything going on around him. Sadly, only he and another man survive, but Kiochi is shamed and ashamed of his lack of action.

Things are no better when the war finally ends, and he returns to a devastated Tokyo. His family is gone. His countrymen look on him with shame. He finds life, hard as it is to bear, must be kept going. Circumstances bring him into contact with Noriko Oishi (Minami Hamabe), a young woman who has also survived the war. Noriko has been caring for an orphan whom they name Akiko, and despite themselves have formed an unofficial family.

Kiochi's expertise eventually help him find work as a minesweeper, where he soon starts bonding with the motley crew of cynical older men and naive young men too young to have fought in the war. The ship, however, finds an old acquaintance of Kiochi: the lizard known as Godzilla. He now is stronger and more dangerous due to the atomic testing at the Bikini Atoll, and he now starts targeting the nearby ships. Kiochi, still traumatized both by the war itself and his lack of action, continues struggling with both guilt and post-traumatic stress disorder. Eventually, Godzilla lands in mainland Japan itself, putting everything and everyone that Kiochi loves in danger. 

There is apparent loss, but also now a determination to stop this monster from destroying all of Japan. How to do so when it comes to Godzilla? It will take a metaphorical and literal all-hands-on-deck method to bring about Godzilla's downfall. Will Kiochi finally find his peace as Operation Wada Tsumi begins? Who will live and who may die to fight Godzilla to the death? Will Godzilla finally be taken down? Will those battered by the war find resolution?

In many current Godzilla movies, particularly American ones, the focus has been on the massive level of destruction. Looking at recent Godzilla films like Godzilla vs. Kong and 2019's Godzilla: King of the Monsters, the mindset among those involved in these films is that people want nothing but total destruction. Godzilla Minus One takes a different tack. Here, we do get some major action pieces. However, in a surprising and welcome turn, we also focus on the human element. 

Godzilla Minus One (I believe that the title comes from how the Japanese see World War II's end as "Year Zero" and the added destruction from Godzilla pushes it to "Year Minus One") takes its time to let us get to know the people involved. Slowly, we know Koichi and Noriko, these two survivors who are attempting to build not just their own lives but the world around them. In some ways, Godzilla Minus One is about Japan's early post-war years, where there was a realization and determination to survive what would have decimated other peoples.  

We see Koichi and Noriko's basic goodness, the slow bonds that they build not just with each other but with Akiko, who is really no kin to either but with whom they create that family unit. A lot of Godzilla Minus One is driven by Koichi's guilt about surviving the war. By taking on Godzilla, Koichi believes that he can restore not so much his honor but his sense of self. He is protector: of Noriko and Akiko, of his fellow minesweepers, of his nation. While Noriko is closer to nurturer, she is not a weak woman. It takes great personal courage to care for a child not your own, even willing to raise her alone. 

I think Godzilla Minus One is uniquely Japanese with its ideas of shared responsibility. Here, everyone collaborates, working together to confront a joint menace. There are many moments when one is moved by the performances and the willingness to sacrifice themselves for others. Mizushima (Yuki Yamada) is the youngest of the minesweeper crew, too young to have fought in the war and treated as something like a child. He balks at being left behind while the other, older men go to face off against Godzilla. I believe he asks what does that leave him? "We leave you the future," he is told. I admit to finding this scene quite quiet and moving.

The focus on the human characters is not meant to imply or suggest that Godzilla Minus One skimps on the spectacle. Far from it. The film rightly won Best Visual Effects for bringing the giant lizard to life. Godzilla's attack on Ginza is an astonishing set piece, blending the humans and the monster so effectively that it is pretty much impossible to know what is real and what is not. This and two sea battles between Godzilla and the Japanese are astonishing visual moments that will leave the viewer almost breathless. 

Each of the performances work extremely well. The film allows for moments of bonding between the men and even between the men and Kiochi's informal family. We get to know them, and as such, we end up caring about their plight and whether or not they live or die.

That is perhaps one of Godzilla Minus One's few flaws: it pulls out the rug from under us not once but twice when it comes to characters. I think that the film's runtime, which is a little over two hours, might be a bit punishing. The second is a minor issue, the first is a little harder to bear. 

On the whole however, Godzilla Minus One is a thrilling film that blends intimacy with spectacle. Everyone gets something out of it: there are human moments, there is Godzilla stomping over Tokyo. An excellent addition to the overall Godzilla mythos, Godzilla Minus One shows why he can claim to be King of the Monsters. 

DECISION: B+

Best Actress Retrospective: An Introduction

 

If we go by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, Mikey Madison is better than Greta Garbo, Irene Dunne and Deborah Kerr. How? This year, Madison won Best Actress for her performance in Anora. One wonders if Garbo would have won the Oscar if she had shaken her ass in Ninotchka. Perhaps if Dunne had simulated sex on screen in Love Affair, that Oscar would have been hers. For that matter, would Madison be able to play, now or in the future, the leads in Camille or I Remember Mama? This, of course, does not even count Myrna Loy or Maureen O'Hara, who were never even nominated once.

In the history of the Academy Awards, as of this writing 80 women have received a Best Actress Oscar. Katharine Hepburn currently holds the record for the most Best Actress Oscar wins at four, with Frances McDormand hot on her heels at three. Some of those wins have stood the test of time (Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind, Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice, Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins). Some are pretty much forgotten (Luise Rainer's first back-to-back win for The Great Ziegfeld, Glenda Jackson's second win for A Touch of Class). Where will Madison's win eventually fall? Will her Anora be mentioned in the same breath as Olivia de Havilland for The Heiress or will it be as obscure as Joan Fontaine's win for Suspicion? 

With that, I am embarking on something of a fool's errand. I will watch and review all 100 Best Actress Oscar winning performances (there was one case of a tie, and the first Best Actress winner won for three performances), starting backwards owing to the unavailability of some of the Oscar-winning films. You can't find everything on streaming. 

I have already reviewed 48 performances as of this writing, which is not bad. I will, after the retrospective is complete, rank them to find the Ten Best, the Ten Worst, and the overall ranking for all our winners. I will go only by the performance itself, not who the competition was. That might come later, on a year-by-year basis.

With that, I now formally begin my Best Actress Retrospective.

The Trip to Bountiful: A Review (Review #1962)

THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL

Memory is a most curious thing. It is something that we alone possess, attempt to pass on, and sometimes live in or for. The Trip to Bountiful is both a specific and universal story, with a moving performance from Geraldine Page as a flawed but feisty woman, determined to go back one final time to what was home.

Carrie Watts (Page) is a widow living with her son Luddie (John Heard) and his wife Jessie Mae (Carlyn Glynn). To say that Mother Watts and Jessie Mae do not get along is putting it mildly. The bossy, often mean Jessie Mae is a tyrant with Mama Watts, scolding her for singing hymns and accusing her of deliberately hiding her pension check that Jessie Mae wants. Luddie, for his part, wants there to be peace between the two women in his life, but they cannot find much common ground.

Mrs. Watts is determined to go back to her hometown of Bountiful, Texas, for one last visit and reminisce. Luddie and especially Jessie Mae are dead set against it and will not let her go. It takes Jessie Mae finally leaving to meet up with her frenemy for Mrs. Watts to carry out her plan: rush out of their shared apartment, board a train to Bountiful and get back home. Unfortunately, Mrs. Watts is not aware that time has evaporated Bountiful, done in by the Depression and people moving from there to nearby Houston, where she too lives. Finding there are no trains to Bountiful, she tries a bus. There are no buses to Bountiful, but there are to nearby Harrison. That's close enough for Mrs. Watts, who manages to avoid Luddie and Jessie Mae.

On route, she makes friend with Thelma (Rebecca De Mornay), who has recently married a soldier shipped off and who is traveling to Corpus Christi to stay with her parents until her new husband returns. In Harrison, Mrs. Watts realizes that she left her purse on the bus that just left. Fortunately, the bus is not too far and can have the purse sent back. Unfortunately, that gives the police enough time to hold Mrs. Watts in town until Luddie comes for her. The shock of coming so close only to be held back is too much, and she has a medical emergency. The sheriff, taking pity on her, agrees to escort her to what remains of Bountiful, though he reminds Mrs. Watts that Luddie will bring her back. Once in Bountiful, Mrs. Watts reflects on what has come before and what there is left to come. Will Mama Watts, Luddie and Jessie Mae find a new understanding amongst each other?

It is a curious thing that while The Trip to Bountiful is often filmed in open spaces, it still strongly reflects its stage roots. So many scenes in The Trip to Bountiful play as if they were taking place on a stage. I do not know if director Peter Masterson or screenwriter Horton Foote (adapting his own stage play) deliberately intended to make The Trip to Bountiful look like a stage play filmed outdoors. That was what I found to be the end result.

This observation is not a slam on the film. Far from it: The Trip to Bountiful allows for the dialogue and the acting to have more of a focus due to that staging. It is, however, easy to see how the story originated on the stage given that it plays that way. 

The Trip to Bountiful was Geraldine Page's eighth Oscar nomination. Had she lost, Page would have had the record for the greatest number of unsuccessful Oscar bids, or at least gotten there before the current record holders of Peter O'Toole and Glenn Close who are both 0-8. Given that Page was not a major film star like O'Toole and Close, this would have made for a curious bit of history. However, Page more than was worthy of the win. This is not the time nor place to judge whether Page "deserved" to win or match her against her competitors.

It is, instead, a time to look at Page's performance. Here, one is deeply moved by Mrs. Watts, who is stubborn but also filled with deep emotion on her past, present and future. She has wonderful moments of monologues, such as when she talks to Thelma about Ray John Murray, whom she considers the lost love of her life. Telling Thelma that she did not love her husband but admired him (and let him know it), we see in Page's performance all the waves of regret that Carrie Watts has. Mrs. Watts is a woman of deep faith, who finds both joy and comfort in her relationship with Christ. She also has great pain, talking about the loss of two of her children in moments that move the audience. In her desire to visit her old ground, her fear and anger at seemingly failing, the struggle with her daughter-in-law, Page captures this singular woman's needs, anxieties and hopes.

The Trip to Bountiful is an exceptionally well-acted film all around. Rebecca De Mornay and Carlin Glynn would have more than rightly earned Best Supporting Actress nominations for their performances as Thelma and Jessie Mae respectively. It is a bit of a surprise that both were overlooked that year. De Mornay reveals a side to her skills that I think has not been as tapped as it should have. Her Thelma is gentle, kind and almost innocent, a young bride starting out her life who helps Mrs. Watts avoid Luddie and Jessie Mae. In their scenes together, you see a bond growing that the pressures of time forced an end. Again, you can see how the character of Thelma might have just been there for Act II, but that does not remove the positives of De Mornay in the film.

For her part, we get to openly hate Glynn's Jessie Mae. She is not a monster, for at one point she does show great concern when Mother Watts has something of a fainting spell, even offering to stay with her while Mother Watts recovers. However, for most of The Trip to Bountiful, we see Jessie Mae as snobbish, contemptuous of her elderly mother-in-law and rather curt with everyone. Still, by the end, we do see that perhaps there can be a rapprochement in their relationship.

In his role, Heard too showed another side as the henpecked Luddie. He loves his mother, but he loves his wife too. Near the end, Luddie has a long monologue about how he does not feel the connection to Bountiful that Carrie has owing to the circumstances that he lived through. Heard handles the gentle, sometimes weak, but eventually firm Luddie with great skill. This is a man filled with regrets, even anger, about his situation with Carrie and Jessie Mae, but now wants to see if he can be that peacemaker he wants to be.

The Trip to Bountiful is a curious film in how it is never far from its stage roots. However, with strong performances from the cast and a moving story about the importance of your past and future, I think many will be moved at the end. "I'll go on," Mrs. Watts at one point says. She may mean go on to Bountiful, but I think there's more meaning than that. We all have our own Bountiful, and The Trip to Bountiful is a beautiful reminder of remembering our roots without becoming entangled in them.

DECISION: B+