The Shop Around the Corner

Sekelumit tentang: The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

Tahun Keluar: 1940
Negara Asal: USA
Sutradara: Ernst Lubitsch
Cast: Margaret Sullavan, James Stewart, Frank Morgan, Joseph Schildkraut
 
Romantic comedy, atau sering disingkat dengan “romcom”, adalah genre film yang populer -- disukai antar gender, dan kadang-2 antar generasi (yang sudah setengah bayapun bisa memahami dan menikmati). Walaupun tidak terkenal sebagai genre film dengan tema yang berat/serius, dari waktu ke waktu kita menemukan film romcom yang “di atas rata-2,” karena selain menampilkan romans dan komedi, script-nya ternyata menyisipkan topik yang lumayan penting. The Shop Around the Corner (1940) adalah salah satu di antaranya. Alfred Kralik (James Stewart) dan Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) adalah rekan sekerja. Masing-2 tidak cocok dengan yang lainnya, dan masing-2 mempunyai kawan pena yang merupakan jodoh impian. Yang tidak mereka ketahui adalah masing-2 adalah kawan pena dari yang lainnya tersebut :-) Sampai suatu saat salah satu di antara mereka menemukan fakta tersebut!

Tidakkah kita masih sering berjuang untuk menjadi yang terbaik dari diri kita sendiri? Bukankah kita juga benci kalau kita tidak berhasil menjadi yang terbaik dari diri kita sendiri?

How do you think Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail (1998) measure up against James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan in this film?

The Shop Around the Corner dapat anda temukan di eBay.com

The Philadelphia Story

Resensi Film: The Philadelphia Story (9.0/10)

Tahun Keluar: 1940
Negara Asal: USA
Sutradara: George Cukor
Cast: Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart

Plot: Ketika reporter majalah gosip muncul sehari sebelum hari perkawinan (kedua)-nya, Tracy Samantha Lord terpaksa menjalani "crash course" tentang masa lalu dengan bekas suaminya, ketidakharmonisan hubungan dengan ayahnya, dan ... menemukan siapa dirinya, the truth about herself! (IMDb)

Adaptasi dari teater Broadway dengan judul yang sama karya Philip Barry, film ini adalah film yang menjadi inspirasi bagi film musical High Society (1956). Sebelum membicarakan film remake yang merupakan sukses komersial tersebut, penulis ingin menampilkan beberapa point menarik dari film aslinya yang membuatnya pantas terpilih masuk dalam klasifikasi "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" dalam United States National Film Registry pada tahun 1995.

Siapa lagi yang paling cocok membawakan film dengan pesan sosial dan feminis yang penting pada jamannya selain Katharine Hepburn?! Bahkan seandainya Hepburn tidak akting-pun, dia dapat membawakan perannya dengan menyakinkan, karena Tracy Samantha Lord sedikit banyak cocok dengan kepribadiannya. Apa inti cerita dalam film ini? Ada dua tema pokok yang mendasari ceritanya. Pertama, ada era dimana moral sangat dijunjung tinggi, dan pada saat yang sama standard ganda - dalam kasus ini, antara pria dan wanita - juga tumbuh subur. Bukankah ini sesuatu yang universal, sesuatu yang kita kenal?! Dikotomi ini menimbulkan potensi konflik yang hebat. Melihat dari kacamata modern (apakah kita sudah modern?), terasa janggal melihat Tracy Samantha perlu/harus membela diri -- menjelaskan mengapa dia tidak menyukai ayahnya yang berselingkuh dengan wanita lain. Lebih janggal lagi melihat ibunya -- yang notabene adalah pihak yang disakiti atau dirugikan, memohon kepada Tracy untuk tidak bersikap terlalu keras terhadap ayahnya, seakan-2 memaklumi tindakan philandering suaminya, dan to a certain extent ... menyalahkan dirinya sendiri (:-() Dan yang paling janggal adalah melihat ayahnya yang bersikap apologetic terhadap perselingkuhan tersebut -- menjelaskannya sebagai tindakan normal seorang pria yang menolak menjadi tua (quote dari dialog dalam film: "A reluctance to grow old."). Menyaksikan adegan ini, penulis setuju: ya, memang betul, ada era dimana moral sangat dijunjung tinggi, tetapi bigotry juga tumbuh subur. Tidak salah kalau Tracy "going nuts" gara-2 ini ... :-) Dan Hepburn membawakan perannya dengan meyakinkan, flawless: tajam, sarkastik, tetapi sesuai dengan jamannya. Tema kedua yang berjalan paralel mendasari cerita dalam film ini adalah prejudice. Walaupun Tracy adalah heroine dalam film ini, dia bukan heroine yang tanpa kelemahan, karena dia terlalu cepat menghakimi orang (prejudice) -- sebagai wanita yang pandai dan independen, dia sering terlalu cepat "melangkah". Sebanyak apapun dukungan penonton untuk Tracy, dia terlalu cepat menghakimi ayahnya (yang philanderer), bekas suaminya (yang alkoholik), dan reporter majalah gosip (yang berasal dari kelas sosial lebih rendah). Tetapi Tracy tidak sendirian dalam hal ini, karena sang reporter (James Stewart) dan fotografer-nya (Ruth Hussey) juga mempunyai prejudice terhadap orang kaya: "Oh, orang kaya itu modelnya pasti seperti bla, bla, bla ..." :-) Dari sini muncul satu tema suplemen yang menambah kekompleksan ceritanya, yaitu tentang kelas-2 sosial, bagaimana satu kelas sosial memandang kelas sosial yang lain, apakah orang yang "naik kelas" kemudian berubah menjadi seperti orang dari kelas tujuan atau tetap seperti orang dari kelas asalnya. Di sinilah letak keindahan cerita dari Philip Barry dan keunggulan script dari Donald Ogden Stewart ini: kompleks, riel, dan tajam. Walaupun menerima first billing, Cary Grant kurang bersinar dalam perannya sebagai bekas suami Tracy, C.K. Dexter Haven, kecuali dengan namanya yang nyentrik tersebut. Walaupun Grant memperoleh bagiannya dalam dialog yang tajam dan sarkastik, pembawaannya terkesan straightforward. Dan mungkin efek yang tidak disangka, justru Stewart sebagai reporter, Macaulay Connor, dan Hussey sebagai fotografer, Elizabeth Imbrie, yang berhasil bersinar dan mencuri sebagian perhatian penonton dari Hepburn. Stewart berhasil mencuri tempat Grant tersebut, dan sekaligus mencuri Oscar untuk Aktor Terbaik, dengan pembawaannya yang komik dan Hussey berhasil menyabet nominasi Oscar untuk Aktres Pendukung Terbaik dengan pembawaannya yang pragmatis. Sutradara George Cukor (24 tahun kemudian mengarahkan film dengan kekompleksan psyche yang sama, My Fair Lady), sangat teliti dalam menempatkan kamera pada saat-2 yang tepat untuk menangkap ekspresi wajah karakter-2nya, meng-accentuate point-2 penting dalam scriptnya.

Walaupun situasi sosial sudah sangat berubah dari ketika film ini dibuat, The Philadelphia Story tetap merupakan timeless comedy dan kita tetap dapat menarik banyak pelajaran dari film ini.

* 9.0/10

The Philadelphia Story dapat anda temukan di eBay.com

You Can't Take It with You

Resensi Film: You Can't Take It with You (8.0/10)

Tahun Keluar: 1938

Negara Asal: USA

Sutradara: Frank Capra

Cast: Jean Arthur, Lionel Barrymore, James Stewart, Edward Arnold

Plot: Seorang pria dari keluarga konservatif jatuh cinta dengan seorang wanita dari keluarga bohemian. Ketika dua keluarga yang berbeda bagaikan bumi dan langit ini bertemu, gaya hidup dan pandangan hidup bertabrakan secara frontal (IMDb).

Adaptasi dari teater pemenang penghargaan Pulitzer karya George S. Kaufman dan Moss Hart ini menunjukkan bagaimana tulisan yang baik dapat mengubah cerita yang biasa dan sederhana menjadi cerita yang menarik dan mempunyai kedalaman. Sama seperti film-2 arahan Frank Capra yang lainnya, You Can't Take It with You mengajak anda untuk mempertanyakan: Apa sich yang paling penting dalam hidup ini? Kalau kita meninggal dunia, kita tidak dapat membawa apa yang kita miliki di dunia ini bersama kita ... you can't take it with you! Hero dalam film ini adalah Martin Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore). Orang bilang dia eksentrik, karena dia meninggalkan pekerjaannya yang mapan untuk hidup sesuai dengan panggilannya, yaitu melakukan apa yang membuat dia bahagia. Sama seperti dalam film-2 Capra yang lainnya, hero yang kecil dan lemah ini dihadapkan pada anti-hero yang besar dan kuat, Anthony P. Kirby (Edward Arnold), seorang industriawan dengan kekuasaan yang menjangkau mulai dari rumahnya sampai ke Gedung Putih. Tetapi Vanderhof tidak gentar sama sekali terhadap Kirby, karena dia sudah memegang "kunci" kehidupannya. Ketika cucunya, Alice (Jean Arthur), memberitahu bahwa dia jatuh cinta dengan Kirby Junior (James Stewart), dua keluarga yang berbeda bagaikan bumi dan langit ini bertemu ... kontan saja gaya hidup dan pandangan hidup bertabrakan secara frontal. Segala macam pertanyaan sederhana, and yet philosophical, keluar dari sarangnya: uang versus kebahagiaan, uang adalah segalanya, uang bukan segalanya. Apakah anda bersedia mengorbankan jati diri dan kebahagiaan anda demi menjadi "normal" -- "normal" itu apa; eksentrik -- "eksentrik" itu apa. Script-nya dengan pandai menghibur penonton dengan pertanyaan-2 tersebut. Empat tokoh utama dalam film ini memperoleh character development yang matang dan multi-faceted, sehingga mereka tampil believable dan riel. Lionel Barrymore tampil meyakinkan sebagai eksentrik yang normal (atau normal yang eksentrik?), dan Edward Arnold dengan sangat baik mengimbangi penampilan Barrymore tersebut. Jean Arthur dan James Stewart tampil believable sebagai pasangan muda yang terhimpit dalam situasi "gila" tersebut, padahal satu-2nya hal yang mereka pedulikan adalah cinta mereka. Sayangnya, tokoh-2 pendukung yang lainnya tidak memperoleh treatment yang sama, sehingga mereka nampak karikaturis atau parodis -- sehingga membuat film secara keseluruhan terkesan trying too hard to get the message across. Namun demikian, film ini adalah film drama komedi yang langka (menerima Oscar untuk Film Terbaik pada tahun 1939) yang akan membekas dalam ingatan anda jauh setelah anda selesai menontonnya.

Would you sacrifice your own happiness to become "normal"?

* 8.0/10

You Can't Take It with You dapat anda temukan di eBay.com

Anatomy of a Murder

Resensi Film: Anatomy of a Murder (***1/2/4)

Tahun Keluar: 1959

Negara Asal: USA

Sutradara: Otto Preminger

Cast: James Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, Arthur O'Connell, Eve Arden

Plot: Seorang pengacara membela seorang pembunuh dengan alasan "temporary insanity" (IMDb).

Berdasarkan novel dengan judul yang sama karya hakim di Pengadilan Tinggi di Michigan, John D. Voelker -- yang menggunakan nama pena Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Murder memperoleh ketenaran dan posisinya dalam sejarah perfilman sebagai film pertama yang menggunakan terminologi seksual yang sebelumnya dianggap tabu. Sebagai film yang menandai awal dari akhir dari self-censorship di Hollywood, scriptnya ditebari dengan kata-2 yang gamblang, misalnya pemerkosaan, penetrasi, kontraseptif, celana dalam, dan semen. Penonton jaman sekarang mungkin terheran-2, bukankah kata-2 seperti itu sudah biasa? Untuk jaman sekarang, memang sudah biasa ... tetapi saat itu, merupakan breakthrough atau revolusi. Selain itu, Anatomy of a Murder mungkin adalah film kedua yang paling terkenal dari Otto Preminger setelah Laura (1944). Jika anda menyukai drama pengadilan, anda mungkin menemukan film ini sangat menghibur. Karakter-2 utama yang ada sangat realistis: tertuduh (Ben Gazzara) dan istrinya (Lee Remick) digambarkan sebagai orang-2 yang tidak simpatik -- suaminya sebagai orang yang sinis dan keras yang nampak jelas bersalah atas pembunuhan yang dia lakukan, dan istrinya sebagai wanita penggoda yang nampak jelas senang mengundang masalah; sementara pihak pengacara (James Stewart) dan pihak jaksa penuntut (George C. Scott), keduanya lebih tertarik memenangkan kasus daripada menegakkan keadilan. Karakter-2 pendukung yang lain memainkan peran sidekick yang menyegarkan: Eve Arden sebagai sekretaris Stewart yang dengan sabar menunggu gajinya dari boss-nya -- jika dia berhasil memenangkan kasus ini, Arthur O'Connell sebagai partner Stewart yang berbakat tetapi mempunyai masalah alkoholisme, Murray Hamilton sebagai teman dari korban yang tidak kooperatif, Kathryn Grant sebagai anak simpanan dari korban yang misterius, tetapi Joseph Welch sebagai hakim pengadilan berhasil mencuri centre-stage dengan aktingnya yang hangat dan meyakinkan. Beberapa titik lemah dari film ini adalah nampak terlalu dibuat-2 ketika Grant menjadi saksi terakhir yang mengakhiri drama pengadilan ini; juga nampak terlalu mudah bagi O'Connell mengatasi alkoholisme-nya, sementara kecelakaan yang dia alami terasa melodramatis; kemudian, bagaimana dengan Arden? ... apakah dia akhirnya mendapatkan gajinya dari boss-nya? Anatomy of a Murder diiringi oleh musical score dari musisi jazz ternama, Duke Ellington, yang melakukan penampilan cameo dalam film ini.

Cerita (****)

Screenplay (****)

Karakter (***1/2)

Akting (***1/2)

Keseluruhan: ***1/2/4

Anatomy of a Murder dapat anda temukan di eBay.com

Night Passage

Movie Review: Night Passage (**1/2 out of 4 stars)

Year of Release: 1957

Country of Origin: USA

Director: James Neilson

Cast: James Stewart, Audie Murphy, Dan Duryea

Plot outline: A disgraced railroad employee tries to prove himself by guarding the company's payroll against outlaws (IMDb).

The story (** the movie was underwhelming, telling a tale that hardly mattered)

How the story unfolds (** the plot was slight and the story lacked intensity; it flatly tells the familiar tale about two brothers, one bad, one good)

The characters (**1/2 Stewart wasn't crazy about the script, but remained aboard because his part called for an accordion player and he wanted to show off his ability in an instrument he loves playing)

The acting (**1/2)

Overall rating **1/2 out of 4 stars

The Man from Laramie

Movie Review: The Man from Laramie (*** out of 4 stars)

Year of Release: 1955

Country of Origin: USA

Director: Anthony Mann

Cast: James Stewart, Arthur Kennedy, Donald Crisp, Cathy O'Donnell

Plot outline: A wandering cowboy gets caught in the rivalry between an aging rancher's sons (IMDb).

The story (*** It has layer upon layer of storyline with themes such as revenge, fatherly love, deceit and treachery all covered with equal aplomb. Adding to the mix is a slight undertone of romance which adds another layer to the storyline without encroaching on the main themes.)

How the story unfolds (***)

The characters (**1/2)

The acting (**1/2)

Overall rating *** out of 4 stars

Call Northside 777

Movie Review: Call Northside 777 (*** out of 4 stars)

Year of Release: 1948
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Henry Hathaway
Cast: James Stewart, Richard Conte, Lee J. Cobb, Kasia Orzazewski

Plot outline: Based on a true story; when a woman places an ad in the Chicago Times offering a $5,000 reward for information that will exonerate her son, the newspaper assigns reporter P.J. McNeal to look into the eleven year old murder case (IMDb).

The story (***)
How the story unfolds (*** the documentary style is what really grips the viewer, aided by classic, no-nonsense bridge narration, and superb locations that frequently dwarf the crusading reporter, and enhance the forgotten status of Wiecek's innocent man status--as seen in a marvelous prison sequence)
The characters (***)
The acting (***)

Overall rating *** out of 4 stars

It's a Wonderful Life

Movie Review: It's a Wonderful Life

Year of Release: 1946
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Frank Capra
Cast: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell, Henry Travers

Plot outline: A tale of a selfless man’s reluctant struggle for good against a seemingly overwhelming tide of evil (IMDb).

It’s a Wonderful Life is a funny, heartfelt story buoyed by some wonderful performances, great production values, and near perfect direction. The three principal actors give career-defining performances. James Stewart is George Bailey. His performance is so perfect, it doesn’t feel like a performance at all. He never seems to be acting, but rather simply reacting to the events of the story in a natural fashion. Opposite him, there’s Lionel Barrymore, turning in one of the finest villains ever captured on film. His Mr. Potter is an angry, bitter man out to ruin George Bailey simply because he can’t understand him, and therefore fears him. Despite having relatively few scenes, Barrymore still evokes a powerful presence, embodying all the prejudice, hate, and fear of the world in a single, identifiable, character. Finally there’s Henry Travers, whose oft-imitated, matter-of-fact, performance as Clarence, the second-class Angel provides some of the movie’s funniest, and darkest, moments. Those three provide the rock-solid foundation for director Frank Capra to spin his tale of a selfless man’s reluctant struggle for good against a seemingly overwhelming tide of evil. His script, along with Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, hits all the right notes as it builds to a gut-wrenching finale that, against all odds, manages to avoid feeling cheesy. Perhaps this is because of Capra’s decision to allow Mr. Potter to avoid any explicit repercussions for his actions. While this decision was definitely unpopular with fans who wanted to see Potter get his comeuppance, this loose end keeps the movie grounded in a more relatable reality, one where the bad guys don’t always get caught, but one where, hopefully, the good guys can still find a way to win. If the movie has any flaw, it’s in the young George Bailey character. In addition to having no resemblance to James Stewart, Bobby Anderson over-emotes terribly, especially in his scene opposite Lionel Barrymore. Thankfully, his is a small part, and thus a small blemish on an otherwise flawless movie. (FML)

My judgement: **** out of 4 stars

The Flight of the Phoenix

Movie Review: The Flight of the Phoenix

Year of Release: 1965
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Robert Aldrich
Cast: James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Peter Finch, Hardy Krüger, Ernest Borgnine, George Kennedy

Plot outline: After a plane crash in the Sahara, with no chance of rescue, one of the survivors says he's an airplane designer and they can make a flyable plane from the wreckage (IMDb).

In a gripping tale of courage, resourcefulness and determination, The Flight of the Phoenix strips bare the morals of the survivors. Robert Aldrich has fashioned a tense, boys-own-adventure type story from nothing more than dust, great acting and impressive stunt flying. The script is strong enough to gradually build to successive, heart-stopping moments without dawdling or resorting to cliche (particularly impressive when you remember that the movie began with a bang). Standing out from the crowd with excellent performances, James Stewart and Richard Attenborough provide a central axis around which the other characters revolve and interact. Attenborough's character, Lew, is particularly interesting since he provides the glue which holds everything together, a pivotal role. The scenery is impressive, in the sense of the mindless force of nature and endless sand dunes, even though the film crew went nowhere near Arabia. It's interesting to speculate on how you would cope in these circumstances but, of course, the $64,000 question is whether you would even think of constructing a plane out of the wreckage of the first? I'm not sure that I would have done, but I will now! (DC)

My judgement: *** out of 4 stars

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Movie Review: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Year of Release: 1939
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Frank Capra
Cast: James Stewart, Jean Arthur, Claude Rains

Plot outline: A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn't back down (IMDb).

Frank Capra is a believer in democracy as well as a stout-hearted humorist. His comedy is not merely a brilliant jest, but a stirring and even inspiring testament to liberty and freedom, to simplicity and honesty and to the innate dignity of just the average man. He paced the movie beautifully and held it in perfect balance, weaving his romance lightly through the political phases of his comedy, flicking a sardonic eye over the Washington scene, racing out to the hinterland to watch public opinion being made and returning miraculously in time to tie all the story threads together into a serious and meaningful dramatic pattern. The script is a cogent and workmanlike script, with lines worthy of its cast. As Jefferson Smith, James Stewart is superb. He has too many good scenes, but I like to remember the way his voice cracked when he got up to read his bill, the way he dropped his hat when he met the senior Senator's daughter, and the way he whistled at the Senators when they turned their backs on him in the filibuster (he just wanted them to turn around so he could be sure they still had faces). Jean Arthur, as the secretary - lucky girl being secretary to both Deeds and Smith - tosses a line and bats an eye with delightful drollery. Claude Rains, as the senior Senator, Edward Arnold, as the party steam-roller, Thomas Mitchell, as a roguish correspondent, are splendid all. (NYT)

My judgement: ***1/2 out of 4 stars

Harvey

Movie Review: Harvey

Year of Release: 1950
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Henry Koster
Cast: James Stewart, Josephine Hull, Peggy Dow, Charles Drake

Plot outline: Elwood P. Dowd is a mild-mannered, pleasant man, who just happens (he says) to have an invisible friend resembling a 6-foot rabbit (IMDb).

If you're for warm and gentle whimsy, for a charmingly fanciful farce and for a little touch of pathos anent the fateful evanescence of man's dreams, then Harvey is definitely for you. As a matter of fact, even if you're not in a mood for all of these, an hour and three-quarters with Harvey will do you a world of good. And if it does not, then the fault will be less with Harvey than it will be with you. The real virtue of this picture is its wonderfully warm and sympathetic presentation of character and its wistfully sweet appreciation of the innocence of a benevolent lush. As Elwood P. Dowd, the rabbit fancier - Harvey's companion in killing time - James Stewart is utterly beguiling and disarming of all annoyance. A faint touch of seeming imbecility, which is somewhat distasteful at the start, is quickly dispelled as he makes Elwood a man to be admired. And Josephine Hull plays Elwood's sister with such hilarious confusion and daft concern that she brings quite as much to the picture as does Stewart. Victoria Horne is perfect as Elwood's timorous niece and Jesse White is a smash as the looney-bin guard. Cecil Kellaway as an addled doctor, William Lynn as the family counselor, and Peggy Dow and Charles Drake as young attendants do their jobs cheerfully and well. And that goes for everybody. (NYT)

My judgement: *** out of 4 stars

Rope

Movie Review: Rope

Year of Release: 1948
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger

Plot outline: Two young men strangle their "inferior" classmate, hide his body in their apartment, and invite his friends and family to a dinner party as a means to challenge the "perfection" of their crime (IMDb).

Based on the play of the same name by Patrick Hamilton, Rope was conceived by Hitchcock as primarily a technical challenge. The intention was to shoot the movie in such a way that it appeared to be one continuous take, something that had never been attempted before (and has rarely been tried since). Shooting the movie in one take was a practical impossibility at the time, since the maximum length of an unbroken take was limited to how much film could be loaded in the camera, which was around ten minutes’ worth of footage. To get round this, the movie was shot in ten segments (of between five and ten minutes in duration), with each shot beginning and ending on a close up of either the jacket of one of the characters or the lid of the trunk containing the corpse, creating the illusion of one continuous take. This technical feat proved to be a logistic nightmare for all concerned on the production, cast and crew alike. The movements of all of the actors had to be meticulously worked out beforehand on a model and then rehearsed on the set many times before each take. The walls of the set and the furniture were mounted on castors so that they could be shifted during the recording to allow the huge cameras to move around the set on a specially constructed dolly. The actors not only had to hit their marks precisely and avoid fluffing lines, e.g. give the equivalent of a faultless theatrical performance, but had the additional problem of avoiding tripping over the mass of cables that festooned the set. And there were other challenges. This was Hitchcock’s first colour movie, made when Technicolor was still pretty much an experimental medium. The biggest problem this posed was getting the lighting right for the view of the New York skyline seen through the window of the apartment. In the course of the movie, the lighting had to change gradually to reflect the transition from afternoon to early evening and then night. Hitchcock was dissatisfied with the appearance of the sunset in the first shoot and so re-shot the last five segments of the movie.

Not only was the movie treading new ground technologically, it would also break the mould in other ways, with its unveiled allusions to homosexuality - an area which Hollywood had hitherto religiously avoided. Because of it, Rope was commercially unsuccessful (it was banned in some regions of the United States), and it is interesting that it fared much better in Europe than in America. Whilst Rope is without doubt a great technical achievement and is fascinating to watch, as a piece of drama is has one or two flaws that prevent it from being ranked alongside Hitchcock’s greater works. One notable deficiency is the miscasting of James Stewart, who fails to be convincing as an inspirational intellectual who might motivate two youngsters to kill someone; from his doddering performance, it seems far more probable that he would infect them with terminal narcolepsy or an urge to take up crochet. Part of the problem is that Stewart’s character is poorly developed. In the original play by Hamilton, it was implied that the character had a homosexual relationship with the two boys when they were under his care, which would explain the influence he had over them. In the movie, the character motivation is pretty well lacking and Stewart looks like a spare rib. Whilst James Stewart’s performance disappoints, the same cannot be said for his co-stars. Both Farley Granger and John Dall are excellent, portraying a pair of odious amoral characters in a way that retains the audience’s sympathy, allowing the suspense to function in the best Hitchcockian tradition. There are also notable contributions from the supporting cast - particularly Cedric Hardwicke and Constance Collier. (JT)

My judgement: ***1/2 out of 4 stars

Vertigo

Movie Review: Vertigo

Year of Release: 1958
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes

Plot outline: A San Francisco detective suffering from acrophobia investigates the strange activities of an old friend's wife, all the while becoming dangerously obsessed with her (IMDb).

Adapted from French novel Sueurs froides: d'entre les morts (Cold Sweat: From Among the Dead) by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac, this is the movie that competes with Rear Window to get to the top of Hitchcock's best works. Even though Vertigo is essentially a tale of sexual obsession, it can be viewed from many different angles: a love story, a detective story, a character study of an obsessed man and a supernatural thriller. While it lacks the humour of some of Hitchcock's other masterpieces, it is filled with complexity and suspense. Hitchcock uses splendid visual detail, calculated tempo and superb musical scores by Bernard Hermann to produce a mysterious atmosphere. The tension rarely lets up and the audience is completely caught up in it. As almost every moment is filled with significant detail, the movie repays careful attention. James Stewart is outstanding in a role far different from his usual screen persona. He enables the audience to sympathize with him, even as he does very strange things, e.g. he insists that Judy dress like Madeleine, walk like her, colour the hair like her, even wear the same hairstyle like her. Kim Novak is thoroughly convincing in a difficult double role. She switches from Madeleine's refined beauty to Judy's rather vulgar looks, speech and demeanour seamlessly. As a result, this is the ultimate role Novak will always be remembered for. Barbara Bel Geddes is excellent as she provides important insight into Stewart's character. While the performances of the lead stars are memorable, the music plays a very important role here. As the movie has the least dialogue compared to Hitchcock's other movies (most of the first half and a great deal of the second half are without dialogue), Stewart's growing obsession is solely told through his facial expressions and Bernard Herrmann's haunting musical score. In 2004 director Martin Scorsese described the qualities of Herrmann's musical score: "Vertigo is about obsession, which means that it's about circling back to the same moment, again and again ... And the music is also built around spirals and circles, fulfilment and despair. Herrmann really understood what Hitchcock was going for — he wanted to penetrate to the heart of obsession." My favourite scene is the extended segment (mostly without dialogue) when Stewart follows Novak for the first time. Nothing much happens, but the atmosphere is enough to keep you on the edge of your seat (!) Vertigo is a virtuoso piece from Hitchcock and a movie that will no doubt continue to inspire other filmmakers over the years to come. Vertigo is number 2 in my favourite list.

My judgement: **** out of 4 stars

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Movie Review: The Man Who Knew Too Much

Year of Release: 1956
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: James Stewart, Doris Day

Plot outline: A family vacationing in Morocco accidentally stumbles on to an assassination plot and the conspirators are determined to prevent them from interfering by kidnapping their son (IMDb).

This movie is a remake of Hitchcock's own movie of the same name released in 1934. The two movies are very different in tone, setting and many plot details: the first version opens in St. Moritz, Switzerland, the second version in Morocco; the earlier version climaxes in a siege and shootout in London's East End, the later version during a concert at the Royal Albert Hall; and the kidnapped daughter in the 1934 version becomes a son in the 1956 version. Some people think the earlier version is superior, but Hitchcock himself considers the 1934 version was the work of a talented amateur, while the 1956 version the work of a professional. In my opinion, they are both excellent movies with a lot of strong points. Which one you prefer is mostly a matter of taste ... watch both if you have the chance. In this remake Hitchcock casts Hollywood's big names: James Stewart and Doris Day. He makes certain sequences longer (some people might feel that he drags them out), e.g. the opening sequence between Stewart, Day and their son (Christopher Olsen) - it allows you to get to know the family better, it also sets you up for the second and third acts; the climax sequence at the Royal Albert Hall - it builds the tension up slowly and by the end the suspense is gloriously unbearable. He also uses more lavish settings and better cinematography. Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role (as always). He conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a father who lost his child and would do anything to get him back. Day is very believable in her role. Her two best scenes are: 1) when Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her that their son has been kidnapped; they play off each other beautifully, especially her as she shows different emotions at once, 2) during the climax sequence at the Royal Albert Hall where she once again shows her conflicting emotions. Brenda De Banzie, Bernard Miles and Daniel Gélin do a great job in portraying their characters. Reggie Nalder is brilliant as the assassin ... his effusive portrayal radiates evil. Music plays an important part in this movie. Several times in the movie, Day sings "Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)" which won an Oscar for Best Song, beating out "True Love" from High Society. During the climax sequence at the Royal Albert Hall, composer Bernard Herrmann, who writes so many great scores for Hitchcock's movies, can be seen conducting the London Symphony Orchestra, playing Arthur Benjamin's cantata of Storm Clouds from the 1934 version. The sequence runs 12 minutes without any dialogue (!), from the beginning to the climax when Day's character screams. Hitchcock beautifully brings us back to silent movie (!) ... the ultimate expression of his belief that movies should be stories told visually. As all of Hitchcock's movies are in my favourite list, this movie is definitely one of my personal favourites.

My judgement: *** out of 4 stars

Rear Window

Movie Review: Rear Window

Year of Release: 1954
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr

Plot outline: A wheelchair bound photographer spies on his neighbours from his apartment's rear window and becomes convinced that one of them has committed murder (IMDb).

Based on the short story It Had to Be Murder by Cornell Woolrich, Rear Window is Hitchcock's most sophisticated masterpiece and one of his best works. The first time I watched this movie, I was dumbfounded finding myself glued to the screen, from start to finish, watching out of L. B. Jefferies' apartment's rear window, across the courtyard and into his neighbours' apartments to see their goings on. It seemed so boring but yet I found it incredibly captivating. I didn't understand why. Later on, when I watched the making of this movie, I found the explanation to that "mystery". It is our obsession with voyeurism that keep our attention on what's happening inside those apartments. The effect of being able to see without being seen is spellbinding. L.B. Jefferies passes his time looking into his neighbours' apartments in an orgy of voyeurism. The camera tracks in through the windows, but never goes inside those apartments. We never see close-ups of the characters. We only see what he sees. We feel like we watch people through a window instead of in a movie. The main story takes place in his apartment (where the camera is), it includes he himself (James Stewart); his girlfriend, Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly); his friend, Det. Lt. Thomas J. Doyle (Wendell Corey); and his nurse, Stella (Thelma Ritter). Looking out through his apartment's rear window he finds voyeuristic adventures (substories with their own plots and resolutions) of the ballerina, Miss Torso; the spinster, Miss Lonelyheart; the bachelor/the songwriter; the sculptor with hearing aid; the newlywed couple; the doting couple and their dog; and the salesman and his nagging wife. These substories are as equally important as the main story. Without realizing it L. B. Jefferies looks at different aspects of either himself or his relationship with his girlfriend. These people and their predicaments represent different sides of his (and to a lesser extent his girlfriend's) personality, offering glimpses of potential past, present and future selves; and it is not always a flattering picture. No wonder Stewart's character is reluctant to commit to his irresistible girlfriend! I love this movie - every frame and every dialogue is perfect. It rewards both careful attention and repeat viewings. I've seen this movie many times and every time I see it I always find something different. The fact that Hitchcock doesn't use any kind of music - we only hear the sounds of mere realism, e.g. natural sounds or live music played in the surrounding apartments - makes the movie even more realistic. Grace Kelly mesmerizes the audience with her utter elegance. Thelma Ritter almost steals the show with her wise-cracking dialogue. Wendell Corey is believable with his dismissive attitude. While Raymond Burr is great in one of his last villainous roles before Perry Mason. Three memorable scenes that etch into my mind: 1) Miss Lonelyheart, in her romantic dinner for two, raises her glass to her imaginary lover and Stewart from afar raises his glass too (with beautiful background song of "To See You is to Love You" performed by Bing Crosby), 2) Stewart and Kelly's smoldering kisses, 3) Stewart's fighting off his attacker with flashbulbs. Rear Window is a classic that will be enjoyed not only by thriller fans, but also anyone who appreciates carefully crafted movies with a lot of depth. It received four Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Writing, Best Cinematography and Best Sound. For me, it is Hitchcock's best movie and number 1 in my favourite list.

My judgement: **** out of 4 stars

The Shop Around the Corner

Movie Review: The Shop Around the Corner

Year of Release: 1940
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Ernst Lubitsch
Cast: James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan

Plot outline: Two employees at a gift shop can barely stand one another, without realizing that they're falling in love through the post as each other's anonymous pen pal (IMDb).

Is imagination better than reality? This is the movie that inspires You've Got Mail (itself inspired by Parfumerie, a Hungarian play written by Miklós László). While the romantic-comedy side of the story charmingly seeks the answer to that question, it is the major subplot of the shop's owner that notably gives the movie its depth. Without it the movie would have been less profound.

My judgement: *** out of 4 stars