The Petrified Forest

The movie poster might point out Leslie Howard and Bette Davis, but the only reason I had even heard of The Petrified Forest was thanks to a coffee table book on Humphrey Bogart.  This was Bogart's big break, even if it was a supporting role, and one that nearly never happened.  According to legend, when Warner Bros. bought the screen rights to the play of the same name, they had hoped to pair Leslie Howard (who starred in the play, along with Bogart) with another famous actor, like Edward G. Robinson.  That wouldn't have been bad, either, but Howard refused to make the movie without Bogart.  Forever grateful, Bogart would later name his only daughter Leslie Howard Bogart.  Okay, so the back story to The Petrified Forest is pretty fantastic.  What about the actual movie?

The Petrified Forest takes place in and around a lonesome diner in Middle of Nowhere, Arizona.  The diner is owned and run by the Maple family; Jason (Porter Hall) is the grouchy and mildly incompetent owner, Gabrielle (Bette Davis) is his hard-working but increasingly depressed daughter, and Gramps (Charley Grapewin) seems to be on a mission to talk the ear off anyone who happens by the diner.  It's a dreary existence, made even more torturous by Gaby's dreams of becoming an artist in France and the impossibility of that ever happening.  One day, Alan (Leslie Howard) wanders in and adds a healthy dose of British charm to the lonely place.  Alan, an alcoholic drifter, was once an aspiring writer and had traveled throughout Europe, looking for inspiration.  When that didn't work, he went about looking for a reason to live or die and found the diner in his travels.  Given the fact that Alan is an artist, British, well-traveled, and charming, you can probably guess the reaction he got from Gabrielle.

Cue giggles and batted eyelashes

Alan knows that he's no good, so he surprisingly does not pursue Gabrielle any further, and instead accepts some charity from her and continues his drifting.  That would be that if the car Alan hitched a ride in was not hijacked by the infamous John Dillinger analogue Duke Mantee (Humphrey Bogart); Mantee and his gang are wanted gangsters with the law on their trail, hoping to get to a predetermined meeting place to join up with the rest of their crew.  As luck would have it, that meeting place happens to be Gabrielle's diner.  That means that everyone in the diner is the hostage of a desperate criminal.  While most people would terrified in this situation, Alan's brain works in a very different way...

The acting in The Petrified Forest is pretty good, although it is limited by the source material.  Leslie Howard --- who I don't recall seeing before --- played every note of this performance perfectly.  He handles the flowery language of the script naturally, and manages to balance hopeless depression and hopeless romanticism effortlessly.  Is it just me, or do Howard and Peter O'Toole have some noticeable similarities in their acting styles?  Bette Davis was also good as an innocent girl; I had never seen her play such a pure character before, but she had no difficulty here.  Her character's accent and vocal cadence don't make much sense, given her surroundings, but that's a minor gripe.  Humphrey Bogart is also very good as Mantee.  It's not his acting that wowed me here, though --- it's his voice.  I've always liked Bogart's growl, but it felt less polished, more raw and dangerous in this role.

Also impressive: the hate in his eyes

The rest of the supporting cast was fine.  The other gangsters didn't really pop out at me.  I was amused that Charlie Grapewin clearly took "Frontier Prospector Gibberish" as his main inspiration.  Porter Hall did what he does so well; he played a unlikable authority figure.  I wasn't too impressed by Dick Foran as Boze; he wasn't bad, but his acting was simply typical of this time period.  In other words, it was a little hammy.  I was, however, surprised by Genevieve Tobin's monologue toward the end of the film; her character was pretty dull up until that point, but I was genuinely impressed by her speech.

Archie Mayo's direction was only okay, though.  The Petrified Forest is based on a play, and the film definitely reflects that.  Most of the action takes place off-camera and a large percentage of the movie takes place while the main characters sit at tables in the diner. 

Above: scenes 3-27

Mayo handled the actors in the film just fine --- not a huge task, since Howard and Bogart had been in the stage production --- but showed no inclination to differentiate the film and the play.  I always find that frustrating with play adaptations.  As it stands, this movie can be a little slow at times.  It is fifteen minutes before we heard Leslie Howard speak, and forty before we see Bogart or any conflict.  That leisurely pace isn't as bad as it sounds; the characters are given the time to breathe and introduce themselves.

...and smoke pipes, and critique art, and...

I enjoyed The Petrified Forest, but it definitely shows its age.  This film was released in 1936.  It is expected for actors now to mold themselves to fit a role, but it was far less common in those days.  As a result, some of the actors come off as too well-spoken or educated for their alleged station in life here.  Howard's character has an excuse, but Davis and Foran do not, although Foran tries to play it down a little.  There are also little things in the film that stand out sharply now.  For example, something that used to be common --- like a drifter wearing a suit, tie and fedora --- is highly unusual now, especially for someone hiking through the American Southwest.  And while the film isn't exactly racist, it does play the social difference between a black chauffeur and a black criminal for laughs.

In their defense, it is kind of funny

Despite all that, there is a timeless quality about this movie.  A good part of that stems from the story; Alan's character makes a choice that is one of the more unique ones I've seen on film.  SPOILER ALERT: Alan asks Mantee to kill him, so his life insurance money can fund Gabrielle's dreams.  Most older Hollywood films have had their best bits recycled over and over again, but I don't think I've seen any other character make the same choice since (at least, not with good intentions).  That unusual twist alone makes The Petrified Forest worth watching.  When you pair it with some of the best idealistic romantic monologuing ever captured on film (courtesy of Leslie Howard), you have a pretty great movie.  My personal favorite line was, "Every woman is worth everything you've got to give."  Man, that's good stuff. 

"Everything?  Even bullets?"

It's not perfect and I don't know if it's truly a classic, but I enjoyed The Petrified Forest.  It has some proto-noir elements and one of the more interesting romances of the period.  Definitely worth a watch.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Why does Bogart have a different haircut in this movie than he has on this poster?

Who says remakes are always a bad idea?  The Maltese Falcon is the third film adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's classic novel of the same name, and the third time is definitely the charm.  I haven't seen the other two versions (one has the same title and the other is a comedy, titled Satan Met a Lady), but only this one is widely regarded as a timeless classic, so I think it's safe to assume that this is the best version to date.

I'm going to be completely honest with you right now.  I am a huge fan of Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled novels and am a fan of any movie that chooses to adapt his work.  I am also a big fan of Humphry Bogart, at least in part because I've only seen him in his classic roles; I'm sure the man made some flops in his time, but history tends to gloss over those mistakes in favor of his more famous work.  I am also a big supporter of director John Huston.  And if none of that convinces you that this is going to be a great viewing experience, it was in the inaugural class of movies chosen for preservation in the Library of Congress' National Film Registry.  If you're still hesitant to check out this movie because it's black-and-white or because it's old or because you only like movies with talking animals in them, my advice is simple.  Man up and get some culture.  It is significantly awesome.

The private detective firm of Spade and Archer consists of three people: the secretary, Effie (Lee Patrick), Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan).  One day, a new client hires them to track down her sister, who has run away from home with an undesirable man named Thursby.  The client, Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor), doesn't tell a very convincing tale, but she waves around a lot of money, and that's enough for the detectives to take her case.  Liking the looks of his sexy new client, Miles offers to be her proverbial white knight, boubie, and track down this Thursby himself.

Did Miles Archer influence the character of Ellis from Die Hard?  Surprisingly, they're pretty close.

That night, Miles is shot and killed.  Sam gets the call, heads to the crime scene, and promptly leaves to clear his head.  When he gets home a few hours later, the police are right behind him; Thursby had just been gunned down in the streets, so the cops naturally assume that Sam killed the man who killed his partner.  He didn't, but his alibi is basically "wandering around aimlessly in the streets," so Sam Spade has to solve the case to clear his name.  Besides, it's good business to avenge the death of your partner.  Sam quickly finds himself in complex web of lies and deceit as he tries to discover...well, I suppose he's trying to solve the murder of his partner and simultaneously cover his own ass, but he doesn't seem to concerned about that.  Instead, Sam seems to genuinely enjoy the game of deception as he and three other interested parties converge on the object that ultimately caused all this trouble, the Maltese Falcon. 

Bogart, about three seconds away from giving you a facial burn for laughing at his toy bird.

Admittedly, the story isn't terribly special.  A detective manages to get entangled in a mess of lies?  You could pick my jaw up off the floor.  It's handled very well, though.  The pace is brisk, the plot is murky enough to keep you guessing while Sam Spade puts all the pieces together, and the ending scenes are great, appealing to many demographics (romantic, cynical, heart of stone, tough guy, etc.) and somehow never losing its bad-ass edge.

The acting and directing are nearly flawless.  This is one of the two films that helped Bogart become a star in 1941 (the other was High Sierra) and was his first significant non-gangster role.  What can I say?  The man was born to play tough guy detectives.  His timing with dialogue is perfect here, managing to be funny, witty, and sadistic --- sometimes in all in the same line.  As someone who has read dozens of hard-boiled novels and seen many film noirs, I can state that Bogart's portrayal here is the archetypal noir hero.  That might seem like a "no duh" in retrospect, but consider just how many classic actors from Hollywood's golden age tried similar roles; it's a great performance, but it's even more impressive when you realize how many other actors fail to live up to it.

So that's where they got the hair idea for There's Something About Mary...

The supporting cast was nearly as good as Bogart.  Mary Astor's femme fatale, while a little melodramatic by modern standards, still holds up pretty well today.  She's mean and nasty, but vulnerable and magnetic, the very epitome of a dangerous lady.  The other women in the film play their parts pretty well, but Gladys George (Archer's wife) and Lee Patrick can't hold a candle to Astor's performance.  Peter Lorre does a great job as an effeminate criminal; the interactions between him and Bogart amuse me so much, especially when Bogart is mocking an armed Lorre.

Well...that's phallic.

This was Sydney Greenstreet's film debut (and the first of nine movies with Peter Lorre) and his performance is especially impressive for a rookie; as the main villain in the film, he managed to be sneaky, powerful, and humble in quick succession.  Perhaps my favorite supporting performance in the film (although it is hard to beat Lorre) comes from Elisha Cook, Jr. and his part as the gun-toting arm of Greenstreet.  I've always liked the idea of a character that plays tougher than they truly are, but I think Cook really nailed that idea on the head with his performance.

The writing gave these performers a lot of great lines, but John Huston did a wonderful job directing them all.  The timing in each scene was impeccable, the pace is fast but you never get lost in the details; these are important elements in any crime story, but are essential when the dialogue needs to crackle with wit.  Huston also did a good job with the cinematography; there is a lot of symbolism in this movie and there are a lot of interesting (and, thankfully, meaningful) camera angles used.  Even though this was his first film, it must have been apparent from the start that John Huston was a master director.

When you add all that up, what do you get?  In short, probably my favorite movie of all time (although Raiders of the Lost Ark is another good choice).  It has great direction, a better script and a delightful cast.  Is this an action-packed movie?  No, but the story moves quickly enough to make you think otherwise.  That might be the key to this film's longevity; even though times have changed, everyone loves the guy who outsmarts the competition and mocks his enemies.  It's the American Way in (a slightly cynical) film format.  In other words, in a genre --- this is vintage film noir, in case you hadn't realized it --- of tough men, dangerous women, and hazy morality, there is nothing better than The Maltese Falcon.

The African Queen

Looking at this movie poster, you might think that this is a film about a dashing leading man who rescues a beautiful woman from dangerous...hippos?  Um...and there's an explosion in the corner.  While there is some truth to this poster --- the leads are in a boat, and there is an explosion --- it's not a very accurate representation of the film.  That's okay, though.  If you're lured in by the poster, you might not see the movie you thought you wanted to watch, but you will still catch a classic.

The African Queen is adapted from the novel of the same name, which tells the story of how a religious old maid and a drunken river rat decided to help Great Britain fight the Germans in World War I.  The story opens with Rose (Katherine Hepburn) and her brother (Robert Morley) in a missionary church, doing their best to instill Christianity to their non-English speaking African flock.  Their best isn't terribly impressive.  Charlie (Humphrey Bogart), the dirty and bearded owner of a small steam boat (The African Queen), shows up from time to time to deliver mail to the mission.  This time, though, he also brings news of a war between England and Germany.  That's bad news for these British missionaries, because their mission is in German East Africa.  The siblings naively believe that they have nothing to fear and Charlie leaves.  Soon after, Germans enter the mission, round up the locals (for unknown reasons) and beat Rose's brother; he survives the attack, but falls ill and dies soon after.  Charlie stops by a few days later and finds Rose numb with grief.  He helps her bury her brother, and the pair take the African Queen to safety.

Or do they?  It turns out that Charlie doesn't get a chance to talk to English-speaking people much, and he fills awkward silences with one-sided conversation.  Charlie reveals that he is a machinist, and that he can make just about anything, given the right parts.  He could even make torpedoes from the material on his boat.  Charlie also let it slip that the Germans have a huge gunship in a lake downriver that effectively keeps the British forces at bay.  Rose puts these two thoughts together and decides that she and Charlie should sink the German gunship by ramming a torpedo-wielding African Queen into it.  Of course, that is assuming they can navigate the treacherous river together, avoiding its natural and man-made dangers all the while.  As you might surmise from my brief character descriptions, Charlie and Rose are not very similar and much of the story is devoted to their relationship.  Predictably, they start out fairly frosty toward each other, but eventually warm up and fall in love.  The film is basically their love story, with the attack on the Germans serving as their zero hour. 

I hadn't seen this film in at least ten years before this viewing, so I went in with somewhat fond recollections.  I wasn't terribly impressed with the first act of the movie this time around, though.  Sure, I appreciated the amount of scenes that were clearly filmed in Africa (which was a hassle in 1951 with their enormous cameras) and liked the subtle jab at the futile efforts of "converting" third world people to Christianity.  I've got no problem with missionaries converting people, but to presume that you can create spiritual and moral understanding without having a language in common is just silly.  Oh, Colonialism, you are the prankster of all -isms.  But I digress.  Charlie and Rose's characters are well-established in these early scenes, but something about them bothers me.  I don't think they are very likable characters when the movie begins.  I understand that their stereotypical presentations are just to establish a quick understanding between the filmmakers and the audience, but these scenes are awkward, both purposefully and accidentally.  I see this serving a purpose in their relationship, but the pace is slow enough for this part of the film to seriously drag.

That doesn't last long, though. Once the film establishes its direction with the let's-sink-the-Krauts idea, the main characters loosen up and become very entertaining.  This isn't a typical Bogart role; his character has more flaws than most of his memorable characters and fewer obvious strengths.  This isn't your normal, debonair romantic Bogart, either.  Charlie is dirty and uncouth.  This might be the happiest Bogart character I have seen, though, and when Charlie is enjoying himself the movie flies by.  Bogart won the Best Actor Oscar for this role, and it is a fine performance, although it might have been one of those we-can't-believe-you-haven't-won-yet awards, since he beat out Marlon Brando's work in A Streetcar Named Desire.  Katherine Hepburn is no slouch, either, of course.  I'm not usually a huge Hepburn fan (mostly because of her voice), but she does a good job here, showing a very plausible transition from prim and proper lady to a woman discovering love for the first time.  Plus, it's Katherine Hepburn...the woman's whole career was Oscar nominated, so you can bet she doesn't mail her performance in here.  Together, Bogart and Hepburn are delightful to watch and their romance manages to remain fun and never gets too cloying.

There really aren't many other actors in this film.  After Robert Morley's character dies, the next important character is the German captain, played by Peter Bull.  They're serviceable, but that because that's all they need to be.  This is not an ensemble movie.  That means that the director, frequent Bogart collaborator John Huston, spent almost his entire focus on the film's romance, and it pays off in spades.  The cinematography is pretty good, although the occasional African animals that receive a quick cut were clearly never near the stars.  Huston is a great director, and while this movie is more light-hearted than most of his classic works, he is still able to make an entertaining film with two great lead performances.

John Huston also co-wrote the screenplay, which is substantially less great than his direction.  It's not a bad script, by any means, but a lot of the dialogue has become dated in a way that his other screenwriting credits have not.  There is also the completely valid complaint that the plot of this movie is implausible as all hell.  I don't really mind that so much, since the main characters are so much fun to watch, but it would be a huge problem if the lead actors were, say, Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid.

The absolute worst thing about this film, though, is the soundtrack.  There are long periods where the only background noise comes from nature, and that fits this film's tone perfectly.  Every so often, though, Allan Gray's score pops up.  I don't have any musical education, so it's hard for me to put those sounds into words.  I guess the best I can do is have you picture Denzel Washington, after several tense minutes, breaking into a smile to charm his woman, even in a bad situation...and then the Popeye theme music comes in, not as a joke or an homage, but because they felt that that type of music with those instruments fit that moment just right.  Awful, right?  Well, it's a little worse in The African Queen.  It's so bad that the score should end each of its pieces with a "wah-waaaaah" noise to at least sympathize with the audience that has to listen to it.

To summarize: Bogart and Hepburn are great, and so is Huston's direction.  The writing is a little hokey, but the score is distractingly bad (when it appears).

Dark Passage

On paper, having Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall in a movie that involves a prison break, murder, blackmail, and love seems like a no-brainer call for a movie classic. And, three times out of four, you would be absolutely right. The other entries in the Bogie-Bacall catalog are fantastic. This one? Not so much.

Don't get me wrong; this is not by any means a bad film. Bogart and Bacall are their usual tough-as-nails and cool-as-ice selves, which is always fun to watch. The supporting actors are good too, particularly Tom D'Andrea as the cabbie. The pacing of the film is good, too. There aren't dull points, or areas where the director should have cut; it's barely over 100 minutes long.

The plot isn't bad either. Bogart's character is wrongly convicted of killing his wife years ago; the movie begins with him breaking out of prison. Bacall recognizes him and chooses to help him get to safety by smuggling him to her home. Bogart then gets plastic surgery to alter his face and spends his recovery time with Bacall. With a new face, Bogart has to either skip town or try to find who killed his wife.

So, what's the problem? Well, if Bogart is going to have plastic surgery to end up looking like Humphrey Bogart, then who will he look like for the first half of the film? Remember, this was made in 1947. It would have been extremely difficult to have another actor play Bogart's role and then dub Bogart's voice in over the other actor's (because a face change can be explained, but a voice change wouldn't make sense). Director and screenplay writer Delmer Daves opted to avoid this problem entirely. We don't see Bogart's face until after the plastic surgery is done; in fact, we don't see Bogart without bandages on his face until about the one hour mark. Instead, Daves shot the first half of the movie from the perspective of Bogart's character. You almost never see extended use of the first-person perspective in mainstream cinema; it's usually relegated to brief scenes in slasher pics or porno. While this movie certainly rates above most (but not all) of those movies, I just expected the POV camera work to have some other meaning. If a director allows a scene to be filmed in an unusual manner, there should be an ulterior motive, something that tells the viewer more about the character or the scene than the screenplay suggests. Sadly, this unusual camera work seems to just be a way to get around the technical limitations Daves found himself with.

Oh, and there is one problem with the plot. Bacall chooses to help Bogart because her character's father was convicted of killing her mother, and Bacall believed her father to be innocent. Bacall admits that she helped Bogart because his situation reminded her of her father's.  You would expect Daddy issues of this size to play a large part in the film, but that was apparently a motivation taken at face value in the 1940's.

Ultimately, the main weakness in this film is the fact that it stars Humphrey Bogart as a noir hero, and yet we don't get to see him act for the first hour.  That doesn't make the movie bad, but it sure limits the potential for greatness.