Tom Jones

With ten Oscar nominations and four wins, how is it possible that I had never heard of Tom Jones before stumbling across it on Netflix?  Granted, 1963 was a while ago, but I can think of a few classic movies from that year --- The Birds, Dr. No, Hud --- that weren't even nominated for the Best Picture award that Tom Jones wound up winning.  Sadly, no one thought to cast a young Tom Jones as the title character in Tom Jones.  You might argue that Tom Jones didn't have commercial success until a year later, but I'm just going to chalk this one up to a casting director with no vision.

Who wouldn't want to see him accept an Oscar dressed like this?

Tom Jones is an adaptation of The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, written by Henry Fielding and published in 1749.  That might not sound like an enticing source for a movie, but Fielding was known for his humor and sarcasm; this period piece is actually a comedy.  The story goes something like this: When Squire Allworthy (George Devine) returns home after many months in London, he finds an infant in his bed.  Naturally curious, Allworthy investigates and concludes that one of his servants, Jenny Jones (Joyce Redman), and his barber (Jack MacGowran) made themselves a loud and leaky reminder of their lust.  Being the mid-18th century, lust was seen as a bad thing, and Allworthy kicked both presumed parents out of his care.  He chooses to raise the bastard as a gentleman and names the little fellow Tom Jones.  Why Tom?  Why not?  It's not unusual.  ***self-inflicted face-slap***

Fast-forward twenty-odd years, and Tom Jones (Albert Finney) has become a kind and fun-loving young man, with a warm spot for any comely lady who is willing to...er...keep him warm?  Despite his many romantic entanglements, Tom is only seriously interested in Sophie Western (Susannah York).  Too bad she's a lady and he's a bastard.  Speaking of bastards, Squire Allworthy's nephew, Blifil (David Warner), hates the affection Tom seems to get from everyone, especially from the squire.  He plots with a few lackeys to get Tom disinherited by Allworthy and forever banished from his land.

200 years later, one of these men will be a Russian spy in Dr. Strangelove

Tom handles his abrupt change in fortune in stride, and proceeds to walk the earth as a poor man, albeit one with enough charm and wits to keep busy and stay healthy.  Meanwhile, Sophie's father and aunt decide that she should marry Blifil, whether she wants to or not.  Will these star-crossed lovers ever find one another?  Well, it's a comedy, so the answer will probably be yes.

The acting in Tom Jones is generally pretty solid.  Albert Finney is surprisingly charming as a young man.  Since my knowledge of Finney comes from the past twenty years, it blew my mind that he ever spoke normally or had a facial texture that didn't resemble a prune.  I don't know if I agree with Sophie's maid that he's "the handsomest man" she ever saw, but there are certainly less likely heartthrobs.  Susannah York was pretty good, too, although a large portion of her role was to balance outrage with lovey-dovey eyes.  Still, I thought she did well with the lead role.  I really enjoyed Hugh Griffith as her father; he was a lot of fun as a boorish, crass, and insensitive squire.

Best line (to a grieving son at a funeral):"Eh, cheer up."

David Warner is fine as the slimy and hypocritical Blithil, as is his fellow-in-sliminess, Peter Bull.  There are a few notable supporting performances by the women in this movie.  Diane Cilento was okay as a lusty peasant slut, Edith Evans was occasionally horrifying as Sophie's hoity-toity aunt, Joan Greenwood was solid as a horny but selfish noblewoman, and Joyce Redman had one of the least sensual dinner scenes ever.  Future Indiana Jones villain Julian Glover also plays a small part as a horrific person.

"My fortune cookie says I will die by Biblical curse...?"

Despite the presence of many, many recognizable actors and five Academy Award acting nominations, this film really isn't about the actors.  It's about the direction.  Tony Richardson took a fairly standard period piece and manipulated its style and tone to make something unique.  The opening scenes are presented as a silent movie, complete with piano music and dialogue cards.  There is a chase scene that is an obvious homage to Benny Hill.  There are freeze frames and bizarre scene wipes.  Richardson shows what is important in the story, not through dialogue, but by silence and ambient noise; Tom and Sophie fall in love during a dialogue-free extended montage (it had to be at least eight minutes long) and the hypocrisy of the "nobles" is shown through extreme close-ups of their savagery while they are hunting.  There are even a few scenes where Tom breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience; the best bit is when he is looking for his stolen money, accuses a maid/hotel owner, and then asks the audience if they saw her take anything from his pants.

Despite the interesting direction (and cinematography), I just wasn't terribly impressed by Tom Jones.  While it certainly is a watchable movie, I expected more from one of the few comedic Best Picture Oscar winners.  My biggest problem was the lack of funnies in the script.  Granted, this film was made in 1963, so the misadventures of a horny guy might have been edgy and shamefully funny at the time, but --- wait, no.  This film was released in the same year Dr. No was, and James Bond is at least as much of a man whore as Tom Jones.  No, I'm afraid that Tom Jones is one of those movies whose humor wasn't that sharp to begin with and has only dulled over time.

There are also a few scenes that simply irritated me.  I was grossed out by the extended eye-fucking Tom and Mrs. Waters engaged in over a forty-course meal.  I don't know why, but watching people flirt with greasy food smeared on their faces makes me nauseous.  The other scene I had a problem with was when Sophie's aunt advises a potential suitor to rape Sophie --- in those words!  Maybe this was just a bone Tony Richardson wanted to throw to the oh-so-important sexual predator audience, but I felt that it was in poor taste; the character who obliges in the rape attempt isn't even important, so he could have been cut from the film entirely and whittled this film down to under two hours long.

Without any lasting humor (maybe it just wasn't slapstick or sarcastic enough for me?), the clever direction appears to be random at times.  Without a sense of purpose, these solid acting performances lose their impact.  All in all, this was an interesting step forward in style for mainstream filmmaking, but that doesn't make it fun to watch in the present.

Don't poke her eye out!

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).