Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TopBilled’s Essentials

Recommended Posts

The Alexander Korda production that was filmed in 1941 was, for a time, pretty popular simply because it fell in public domain and many early VHS editions, hardly representative since they didn't involve high quality Technicolor prints, were available in the 1980s during the initial home video boom.

As we have discussed before... I don't think most of us, the film fanatic sort at least, think of Walt and his company being a benchmark for animation any more than Taco Bell being the benchmark for Mexican food. Yes, it is hard to avoid his name in these discussions, especially since most readers here will be thinking of his version regardless. Sadly it is a challenge getting many kids to even read Kipling, let alone the Brothers Grimm, when they have the D-versions so readily available. Then again, our criticisms are nothing new. Richard Schickel's very acidic The Disney Version created quite a ruckus when it was published 15 months after Walt's death, accusing him personally for destroying so much in popular literature and mass culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jlewis said:

The Alexander Korda production that was filmed in 1941 was, for a time, pretty popular simply because it fell in public domain and many early VHS editions, hardly representative since they didn't involve high quality Technicolor prints, were available in the 1980s during the initial home video boom.

As we have discussed before... I don't think most of us, the film fanatic sort at least, think of Walt and his company being a benchmark for animation any more than Taco Bell being the benchmark for Mexican food. Yes, it is hard to avoid his name in these discussions, especially since most readers here will be thinking of his version regardless. Sadly it is a challenge getting many kids to even read Kipling, let alone the Brothers Grimm, when they have the D-versions so readily available. Then again, our criticisms are nothing new. Richard Schickel's very acidic The Disney Version created quite a ruckus when it was published 15 months after Walt's death, accusing him personally for destroying so much in popular literature and mass culture.

I guess I just have a different opinion. I think it's quite easy to leave Disney out of the discussions. 

When I approach these films Disney is the last thing on my mind. I am looking at the artistry these people brought to the stories and how audiences responded to these versions, not to something else made somewhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES (1988)

TB: When Jlewis and I talked about this month's theme on foreign animation, we were just going to do four Saturdays and take the fifth week off. But then I thought, why not do another one. Especially if there's another great film we can bring to everyone's attention. A day or so later Jlewis suggested GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES. I was glad because I thought it would be good to do a more recent example of something in this genre. At the time I didn't know much about this particular title. But as I've since discovered, it's a truly phenomenal accomplishment. I'm very pleased Jlewis selected it as an essential.

One thing I'd like to point out-- in his review Jlewis talks about whether the story needed to be done in animation. He cites the fact there are no cuddly animals, which is kind of interesting. I think it was done as animation instead of live action entertainment, because the topic is somewhat solemn. Presenting it in animation gives it a much more childlike and possibly innocent quality. I think this decision by the filmmakers helps ensure it's more palatable for the audience, without sugar-coating or simplifying things too much.

I would also like to state that while it's a Japanese motion picture specific to Japanese culture, it has relevance for American audiences for obvious reasons.


Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.58.16 PM

JL: GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES (火垂るの墓 / HOTARU NO HAKA), directed and scripted by Isao Takahata and adapted from Akiyuki Nosaka semi-autobiographical short story of 1967, pretty much spoils the outcome for viewers even before the opening credits roll on screen. A teenage boy named Seita tells us in voice-over: “September 21, 1945...that was the night I died.”

We see him dressed in uniform, but in spirit form, looking over a famished homeless soul in a Kobe train station, taking his final breath. Others comment “these bums are a disgrace” and the janitors come by to collect his corpse as “another one”...to remove.

His belongings, limited that they are, are rummaged through and one particular item, a candy tin, is tossed outside. A bit of anime magic happens as Seita's spirit is reunited with another, a little girl, amid a group of fireflies.

This is the story of a person who was more than just “another one."

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.58.44 PM

We backtrack many months to when he and four year old sister Setsuko witness their home getting bombed by American planes. Their mother is rushed to the hospital despite taking a shelter and her situation is grim. An aunt aids them to some degree, eventually accepting them into her home. However her maternal instinct for them does not last long and she tells Seita that he is a burden to her, especially since he no longer attends school (that being burned down as well). Selling off their mother's kimonos helps with some food costs, but the teenager soon realizes he must move out.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.57.51 PM

This is not an entirely grim story. We see the children have fun at the beach. They make a home for themselves in an abandoned farm hut and capture fireflies, many of which die and Setsuko buries them in child like fashion.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.58.33 PM

At one point, a rotting corpse is fleetingly seen by the little girl, it being buried under a beach blanket. Her very protective brother tells her to not look at it. Death is something he avoids discussing with her, delaying the news of their mother's death (which she finds out from her aunt separately anyway) and he never tells her that their father, a soldier, is missing in action in a fleet that sank. This is a very emotional film with characters full of depth that are easy to relate to. Sadly, little by little, the world around them starts to fall apart. Yet the brother does everything possible to make the sibling he cares so much about happy despite it all.

I won't spoil the story any further but, yes, this is a great film to watch if you are not fond of traditional happy ever after endings in many animated cartoon features.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 3.38.17 PM

I should point out that the Japanese have a more favorable view of death and life after it, in whatever form accepted, than most Americans. In a curious way, I do find the ending happy to some degree, at least in a spiritual way.

Many western critics, including the late Roger Ebert who adored this movie, consider this a great anti-war film showing how children often become the neglected casualties that never get reported. Yet the war itself, dramatic in bombing scenes here and there, is nothing more than a temporary backdrop. Much of the film involves no mention of any wars but focuses on two children trying to make a life for themselves when everybody, including one surviving relative, tend to act cool and distant with them.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.59.30 PM

Adults in power, doctor included, give little guidance. A poor farmer is kind to them in a few small ways but he is no help overall. I find it more of an anti-adult film more than an anti-war film since war is just another aspect of adulthood that causes havoc on children's lives.

Perhaps because this wasn't a “fun” film, Studio Ghibli released it on April 16, 1988 as part of a double-bill with another of their recently completed features simultaneously. MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO was a much more feel-good, kid friendly fantasy. It also had the advantage of a merchandising character that helped bring in revenue not always accumulated at the box-office.

Unfortunately both films suffered some competition with Katsuhiro Otomo's enormous blockbuster AKIRA, which opened three months later and pretty much dominated the international market. While it made U.S. screens and VHS within a year (and I saw AKIRA on video around 1990 although I wasn't very fond of it with its complicated futuristic crime story), GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES only got limited attention in the American market and belatedly made the video cut in 1993.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.59.02 PM

Nonetheless Studio Ghibli of Koganei, Tokyo was and still is a company that has gained plenty of prestige over the years. It had only been founded in 1985 and enjoyed a big hit with its first feature, Hayao Miyazaki's CASTLE IN THE SKY released the following year. So successful was Studio Ghibli's product internationally that even Disney got nervous, snapping up the distribution rights to much of its product in the U.S. and elsewhere by 1995.

Their reputation this side of the Pacific Ocean grew with the Oscar winning SPIRITED AWAY. Unfortunately, the Academy members then got neurotic about “foreign” animated features invading their turf and only the British WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT nabbed the coveted statue in all of the years since. However four more Studio Ghibli productions have received nominations for Best Animated Feature.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 3.38.38 PM

What many of the prestigious Japanese anime features share in common is their extreme attention to detail that is mind boggling to the Americans viewing them. Nothing is overlooked here. The fireflies are photographic realistic despite all being drawn, painted and set-up cel-wise and otherwise mostly by hand. Although computers were starting to aid the animation process by the eighties, many aspects of this feature were still done the traditional way of decades previous and the results are absolutely breath-taking.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 3.00.26 PM

The humans don't look rotoscoped, but are very lifelike in expressions. There are many little things that impress: the careful details of the rice and other food items on display, the vintage newspapers that Setsuko doodles and cut from are a close match to those of wartime Japan, the countryside settings that resemble England as much as Japan in its impressionistic way. One major influence on the overall look of the film was Michiyo Yasuda, whose design ideas went against what was considered the norm in Japanese anime of the period by favoring brown over black ink lines around the characters, softening it more like the Disney films of the past. Particularly impressive is all of the airbrushed background work.

I guess one criticism that could be made is this: why bother making a cartoon of a story that can easily be shot as live-action?  After all, there are no make believe characters or funny animals involved. Sure enough, there was a live-action version of this made for Japanese TV in 2005. The original author Akiyuki Nosaka saw the storyboards in preparation for this film and was impressed enough (per Wikipedia's article on the topic) to state that animation was the only method of storytelling that could adequately depict the environment he wrote about effectively.

The IMDb lists 132 names in the animation department alone. While only few of these names may be familiar to even the most passionate of anime enthusiasts, this was clearly a major team effort and a labor of love. You sense that everybody working on this considered this a special film with a special message that would last as entertainment for quite some time in the future.

Screen Shot 2020-08-28 at 2.57.38 PM

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago, I started a thread on animated shorts worth seeing, starting with another one by Soyuzmultfilm. Consider it a companion piece of sorts to this month's feature length "essentials". Had to re-edit some posts when videos disappeared on YouTube in the time since... as often happens when you upload links here.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a crush on Michael Douglas when I was much younger and loved Streets until he left.  Remember Richard Hatch from All My Children.  Liked Darleen Carr (sp?) who played Malden's daughter.  My Dad learned to drive in San Fran while in the Navy (even though he became the quintessential NY driver - he was born and raised there).  Some of those chase scenes were fantastic.  Malden always boasted that the series was shot in San Fran unlike shows claiming to be shot in NYC (Kojak?) but weren't.  Maybe he and Telly S. didn't get along.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 8:50 AM, chaya bat woof woof said:

I had a crush on Michael Douglas when I was much younger and loved Streets until he left.  Remember Richard Hatch from All My Children.  Liked Darleen Carr (sp?) who played Malden's daughter.  My Dad learned to drive in San Fran while in the Navy (even though he became the quintessential NY driver - he was born and raised there).  Some of those chase scenes were fantastic.  Malden always boasted that the series was shot in San Fran unlike shows claiming to be shot in NYC (Kojak?) but weren't.  Maybe he and Telly S. didn't get along.

I think Douglas & Hatch both brought something a bit different to the show. Good but different.

Douglas played Inspector Steve Keller a bit cocky, and had a lot more sarcastic banter with Lieutenant Mike Stone. Hatch's detective, Inspector Dan Robbins, comes across a lot more sure of himself without being cocky, and I felt like he was protecting Stone, whereas in the first four seasons, Stone was protecting Keller. This shift in costars enables Malden to evolve with his characterization in a way that would not have been possible if Douglas had remained on the program for its entire run.

Now if you asked me which one was the better actor in terms of Douglas or Hatch, I would have to say Douglas. But if you asked me which one I'd prefer to hang out with, I'd say Hatch who just seems really nice and easy going.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 10.22.45 AM

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

TB: For the next four weeks Jlewis and I will be reviewing classic episodes of the 1970s police procedural drama The Streets of San Francisco. These may not be the best ones produced, depending on your opinion, but they are quite memorable.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.20 AM

Overseen by Quinn Martin, The Streets of San Francisco ran on ABC-network television from 1972 to 1977. The first four seasons costarred veteran character actor Karl Malden alongside young Michael Douglas, with Malden getting top billing. The fifth and final season saw Douglas’ character written out in a special two-part episode (Douglas had recently earned an Oscar and was wanting to concentrate solely on feature films), with Richard Hatch taking over the sidekick cop role. We will cover two episodes with Malden & Douglas this month; as well as two episodes with Malden & Hatch.

To get things started, I have selected what tends to be regarded as the most famous episode of the show. It was originally broadcast on Thursday night October 3, 1974. According to the wiki description:

“A professional female impersonator (John Davidson) whose intense identification with one of the women he mimics — a fictitious 1930s movie star — creates an uncontrollable split personality and eventually leads to murder.” Key supporting players include Herb Edelman and Marianne McAndrew while John Fiedler and Bernie Kopell appear in minor roles.


Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.05.11 AM

Mask of Death

Part 1 of 2

TB: As I wrote in the above introduction this Season 3 offering, with singer-actor John Davidson playing a female impersonator, is rather well-known. During the story, he does impressions of Katharine Hepburn and Carol Channing. He’s very funny, and he’s a great singer so the numbers he performs are spectacular. The character has a tragic side, a very tragic side. It is shocking how well Davidson does with such a complex and villainous yet sympathetic character.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.13.20 AM

There are numerous references to old Hollywood in this story, since Davidson’s  impressionist character Ken Scott draws inspiration from a dead movie star of the late 1930s. Carole Marlowe is obviously a composite based on Carole Lombard. While gimmicky, I would say this give the story added value. Incidentally there is a photo of what is supposed to be the real Carole from 1939, but of course that’s John Davidson made up, with the photo a bit blurred to partially conceal the fact it’s him. We are told the real Carole had daddy issues, and it’s interesting that the first time we see Ken Scott on stage as Carole Marlowe, he/she is singing “My Heart Belongs to Daddy.”

JL: I also think of Marlowe as Philip Marlowe, a Raymond Chandler creation made famous in THE BIG SLEEP, FAREWELL MY LOVELY a.k.a. MURDER MY SWEET and THE LONG GOODBYE. Come to think of it, Karl Malden’s hat easily fits Humphrey Bogart and Dick Powell. The fact that our main leads played by Malden and Michael Douglas think they are initially pursuing an actual woman is also tied with the old Chandler stories with women who could be either side of the fence in crime investigations.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 8.59.54 AM

If you drop the “e” in Carole, you get Carol as in Carol Channing, whom as you mention is impersonated in drag by our lead character…a lot, in fact. Not sure if she performed “My Heart Belongs to Daddy” with the key line of “and I know I could never be bad.”

TB: In terms of entertainment value, what did you think of the story? It held my interest throughout, mainly because I was waiting for Malden and Douglas to figure things out. When they first meet Ken Scott, it is to interview him, because he was a party seen talking to one of the murder victims. While they know Ken does a drag show, they don’t know initially that he stayed ahem, in character, to rub off a nice but married businessman (played by former Tarzan Denny Miller).

JL: Yeah, this is a somewhat enjoyable, if highly questionable, episode and I must note that much of its appeal for me comes from the additional guest stars here. Herb Edelman and John Fiedler (a.k.a. Piglet in Disney’s Winnie-the-Pooh franchise until his death in 2005) both appeared in Neil Simon’s THE ODD COUPLE and the later ’80s series The Golden Girls, although Fielder in just one episode there.

Oh…there are other photos of interest in Ken Scott’s dressing room. One could be Lombard. I think the other one is Gloria Swanson or a knock-off of her. Yes, old time Hollywood gets referenced a lot and John Fiedler’s dialogue mentions the old car featured in Swanson’s SUNSET BLVD.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.18.58 AM

TB: Let’s discuss in a bit more detail how the dualism of John Davidson’s character plays out. We have scenes of Ken Scott trying to turn off Carole Marlowe. But then Carole takes over again. One reviewer on the IMDb felt Davidson was too over the top. But I think it was almost necessary, since Carole Marlowe is supposed to be an extreme being. As evidenced in the nightclub act, everything about Carole is over the top.

JL: In the first shot of “her” face, we are not terribly convinced this impersonator is an actual woman in the opening scenes due to Davidson’s somewhat masculine chin-line and husky voice. I am sure there are women who look like “her,” but the clothes are, yes, “over the top” and the music is presented in a strange, judgmental tone. Interesting that the first victim (Miller’s character Harvey Ross) is a jewelry salesman who is established to be heterosexual with a wife and kids. No kissing involved obviously.

TB: Yes, we see Harvey lean in for a kiss but just as their lips are about to lock, that is when Ken/Carole kills him. Talk about a kiss of death! Of course we don’t know a first what is motivating such a killing.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.36.45 AM

JL: Both the actor Ken Scott and the character he plays, Carole Marlowe, are not happy in female disguise. Note how we see, in the big revelation that I already saw coming, how forceful he is in removing the long nails and wig as if it is all too gross for him. We learn more why later. Perhaps a dead actress may be taking over his body? Actually all she did years ago, according to Michael Douglas’ Steve Keller, was commit suicide.

Getting more to the point of Ken the actor borrowing her name, he is a total contrast to those featured in the landmark documentaries THE QUEEN (1968) and PARIS IS BURNING (1990) who genuinely enjoy what they do and incorporate their on-stage characters into their actual personalities with no shame involved. John Davidson’s Ken Scott is very shameful as revealed in his all important mirror scenes. When he suggests murders have been committed, he adds that they were “wrong” but the way he paraphrases it all suggests that his female impersonation is even more “wrong.”

TB: Interesting. Also, he is shifting blame. While his hands actually did the killing, he can assign blame to Carole.

JL: Note too that Ken is billed as an “impressionist.” In the rather curious final scene of the show, that word is removed from the marquee before the name of Ken Scott. Open to some interesting interpretation there.

One scene that made me instantly laugh occurred right after Ken tells his boss/agent Sam (Herb Edelman) that he wants this act to be “over” with and we get our commercial break. We suddenly switch to a swimming pool setting with a no-question-that-she-is-female, Anne Helm’s Bobo Stanfield, in a sexy blue bikini getting her back rub to emphasize a subliminal message of “we are still the TV show that you want us to be.”

One curio is two hunky guys in trunks walking together around the pool that could suggest something otherwise, but I don’t think so in this case since, if you look closely, they separate once a woman joins one of them…and, to make it all more amusing, just about the time that Bobo walks our stars Malden and Douglas’s Mike Stone and Steve Keller around the pool, Douglas glances briefly at the woman who just separated the bro-buddies and almost hits his head under a canopy!

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.42.14 AM

Back to Ken. He isn’t 100% against all he does on stage even if it is all self critical, quipping “I know my act is a little bit weird (interesting word here) but my nails aren’t” (cue the fact that he has yet to remove them in the same forceful manner we saw previously). Back at the dressing room, we meet his girlfriend Lori (Marianne McAndrew) and get our one and only kiss of the show, all nice and hetero.

TB: I’m glad you mention the hetero kiss. I felt that was probably put into the script, because when it was written, the role hadn’t been cast yet. And in order to get a big name guest star who probably is straight in real life, they can point to this scene and say “hey, the character might be off the wall, but you still get to kiss a girl!”

Incidentally, the trivia section on the IMDb for this episode says Dean Jones was first offered this role but turned it down. Honestly, while Jones could sing and was an above average actor, I don’t think he would have brought the sort of charisma and sex appeal that Davidson brings to it.

JL: John Davidson and Dean Jones have similar sounding voices and the former briefly sports a turtle neck not unlike Dean’s favored one in THE LOVE BUG.

TB: And ironically, both played rather wholesome roles in Disney live action flicks.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.10.18 AM

JL: When Lieutenant Stone (Malden) and Inspector Keller (Douglas) arrive at the club to interview him, Ken plays stereotypical “gay” by saying he used to be with the marines (an old joke on William Haines and others with a taste for sailors, as well as Malden’s character referencing one marine later in the episode who had a Carmen Miranda act) until Lori corrects him about them being police-oriented. Then Ken says “Hope you don’t bust me, gentlemen. I’m clean! I’m clean!”

Afterwords…as Stone & Keller head to the car outside the club we get an interesting exchange.

Stone to Keller: Do you have the feeling you just came off another planet?

Keller: That’s show biz.

Stone: Show biz, huh? Well, Maybe I shouldn’t knock it. He plays to full houses every night and we come out empty handed.

TB: I agree the dialogue is fun in this episode, and with a pro like Malden, it is often delivered tongue-in-cheek. Especially in the scene you just referenced. But of course, at this point in the narrative, Stone & Keller haven’t figured out the connection that Ken Scott’s alter ego Carole Marlowe is the culprit they are seeking.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.34.10 AM

JL: We are reminded of PSYCHO here. Norman Bates does not “dress like that” because he wants to be female or has any “gay” inclinations. He kills Marion Crane because “mother” made him on account of him “being aroused by her.” You mention Ken’s daddy issues, but I personally feel they didn’t milk that aspect of the story all that well to make it even worth discussing.

Quite often serial killers display alternative personalities in entertainment, which they can easily “turn off” in order to avoid getting caught. The dual personality is ultimately more important than the gender role switching in the long run. One key scene of interest: when Stone & Keller visit Ken a second time and he plays Carol Channing for them in the dressing rom, the real Ken reverts back once they leave and the door closes. “It is like dealing with a three headed monster. You don’t know which head to talk to.” No, Lieutenant Stone, just two.

TB: I’m really enjoying this discussion Jlewis. Tomorrow I will post the rest of our review. In the meanwhile, if any of our readers haven’t seen the episode, it may currently be viewed on YouTube.


  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.20 AM

Mask of Death

Part 2 of 2

TB: Yesterday we left off in the middle of a discussion about Mask of Death, a third season episode of the classic crime show The Streets of San Francisco. In the story guest star John Davidson plays a troubled “impressionist” whose alter ego is a killer.

Let’s talk about the pacing of the episode. Lieutenant Stone (Karl Malden) and Inspector Keller (Michael Douglas) spend considerable time investigating the first killing.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.07 AM

We cut from their investigation to Ken’s stage routines as Carole. It takes awhile (about 18 minutes into the episode) for the two detectives to cross paths with Ken, whom they don’t realize is the killer they’re seeking.

JL: The whole needle part, which is a key suspect item that Steve steals from the dressing room, is well integrated into the murder investigation.

For a brief period in viewing this, I wondered if they were cleverly fooling us viewers into thinking Ken is a killer when he is not. That is, only he himself wonders if he is because maybe he “blacks out” at times when in his Carole Marlowe persona. After all, he has a chauffeur too, played by Ivor Barry (? I think… please correct me), and sometimes the butler or chauffeur is the-one-who-did-it.


TB: Yes, Raymond the butler is played by Welsh actor Ivor Barry.

JL: We do see that the butler is rather eager to leave town. Then, of course, our initial suspicion, along with our lead investigators’ suspicions, prove correct and my reaction is one of…gee, they could have really wowed us here with a great, great “gotcha” ending. Oh well…

TB: Probably the goal of writer Robert Malcolm Young was to connect homicidal impulses with deviant behavior. Raymond the butler is not a so-called deviant. Ken Scott is. For awhile, I thought maybe we’d find out that Sam the manager (Herb Edelman’s character) was behind the murders, that he too dressed up.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 10.06.53 AM

But the story does not go in that direction. However, I think it is vaguely hinted that Sam and Ken may have a more intimate relationship than Stone & Keller realize, despite the fact Ken is in a relationship with a woman (Marianne McAndrew). The woman, Lori, seems to be almost a hanger-on. Clearly Ken can function without her, since he has Sam and Raymond (and Carole Marlowe) to keep him busy!

Okay, let’s change gears a bit. What is your idea about camp as entertainment value? What makes it so entertaining? Especially in regards to the drag routines we see depicted in the episode. Plus the over-the-top stuff where Ken is questioned by Stone & Keller, but keeps falling back into the Carole Marlowe character.

JL: The acts may be labeled “camp” and ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW is often labeled the ultimate “camp” movie. However I feel this show is too sinister and serious in its subject matter. You need some humor and, yes, we get it in Davidson’s performance at times since he does enjoy the impersonations.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.56.47 AM

Yet “camp” entertainment usually doesn’t suggest that cross dressing is “sick” as it is viewed here.

On the visual side, I should add that the old style mansion setting of Ken’s and all of the curious costumes on display make for great gothic entertainment. Again, like Norman Bates’ house, Ken’s is investigated by Stone & Keller much like Vera Miles’ Lila Crane investigated Norman. Once again, we have Ken jump out like the bogeyman to attack Keller just like Norman Bates did. Note that Ken Scott is only wearing a ladies wig but still has a guy sports-coat on, ready to make his trip to Mexico to escape the law.

Again, for genuine camp entertainment, you are supposed to enjoy the “alternative” aspects of the story. But I don’t think viewers are supposed to enjoy them here. I think a huge slice of the viewing audience in 1974 were not into this kind of set-up like they would be today.

TB: Good point. I agree. And as we mentioned earlier, the hetero kiss is depicted to keep the audience tuned in, so that it is not “too gay” or “too alternative.” If the story was made now, we might not have the hetero kiss, and we would certainly see Ken/Carole kiss the first murder victim. At least that’s what I think.

Going back to how the story is written…does abnormal transformation mean homicide? That’s what the episode’s script writer seems to be suggesting. At one point Ken’s girlfriend Lori tells him: “Think about what you do. Every day you have to masquerade around so perfectly that people can’t tell what sex you are.”

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 10.04.59 AM

JL: It is interesting how the women in these shows are the voices that get through to men rather than other men. Is it “abnormal”…? The “transformation”…? Well, if you commit murder, it probably is. Then again, anything you do that is not popular with a mainstream patriarchal society will make you “abnormal” to others.

This episode aired two months before the theatrical release of FREEBIE AND THE BEAN (held up in its release for various issues not all related), which also involves a “female impersonator” presented in very suspect terms. The TV episode is better than the movie but the overall message is still muddled despite so much borrowed from PSYCHO here. I mean…on the plus side, the killer is at least “heteronormal” and not “gay” so we have that going for it in terms of social progress.

Sadly, today we are seeing a lot of transgenders as murder victims rather than the other way around. The numbers for 2020 are well above 2019 already even though the year is not over yet, according to The Advocate and other sources bothering to report them. Curious what all was happening back then with all of this ominous profiling in entertainment. Then again, you and I understand that we must accept films and TV shows as products of their time.

TB: True.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.04.43 AM

JL: Once again, I must say something positive here about the character of Lieutenant Mike Stone. When Inspector Steve Keller discusses something “kinky” about the old actress Carole Marlowe whom Ken “embodies” as some spiritual take-over in old Hollywood references he is researching, Keller is corrected by Stone with the line of “Don’t believe everything you read on film people. They are human beings like everybody else.’

I also like the character of Sam played by Edelman. He tells Ken he is “nuts” for dropping his stage act because he thinks there is nothing wrong with drag. Why should there be? Entertainers, regardless of how they entertain, are human beings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.20 AM

TB: This weekend we are looking at another episode of The Streets of San Francisco which stars Karl Malden and Michael Douglas. This one features guest Dean Stockwell.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.11.18 PM

It was produced during the show’s third season. Stockwell is great, at times heartbreaking to watch…he expertly straddles the fence between victim and victimizer and the result is ultimately a very sympathetic character we root for in the end.

The Programming of Charlie Blake was originally broadcast on Thursday night February 6, 1975. According to the wiki description:

“A supposedly reformed sex offender (Dean Stockwell) is being brainwashed by his psychiatrist (William Smithers) into believing he has committed murder.” Key supporting players include Sharon Acker and Lynne Marta. Dee Wallace appears in a minor role.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.05.11 AM

Part 1 of 2

TB: Though Dean Stockwell is playing the most important character in this story, we also have a strong performance by William Smithers. During his long career, Smithers often played villains. In this episode, he’s cast as a Svengali-type psychiatrist named Dr. Norman Jessup. As the story unfolds it become very clear that he does not have the well-being of his patient Charlie Blake in mind. In fact he’s going to use Charlie to commit murder.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.18.08 PM

We’re not supposed to enjoy a character like this. But I have to admit I sort of do. Mainly because Smithers has such a unique way of making villainy palatable. Of making it seem almost refined. It’s rather fascinating how the “good doctor” is able to control a patient like Charlie Blake for his own nefarious purposes. Wouldn’t you agree?

JL: Dr. Norman Jessup is the classic slick and oily controller we’ve seen many times elsewhere in entertainment like stepmother Lady Tremaine in CINDERELLA and Billy Zane’s Caledon in TITANIC. These personalities are confident that they are God and can control the world. It is not too challenging for them since many in this world would much rather be controlled by others than seek control of themselves.

Note how he makes Charlie feel “dirty.” My guess is that Charlie, who is rather unkempt in appearance and neurotic, has been talked down to all his life and lacks self confidence in himself. The “good doctor” is rather sneering in his tone when he says “I want to help you Charlie. You know that, right?”

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.20.28 PM

TB: Of course, Dr. Norman Jessup is most interested in helping himself…to his wife’s money. But he can only get his hands on the dough once she’s out of the way. So he will use Charlie to accomplish this.

We should mention the doctor’s wife Eleanor (Sharon Acker) calls him evil during their first scene together at his office. I sort of wondered why doesn’t she leave him.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.19.38 PM

At one point later in the narrative, Norman says Eleanor bought his soul years earlier, when they married and she helped set him up in practice. Is he a victim in some way, or just manipulating the situation for sympathy? I guess the viewer can draw his/her own conclusions.

JL: Note how provocative she is when sitting on the sofa as her husband dials in Charlie’s obscene phone call recording. You can practically look up her skirt and this is network TV! The poor woman is desperate for affection and not getting it in this marriage.

TB: You’re right!

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.29.26 PM

JL: I think she still loved him despite how she behaved. I know…it didn’t seem like it if you judge her battle with him in the office. Yet she supported him financially and did not complain about it. I also noticed that his lawyer refuses to defend him in the end because he (the lawyer) was far closer to Eleanor than to Norman, suggesting that she was the one in that marriage who had a heart and “soul.”

This brings me to the “bought my soul” line. Not only did she help support him in his practice, but she may still be supporting him. His line seems to me a fit of anger because he is still struggling without her help. Mind you, he probably has some rich clients keeping him afloat since that is a mighty impressive BMW he drives. Yet Charlie is clearly not one of them. Note that Charlie said he is unemployed so…how is he able to afford his sessions? Dr. Norman needs Charlie far more than Charlie needs him.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.31.13 PM

TB: Excellent point. I figured Charlie had been assigned to him as a court-appointed case that some psychologists take on in addition to their more lucrative private practice.

JL: It is interesting that this episode aired… yes, I am taking yet another cultural trip down memory lane… shortly after Gerald Ford’s State of the Union address, famous for the line “I must say to you that the state of the Union is not good. Millions of Americans are out of work.” Thanks to changes with women’s liberation and new laws taking effect, an increasing number of households had the wife “wearing the pants” to make ends meet with so many industries laying off employees, a high percentage of them male.

In this episode, we have two men who are more dependent on women than the women are dependent on them. Not that Dr. Norman stays dependent on his wife for long. I have to bring up the strangling scene. It happens way too quickly and, therefore, doesn’t come off as believable. Where’s the struggle? Was this due to TV censorship?

TB: Or maybe it was due to the fact that this is a compressed narrative, where the writers have to get it all told and wrapped up in 48 minutes. Though chances are they didn’t want to get too graphic and have a battle with Standards & Practices.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.32.25 PM

JL: Also…why exactly did Norman kill his wife? Yes, we can make assumptions here. Yet you wonder what he was planning to collect insurance wise, since money is often  a good motive. There are a few little plot holes in this show, but I blame the confinements of a prime time show’s running time with commercials interfering. This would have worked better as a two-parter.

TB: Okay. We’ll be back tomorrow with the rest of this review…there is much more to discuss. So please join us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.11.18 PM

Part 2 of 2

TB: We are back to continue our discussion about this great season 3 episode of The Streets of San Francisco.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.39.42 PM

Let’s go over Dean Stockwell’s performance as the unconventional protagonist Charlie Blake. We are first introduced to him at the police station where Lt. Mike Stone (Karl Malden) is having Inspector Steve Keller (Michael Douglas) interrogate known sex offenders because of a recent rape and murder in the area. So we find out right away that Charlie has a criminal past, but he is now supposedly reformed. Of course, we don’t know how sympathetic he really is at that early stage in the drama.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.13.32 PM

Stockwell seems to have a gentle way about him, despite the scruffy appearance and the character’s backstory. Still there are moments as the story progresses where we get to see Stockwell play Charlie a bit unhinged. Though he still mixes in sweet parts of Charlie’s personality…especially when he identifies himself later as a killer and needs to confess in order to feel better. It’s a very interesting performance.

JL: Yes. I think he plays his part well. As mentioned above, I get the sense that he has zero confidence in himself and is scared that his girlfriend will leave him. It is a very subdued performance but he shows off good sweat when under Dr. Norman Jessup’s interrogation. Unfortunately TV episodes only give a guest star so much time to develop enough character development.

TB: True. Despite the four-act structure for television, to enable commercial breaks, this story flows pretty smoothly and doesn’t feel as choppy as it might have under a different writer. This is the only episode credited to Rick Blaine, who has just two credits on the IMDb, which leads me to believe it might have been a pseudonym for an established writer. Incidentally, the episode is directed by Nicholas Colasanto who was also an actor, known for his role later on the sitcom Cheers.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.20.28 PM

Let’s go into some detail about the long brainwashing scene where Dr. Norman Jessup records Charlie making a sexually harassing phone call. I had to ask myself if this was at all realistic. For instance, would this type of scene cause viewers to distrust psychiatrists? Maybe that was one of the goals the producers had in doing this episode! What do you think?

JL: They make it pretty clear that this man is less a psychiatrist and more of a Svengali type right away. However I could see the writing suggest that psychiatrists must not be trusted. Yet we do get a “genuine” psychiatrist assisting on the case briefly to make sure we the viewers know they are not all bad. Sort of like a show featuring both good cops and bad cops, good actors and bad actors a.k.a. ALL ABOUT EVE, etc.

A while back, there were many old time radio shows such as SUSPENSE that often featured crooked shrinks manipulating patients, so the concept here is not all that original. There is little question that the TV writers of the 1970s grew up with these classic shows in their youth and were greatly inspired by them. There is one 1946 episode of THE WHISTLER that, on the surface, was completely different than this one story-wise but also involved a 78 recording (instead of a tape recording as here) playing a role in a murder case.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.20.10 PM

I think that one involved a radio announcer planning to be in two places at once: committing a murder while a recording of his voice was electronically rigged to play on cue at his normally scheduled time on the air so he had an “alibi.” Yes, this was totally different in story idea, but my overall sense is that one idea can develop into other ideas over time from writer to writer and show to show.

To make it simple: the writer here was inspired by past stories read and enjoyed, but took them to into newer territory to conform with the times. The seventies was a golden age for psychiatry as we see in many comedies of the era like The Bob Newhart Show and ANNIE HALL.

TB: Lieutenant Stone (Malden) and Inspector Keller (Douglas) note the odd coincidences that crop up in the case. But they do not initially suspect that Charlie’s being framed. It isn’t until Keller sees the tapes the doctor makes of patients that he starts to piece it all together.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.43.33 PM

Any observations about the rapport between Malden and Douglas in this episode, and how they help sell this plot to the viewers…plus anything else you feel like adding..?

JL: They work very well as a team. Note that Mike Stone is the one who discovers the peculiar wiring of the lamps in Dr. Jessup’s home, getting Steve Keller to burn himself twice. They feed off of each other on this case.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.50.14 PM

The final lines sum it up.

  • Keller: Jessup was so cool I thought we’d never get him.

  • Stone: Yes, the smart ones take it hard when they find out how dumb they’ve been.

  • Keller: When did you first make it?

  • Stone (instantly responding before Steve finishes): Same time you did!

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.53.37 PM

A couple minor interesting cinematic highlights–

I love the ticking clocks as the key objects of interest in this episode. It has that steady tick tick that plays even when Eleanor Jessup is yelling at her husband Norman. He breaks her clock just before killing her. I remember how Roman Polanski used a similar one, but mostly unseen, to great effect in ROSEMARY’S BABY. Sometimes the tick tick tranquilizes you and you suddenly feel vulnerable to control by others.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.32.07 PM

As horrible as our opening scenes are with a woman (Dee Wallace) sexually assaulted and murdered in front of a poster reading “Love…nourishes all living things,” I should at least point out the great fashion sense on display. The victim’s hair-do resembles Toni Tennille’s of Captain & Tennille and the blue jean bell bottoms are wonderful.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.12.36 PM

Also the mirror Dr. Jessup looks into when hypnotizing Charlie. He is upside down! My curious interpretation is that Dr. Jessup is talking to himself instead of Charlie.

This was a good show, but may be not the most inspired one. As you can see, I struggled a bit more being creative in my answers here than with the others. Either that or some of it felt a bit too familiar to me, due to…I guess…similar material in old radio shows and other entertainment.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.34.12 PM

TB: I don’t think every episode is entirely original, since they are turning out 24 of these babies each season. Some of them start with standard conventions of the genre (cheating spouse, jealous sibling, angry boss/employee, etc.) and they go from there. I agree that these TV writers are drawing on earlier narratives in the genre, whether it is radio suspense drama, or classic movies of the 30s and 40s, before television. Or even classic literature, which sometimes inspires a writer and sets a “new” plot in motion.

Despite the constraints of a 48 minute story, broken into four acts and an epilogue to allow advertising, the guest stars do rather well. Some excel more than others with this format. Plus their screen time is limited to an extent because the series’ stars (Malden & Douglas) need time to have their moments and for their characters to continue developing.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.51.27 PM

Incidentally, William Smithers would get his defining role in the 1980s on the hit TV series Dallas playing slick oilman Jeremy Wendell. A role very similar in motivation to Dr. Norman Jessup here. Both characters cut from the same cloth, men that put their own careers and needs ahead of everyone else. Men that see life as a game; and they are determined to win. Etc.

I looked up Smithers online and he is in his early 90s now and remains quite active. He’s had a long and varied career. Dean Stockwell has also had a long and varied career.

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.52.43 PM

As you said, Stockwell does seem to play Charlie as a man that lacks confidence. I very much like your comment that Charlie and Norman are both reliant upon the women in their lives. One for spiritual and physical companionship. The other for financial benefits and social status. 

What I like most about this episode is that while it goes a bit psychological and sinister, we also get to see a tender romance occurring with Charlie and his girlfriend. It’s a relationship that has some lies, or omissions of fact, in it since Charlie was afraid to divulge his past to her. But they seem to get over that. 

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.53.12 PM

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

TB: This weekend we are looking at an episode of The Streets of San Francisco which stars Karl Malden and Richard Hatch. 

It was produced during the show’s fifth and final season. Hatch had replaced Douglas in a special two-part season premiere where Douglas was billed as a special guest star. After Douglas’ exit, the rest of the series focused on Lieutenant Stone (Malden) developing a working relationship with his new partner, Inspector Dan Robbins (Hatch). The writing was just as strong in the final season as it had been in the previous seasons.

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.20 AM

Who Killed Helen French? was originally broadcast on Thursday night February 3, 1977. According to the wiki description:

“An abused wife vanishes after a vicious attack by her drunken husband and all clues point to murder with the husband as the prime suspect, but he can’t remember if he did it or not.” Guest stars include Alan Fudge, Marlyn Mason & John Kerr.

Screen Shot 2020-08-31 at 6.05.11 AM

TB: The title for this episode is very misleading, deliberately so, which I think helps make it a classic. There’s an engaging opening sequence where drunken husband Doug French (Alan Fudge) abuses his wife Helen. Director Allen Reisner uses some camera trickery to keep viewers off balance and to partially conceal what Helen French really looks like.

Incidentally, the fifth season of the show has sightly changed the writing structure. We now have a teaser that sets up the main theme (in this case wife beating) which is labeled as Act I. Then we go into Act II which is longer. This is followed by Acts III, IV & V which are also longer. Then we have a brief Epilogue, like before. Lieutenant Stone and his young partner, Inspector Dan Robbins, never appear in the teaser/Act I unless they are directly involved in the crime. Typically they arrive on the scene at the beginning of Act II to begin their police investigation.

JL: The cameraman and editor(s) were a little TOO obvious in the way they hid her face, only showing enough of the hair-do for identification purposes later. The beating sequence is portrayed partially from the husband’s point of view under alcohol intoxication, being rather blurry much like a dream sequence later. Maybe he just imagined beating her? Of course not, since we learn she is an abused woman.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.22.37 PM

I like the title usage here. Death means many things, not always physical death but also the death one can experience when all hopes and dreams are destroyed. This is the story of a woman who marries for love but is shattered when she becomes the victim of abuse. According to Mike Stone, spouse abuse is among the least reported crimes and unfortunately does not often get reported until after the abused person is dead. In this case, the death may not be literal but psychological. In the end…spoiler alert…psychiatric care is needed to be “born again.”

TB: Yes, indeed. Red herrings are important in this genre. The Frenches’ neighbor Betty Rollins (Ellen Geer) provides a red herring when Stone and Robbins show up to investigate. She is convinced that Doug French killed Helen French. Inside the home there are blood stains on the carpet and Stone finds a blood soaked towel in the bathroom. Plus there is additional evidence found in the Frenches’ car. Doug insists his wife just left, but she always comes back. However, it is beginning to look like Helen was killed and her body is missing. In this case, I feel the red herring is rather effective. It draws us into the story. Especially since Doug French is now a prime suspect.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.34.22 PM

JL: Prior to this show, I never realized you could approximate the timing of a collision incident by looking at the damage of a car. Apparently “no oxidation on the first break metal” indicates it happened only a few hours ago. Although we are informed that “the lab men” will check “the rest of the house” and the blood type is revealed to be “O,” there isn’t a whole lot of investigation on screen there. Had this been an episode of CSI two decades later, DNA analysis would be involved but we are still in the seventies here when such examinations were more basic.

TB: True. But in spite of the times, the writers are bringing a bit of forensic science into the investigation scenes. And this enables a bit more realism to seep into the story.

JL: As highly entertaining as this episode was and, no, I wasn’t sure how it would be resolved until it was resolved, I was still pretty skeptical of Doug killing his wife early on. 

TB: Why do you say that?

JL: Too many characters, not just Betty, kept saying that he did it and we had yet to see any kind of investigation. When people tell you something over and over…and Dan seemed eager to fry the husband over this, it does not mean it is true. In fact, you start to doubt it. The fact that Doug is told by his girlfriend that he did something he could not remember also makes you suspicious, which is why he needed a lie detector test to help him determine for himself if he did anything at all.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 2.44.42 PM

TB: I love the use of polygraphs in these stories. Stone always has to remind the audience that these things are not admissible in court. Yet, they still use them. What else?

JL: There was Doug’s dream sequence in which he wondered if maybe, just maybe, he did kill her since his memory was such a blur. It was all overly dramatic the way dreams often are.

I also found it strange that Dan was at the wharf at night when Doug went there and instantly asked him if he dumped his wife in there. Why was Dan there in the first place? Investigating a different crime? Note that they waited until broad daylight to do an actual investigation so it was pointless if Dan decided to look for any corpses underwater at midnight. Also how could he recognize Doug in the dark so quickly? I guess we can chuck that up as TV dramatic license.

TB: I see what you’re saying. I think it definitely was a bit of dramatic license. There is no reason they couldn’t have searched for the body at night. But Dan was there, because he had been tailing Doug after hours, without Stone’s assistance.

Okay, let’s shift gears a bit. There is another character that pops up during the initial part of the investigation. Her name is Angela Somes and she is played by Marlyn Mason.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.21.55 PM

We do not glimpse Angela Somes until Mike Stone visits her to get information about Helen French. Marilyn Mason gets top billing in the guest cast portion of the opening credits. So it seems odd that Angela Somes doesn’t appear until ten minutes after the story has begun. After Mike’s visit with Angela, she is off screen for lengthy periods. Later she becomes a key part of the plot’s resolution. 

JL: Intriguingly Angela allowed Mike into her apartment, carrying on a casual phone call while he was standing there, and yet she didn’t seem to know why he was there until the subject of Helen was brought up after various other chit chat. Although there was a joke about “some gentleman filing a complaint” on her so she knew he had connections with the police, we did not see him officially identify himself and needing her to answer some questions.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.21.45 PM

Marilyn Mason was very good in her performance. Maybe a little too smooth and too different than the other character we relate her to later. This is a very tricky storyline to navigate here and, overall, the show did a pretty good job. Yet the results are not totally convincing. Nonetheless, I did not figure-it-out right away. Just was suspicious about Doug being a killer in a literal way.

I also liked Trish Stewart as girlfriend Susan Ross, convincing me the viewer as much as Doug that three thousand dollars was required for her to leave town because “I am doing this for you.” It sounded SO sincere in the way she expressed it!

TB: (laughs) Yes. She almost stole the show. A nifty little performance. Given her overall lack of screen time, the girlfriend makes quite an impression!

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.21.39 PM

Getting back to the Helen/Angela stuff, this plot resembles the one used in the season 3 episode we reviewed, Mask of Death, with guest star John Davidson. I would almost call it a “creative” re-write.

JL: As I hint in my previous comments, there are a few curious details overlooked either on purpose, so we are more surprised with the outcome, or by accident, since this is a TV drama and not a documentary and should be judged accordingly.

Yes, both shows have a few details in common. Wigs are an important aspect in an unveiling scene. Both shows have a main character who is a performer who uses a secondary personality to get lost in and/or escape from the harsh realities of life. The stage director who worked with Helen had a few insightful comments regarding this. Curiously, when he mentions that there are no more directors in New York but “only choreographers,” Dan looks at Mike and seems to giggle. Not sure what that was about.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.29.17 PM

TB: I think it was an “inside joke” about directors staging spectacles instead of directing individual performances.

JL: In the earlier episode from season 3, John Davidson’s character talks to the mirror and confesses his crimes. But in this later story from season 5, Alan Fudge’s character is not sure if he committed any. I guess the dream sequence could be seen as some sort of parallel to the other episode’s mirror talk but I think it is nebulous at best.

TB: How do you think the red herring and the gimmicky nature of the revelation at the end ties in with the more serious social message about domestic violence?

JL: The overall message on domestic violence is a trifle lost due to the fact that we don’t see all of the “black and blue” that is discussed on screen. In the big revelation scene, I was expecting to see face make-up covering up something. Also I found it slightly…odd…that such a double personality could be so self assured in herself when posing as somebody else. There wasn’t much of a vulnerability displayed here with anybody but Doug and he is the one who is not supposed to be the vulnerable one. Actually I felt Alan Fudge played his role way too sympathetically since we never see him get angry except fleetingly in the opening scenes.

TB: I would have to agree with that observation. He should have been simmering a bit more under the surface. Anything else you care to add?

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 3.32.23 PM

JL: It was nice to at least see John Kerr, famous as a fifties icon a.k.a. SOUTH PACIFIC, here two decades later as D.A. Gerald O’Brien. Not much screen time despite his major billing over the titles. Barely three sentences spoken by his character.

TB: Kerr is playing a recurring character. D.A. O’Brien appears in various episodes across all five seasons. I guess because of Kerr’s stature (and probably his friendship with Malden as a fellow Method Actor) he gets prominent guest billing even if his character is only needed briefly.

JL: This is a fun episode despite its grim subject matter but, again, we can all be quite nit-picky about how realistic it is and whether or not Helen French’s stunt can be pulled off successfully without the San Francisco investigators figuring the answers out faster than they do. That is the nature of television prime-time drama.

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.22.08 PM

TB: Thanks Jlewis. Next weekend we will look at another Malden-Hatch episode from the fifth season of The Streets of San Francisco. It’s a groundbreaking story in many ways. So be sure to join us!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

TB: This weekend we are looking at another episode of The Streets of San Francisco which stars Karl Malden and Richard Hatch. It was produced during the show’s fifth and final season. 

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.20 AM

A Good Cop…But was originally broadcast on Thursday night February 10, 1977. According to the wiki description:

“A cop-killer’s henchmen hunt the only witnesses to his crime, an officer and an informer.” Guest stars include Barry Primus, Robert Walden & Mills Watson.

TB: Of course that description is somewhat of an understatement, which we’ll get to in just a bit.

Part 1 of 2

I would like to start by analyzing the working relationship that Lieutenant Mike Stone (Karl Malden) has with his partner Inspector Dan Robbins (Richard Hatch). It differs from Stone’s previous relationship with Inspector Steve Keller (Michael Douglas).

Robbins and Keller were in a two-part episode together, where Douglas effectively handed the reigns over to Hatch. In that story, Robbins joined the team on what became Keller’s last case. Keller was shot and almost killed, and after he recuperated he decided to quit the force and take a job as a college professor in Berkeley. We never see Keller again in the series, but we are told that Stone stays in contact with him. While Robbins is dressed fashionably like Keller, his personality is a bit different and his relationship with Stone is more subdued. 

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 1.28.25 PM

JL: It does seem like, based on the few episodes we have seen here, that Michael Douglas really enjoyed his role. He is constantly smiling on screen, rather impishly at times, and working off “straight man” Karl Malden. Perhaps Richard Hatch was too much of a “straight man” himself and there isn’t room for two of them on this show. He has a nice mellow personality that would work well in other shows with other performers working with him.

TB: Yes. Okay, let’s take a look at the story for A Good Cop…But which in some ways feels like a time capsule. In terms of the cars, fashions, hairstyles, etc. But also in terms of the subject matter, which in this case is about a gay cop (played by Barry Primus) that is in the closet and gets outed.

JL: I feel that all TV shows and movies that escape nitrate decomposition are time capsules, there was plenty that I could “date” it by. After all, I have absorbed a lot of pop culture referencing, probably all useless information, over my life time. Yes, a few cars are vintage ’77 models, the technology of phones with actual extension chords and an audio cassette recorder playing a key role in the story are all interesting throw-backs to a pre-digital world. Plus there are other little details such as a mostly white demographic on screen despite at least two representative “black friends” at a birthday party, and the women all playing “understanding” wives and friends rather than members of the police force (apart from a secretary level).

The times were changing but they were still changing gradually during the seventies. Plenty of smoking going on too, which is a rare sight on network TV today. More importantly, being a “homosexual” was quite a big deal back then.

TB: Indeed. It is commendable that the show was trying to include different walks of life on screen. Not just the scenes that take place out on patrol but within the precinct as well.

JL: A quick check-up with the actual air-date makes for a most interesting pop culture referencing. February 10, 1977 was right about the time that Anita Bryant’s infamous “Save Our Children” campaign got launched and started making the national news, she being one of many agitated “devout Christians” reacting harshly to gay liberation and, especially, the Miami-Dade County (Florida) decision to eliminate discrimination against gays in the workforce in late January 1977.

She and other conservatives were fearful that children may be damaged by coming into contact with men who are not married to women and leading an immoral life as she defined it personally. Although there would be backlash against her in the coming months, famously with a pie in her face that fall, the courts inevitably took her side and the gay rights movement was pushed back a bit much as slightly less conservative but still conservative Phyllis Schafly was succeeding in preventing the Equal Rights Amendment from pushing forward. In addition, there continued to be residue (if that is a good analogy word to use) of Anita’s movement for decades to come. Remember that the Supreme Court only officially over-ruled all that Anita rallied for in 1977 on June 15, 2020, a full forty three years later! 

I won’t get into all of the politics here, but it again does make the timing of this particular episode most interesting.

Screen Shot 2020-09-26 at 8.30.01 AM

Officer Lambert, played by Barry Primus, is forced to keep his sex and romantic life a total secret from everybody he works with, including his best friend Ernie, played by Robert Walden. In this case, he should not be too terribly worried about losing his job since the San Francisco Police Department is described in one scene involving Karl Malden’s Stone and his boss as “not discriminatory.” Nonetheless it is discussed a lot both at the workplace and later in the courtroom that Lambert being gay still “poses a problem.”

TB: Barry Primus’ performance as the gay cop sort of drew me in. First of all, I think he gives a very precise and layered performance. He almost underplays it in the beginning. But we are gradually pulled into the story and his character’s specific conflict(s). I felt there were certain nuances that made his character believable and his struggle about his sexual identity most credible. Actually, it’s a brilliant and daring performance for the era, especially for network television in 1977.

JL: I did find the two brief scenes involving children quite interesting in light of the whole “Save Our Children” campaign. The gay cop is with both his heterosexual boss and a nun at a Catholic school in the first one as children walk in well-supervised pathways around them. Later, he is seated at the other end of a car when a girl talks to him and Richard Hatch’s heterosexual (supposedly since he has no secrets) inspector Dan Robbins, being the one closest to her.

TB: What are your thoughts about the way Lieutenant Mike Stone is written and played within the parameters of this particular story?

JL: We don’t see Mike Stone struggle at all over Officer Lambert being gay. In fact, he is completely OK with it as long as Lambert is a good worker with the force. If somebody looks and acts like you, you are more likely going to listen to what (s)he has to say. Had both the actor (Primus) and his character been a bit younger and more “hip” (and certainly not as “hippy” like those in San Francisco’s Height Ashbury), then the story would not succeed in getting the older viewers to watch this show and to at least ponder for themselves that maybe…just maybe…being gay is not the worst thing in the world.

TB: Excellent point. So to some extent, an episode with a daring theme is presented, but it still codified in a way that will not alienate the show’s core audience. Makes sense!

Anything you care to mention specifically about Barry Primus here?

Screen Shot 2020-09-26 at 8.30.47 AM

JL: Ordinarily it should not matter at all whether an actor’s private life resembles or differs from that of the characters he plays, but I do feel it matters in this case. With the primary exception of Lance Loud playing himself in AN AMERICAN FAMILY, virtually all of the pioneering “gay” roles on American TV during the seventies were handled by heterosexual men who were confident enough that none of their peers or fans would consider them “gay” just because a character they played was gay. According to his Wikipedia profile, Barry Primus was happily married back in 1976-77 to the same woman he is married to now. I guess it was still a trifle challenging to play a “gay” role back at that time and he should be praised to some degree for his courage.

TB: I have to admit I did look up Primus’ bio after I viewed the episode. But mainly, because I remembered him on Cagney & Lacey in the mid-80s– another cop show that featured two lead female detectives. In that case, Primus was in a supporting role as a policeman who was involved romantically with Sharon Gless’ character.  While he may have worked within the same television genre, he obviously was not typecast.

Anyway, it was interesting to me to see Primus play this kind of role earlier in his career. Again I think he conveyed the complexity of Officer Lambert’s sexual orientation quite well.

JL: I am not saying we needed to SEE Lambert with another guy to prove he is what he is accused of and claims to be. Yet the lack of anything substantial to go by here does render a final “joke” emphasized in the last scene as rather pointless. Earlier his buddy Ernie reacted with anger “don’t ever touch me” even though Lambert never does on screen. Later he comes around to accepting Lambert for who he is. That is, he sort of does…if not completely.

When Lambert teases ever so slightly with the line of “Hey, we were made for each other,” this prompts a still slightly homophobic remark of “You had to say that, heh?” as Ernie hastily goes inside the building. Lambert, Stone and Richard Hatch’s Dan Robbins all chuckle, which supposedly indicates that they all understand that Ernie will stay Ernie regardless.

Screen Shot 2020-09-26 at 8.36.11 AM

Yet something felt off to me about that scene. Was it the fact that the cast was acting “straight” in their behavior both on screen just as they all did off in their “normal” off screen lives? Had one of them been gay, there might have been a bit more sensitivity involved here. Although I felt this scene was not particularly realistic, you may disagree with me here.

TB: I think the writer was trying to end the episode on a lighter note, but I agree the joke in the last scene was not needed. Unless the point was to show that Ernie was still not entirely accepting of Lambert, if Lambert was going to be pining after him. And to some extent, I do think that is what Primus was embedding into the character though nothing explicit along those lines was in the script. 

There were scenes early in the episode where Ernie was trying to match-make Lambert with one of his single sisters. The sister seemed to know Lambert was gay and accepted him as a friend. Ernie wanted to feel connected to his work buddy in a way that stretched into the personal and family realm. Lambert wanted that too, but in a romantic way which Ernie has to acknowledge at the end of the episode.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential Small Screen Noir: The Streets of San Francisco

Screen Shot 2020-09-04 at 9.00.20 AM

Part 2 of 2

TB: We’re back with the rest of our discussion about a fifth season episode of The Streets of San Francisco called “A Good Cop…But” which originally aired in 1977.

JL: Curiously we have another gay character referenced as Moonshine, played by Don Calfa. We know he has an active sex life based on a conversation with his landlady, claiming he is doing (in her opinion) something questionable with “every Tom, Dick and Harry.” Yet, unlike the very abstinent Lambert (at least on screen since we have no idea if he has ever been in cahoots with a Tom, Dick or Harry), Moonshine is presented as sleazy. He is both a frightened victim of a homophobic world (like some characters in the landmark 1961 classic VICTIM) and also connected with criminals, becoming a suspect in a murder investigation.

Moonshine is also presented as a “freak” hiding in a clown outfit and later getting lost in a carnival “freak” show among wax dummies. Although the whole point of his character is to keep the police investigation going, something didn’t feel all that right about how he was presented. It was as if Lambert gets the pass as the more “moral” character here because he doesn’t practice all the stuff that Anita Bryant considers “deviant” like Moonshine does.

TB: My impression of Moonshine was that the writer was depicting the fact there are different expressions of homosexuality. Also that homosexual behavior is not to be defined in any one specific way. So for every Lambert, there is a Moonshine. Or, to reverse it, for every Moonshine, there is a Lambert. As well as the other “types” that fall between in the spectrum.

Of course, as we’ve discussed, the heart of this episode involves the relationship between Primus’ character, Inspector Dave Lambert, and his partner, Detective Ernie Bell.

Screen Shot 2020-08-31 at 6.05.11 AM

It runs parallel to the relationship that exists between Stone and Robbins. In both situations the law enforcement “couple” has much familiarity with one another. They spend many hours in close proximity, in cars out on the streets and at the precinct. On some occasions, they socialize together after hours. Of course nothing sexual is meant to be inferred with the Stone-Robbins relationship. But I do think there are sexual undercurrents in the relationship between Lambert and Bell.

In the meantime, we go from police procedural to “buddy film” to courtroom drama with elements of gangster and noir added into the mix. But on top of it all there is a same sex romantic vibe. At least that’s how I read it, the Lambert-Bell portion of the story.

JL: One major flaw with many TV shows is that a major character or characters may only appear in one episode rather than multiple ones and, therefore, are not fully fleshed out on screen. All we have to go by are the key four or five scenes with conversations.

The very first conversation we hear in this episode involves Ernie trying to play matchmaker because he feels Lambert needs a good woman. Lambert changes the subject by asking for something to eat. He never lies to his friend, but just avoids certain topics he can’t address. Later after Lambert admits the truth to Ernie, we get the angry “don’t touch me” remark. This is why Lambert hesitated. “I kept it quiet because I’m just knew what effect it would have around here.” Lambert then tells Stone about the loss of friends by his “outing.”

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 6.34.12 PM

TB: Yes. I am glad you mentioned this. Stone sort of takes all this in, and he another person to filter the situation through. I felt Malden played his part extremely well here, showing Stone to be approachable, fair-minded and a good listener, as well as sympathetic. Another sympathetic character is Ernie’s sister, whom I’ve already mentioned.

JL: Ernie’s sister Connie (Amy Levitt is excellent in her few minutes of screen time) explains to him that Lambert is the same guy he always was even if he is now revealed to be “gay.” This seems to work wonders on Ernie so he eventually accepts his friend in the end. Not that we see him debate with his sister on the issue or try to debate with himself. Everything resolves itself rather compactly to fit the TV show’s running time, with commercial interruptions included.

TB: Final thoughts about the story itself– where Lambert is blackmailed by a crook who knows his “secret.” How would you rate it dramatically?

JL: It made for good police drama. Plus we saw the standard drugs, gun fights in the streets, a murder investigation and even an apartment blowing up. Yet I didn’t feel any of the cop material added anything other than to showcase Lambert being good at his job and handling his great secret being exposed with the usual anxiety involved. The villain exposing him, Arthur Devoe (Mills Watson), is confined to just three key scenes and the screenwriters don’t develop him beyond his basic role as a criminal who retaliates by embarrassing the cop trying to rat out his schemes.

I did like the tape recorder, a birthday present from Ernie, playing a key prop in the story, including the courtroom scene.

TB: Would you say this episode was “ahead of its time” and did the so-called happy ending ring true?

JL: I liked the emotional reaction that Primus the actor expresses in the court scene when his whole private world is exposed and he fears the worst. He is a good actor who expresses himself well in his facial expressions. Not that this scene lasts all that long and we see him actually experience many of the things he dreads. After the commercial break, everything is hunky dory between him and Ernie, Mike Stone and Dan Robbins.

Screen Shot 2020-09-26 at 8.40.29 AM

It should also be added that we don’t see Officer Lambert in any future episodes. He served his purpose as a curiosity for the show, making it trendy with the times when the word “homosexual” was being discussed in the news a lot in 1977. After this, we see no further appearances by Barry Primus or his character as the show continues, like most shows of the seventies, along its “straight” and narrow path. Of course, the times were changing gradually as Soap was to start that fall with one of the few continuously shown gay characters, again played by a “don’t worry, I am straight and this is just a role I play” actor (Billy Crystal).

What I thought was rather ahead of its time was Karl Malden’s Stone accepting Lambert without any hesitations at all. We never once see him bat an eye when he learns the truth. There is little question that all of us would love having such an understanding father figure who accepts us all unconditionally regardless of what we do when away from our jobs. Yes, Lambert is a good cop… but…he is still gay.

TB: Even though we do not see Lambert and Ernie again on this show, I sort of wondered if this particular episode was a “backdoor” pilot where the producers were hoping to spinoff this pair and give them their own weekly series. That would have been groundbreaking, especially if the duo was ever intended to become romantic later on.

We have to keep in mind that this was still dicey material for network TV. Most likely the Standards & Practices department at ABC went over the script for this episode with a fine tooth comb. Then after it was filmed and edited, they probably screened it in some executives’ office before deciding it was okay to be scheduled for broadcast. I am sure it had many hurdles to overcome, given this was still 1976-77.

Screen Shot 2020-09-26 at 8.39.25 AM

TB: Well, that’s it for our look at The Streets of San Francisco this month. All four episodes may be watched on home video. A bit later, we are going to review some episodes of a classic western TV series. So don’t miss those!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming Up in October:

We're looking at originals and remakes in the horror genre this month.


Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 2.59.09 PM 2


October 17th: THE LODGER (1944)



October 24th: PSYCHO (1960)

October 31st: PSYCHO (1998)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Essential: THE LODGER (1927)

TopBilled wrote:

Screen Shot 2020-10-06 at 5.06.27 PM

THE LODGER: A STORY OF THE LONDON FOG (1927) is based on Marie Lowndes’ 1913 novel, The Lodger, which is a fictionalized account of the Jack the Ripper murders. The Lowndes source material would also be used for 20th Century Fox’s sound version, THE LODGER (1944) and its subsequent remake MAN IN THE ATTIC (1953).

I felt the initial scenes were too slow. It took a while for the story to get underway. Initially the focus seemed to be placed on some blonde-haired girls performing at a local nightclub.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.50.12 PM

One of the girls– Daisy– lives in a house where a mysterious lodger takes up residence. But first we are treated to some cute romantic nonsense involving Daisy and a policeman cutting out heart-shaped cookie dough in the kitchen.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.50.05 PM

Now why did I have a problem with this? Because it unnecessarily delays the arrival of the lodger. In this version the lodger is not a villain. Gasp! He gets the girl in the end. So why even spend time on the girl with the copper? Probably because Hitchcock intended the lodger to be the killer, and for the girl to end up with the copper.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.47.30 PM

The producers of the film were against the idea of featuring Ivor Novello as a villain. Hitchcock had already cast the popular stage and screen star in the main role. Now he was required to make the lodger innocent and someone else the killer. Moreover, he had to make Novello's character a romantic hero who gets the girl. These changes went against the early set-up for the story. Also the romanticizing of the lodger is at odds with all those creepy expressionistic images of him.

If he’s going to be a lovable bloke in the end, why the dark shadowy treatment of him walking up and down the stairs and pacing back and forth in his room?

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.46.21 PM

Incidentally, the policeman does not show up until almost the half-hour mark in the 1944 version, which I think is smarter. We need to see the local environment, the streets and the housing, then become familiar with the family and their new lodger before a cop even turns up at the house. Of course we know murders are occurring and a serial killer is at large. But it should be secondary in the beginning, so we get to know the family and why the lodger decides to stay there. Or why they even take him in at all.

A lot of the acting in the silent version is hammy, which is unfortunate. I think Hitch is trying his best to make it cinematic. There are some clever and innovative ideas at play, like images of a swaying chandelier seen in a footprint.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.51.42 PM

As well as a unique shot of Novello’s character pacing the floor, obviously walking on glass at an angle, so the camera can film it underneath.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.52.17 PM

I love these touches. But for every cool gimmick Hitchcock devises, the actors pull it down with their outrageously melodramatic style of acting that is devoid of realism and any true feeling of terror, which the story so desperately requires.

Novello has great eyes and lips, and his closeups are fantastic. He’s prettier than his leading lady. In fact he’s so mesmerizing that it’s a shame he wasn’t allowed to play the villain and really suck us into the story properly.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.52.59 PM

The actor cast as the investigating cop is wearing too much stage makeup in most of his scenes which pulls me out of why he’s in the scenes. He seems like an actor, not a copper portrayed by an actor. And due to the heavy makeup and expressionistic camerawork, the cop sometimes looks like a villain. Perhaps that was intentional on Hitch’s part?

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.55.10 PM

Oh, the motive for the lodger’s strange behavior...? In this 1927 version we are informed that he’s there to avenge his sister’s death at the hands of the killer. How he seems to be one step ahead of the police the whole time is not ever explained. But he has newspaper clippings, and we can assume his sister was a blonde since the victims are all blondes. In relation to some of Hitchcock’s usual themes, Novello’s character is falsely accused of being the killer. He is pursued in a dramatic chase scene near the end which features him trying to climb a wrought iron fence still wearing handcuffs and being clawed at by an angry mob.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.55.53 PM

Ironically, the killer (called The Avenger instead of The Ripper) is nabbed off screen. The Avenger is associated with an image of a triangle. We never see what the real culprit looks like. But Novello’s lodger is now exonerated and free to be with the girl. There’s a happy ending which is what the studio wanted. This reminds me of how Hitch was forced to change the ending of SUSPICION (1941) when RKO execs were leery of having Cary Grant play a villain. Both these films have what I would call unrealistic happiness at the end.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.57.16 PM

One last thing I want to add before we go on to Jlewis’ comments tomorrow is that silent films are very repetitive. By this I mean the scenes have endless variations, where certain motifs are repeated to remind the viewer that someone is scared, or someone is scary. That someone is in danger, or someone is causing danger. Such repetition stretches out a film’s length but also assures audiences they saw what they saw and there is no mistaking how something is occurring on screen. Directors don’t make movies like this anymore.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.58.20 PM

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE LODGER (1927)

Jlewis wrote:

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.04.20 PM

This is the most famous of the Hitchcock silents, predating his first “talkie” BLACKMAIL. Most of the others are not terribly Hitchcockian. I’ve seen a few, most notably THE RING (featured on a LionsGate’s DVD set that I have) which is a highly entertaining boxing drama but hardly different than other boxing dramas and not what you would define as a “Hitchcock film.” Of course, THE LODGER is among the first focusing on Hitch’s trademark subject of interest…muwrder…and even has the first of his legendary cameo appearances.

Previewed September 16, 1926, it was not officially released throughout the UK until February 14, 1927. Supposedly producer Michael Balcon was not being happy with it and Hitch’s career almost ended as soon as it was beginning.

It showcases some of the classic German Expressionistic style, reminding me a bit of the later PANDORA’S BOX with another Jack the Ripper sub-story of sorts incorporated in a melodrama featuring Louise Brooks. Such films featured plenty of dark atmospheric lighting. Although associated mostly with the 1940s and ’50s, the so-called “film noir” was popular for a while in the 1920s when the rival German film industry greatly impacted both Hollywood and the British film studios simultaneously.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.16.15 PM

Alfred Hitchcock himself spent some time with the German studios and brought what he learned back home, while Hollywood studios like Paramount and Fox got Josef von Sternberg and F. W. Murnau, among others. Murnau had considerable influence on Hitch and it shows with THE LODGER.

Although the basis of the story is the famous Jack the Ripper killing spree of 1898, we are updated to the twenties here with all the cars and fashions. The killer is now the “Avenger” and actually does get captured (although we never see him), favoring ladies with blonde hair (and we all know how blondes are favored in Hitch films). The show girls at “Golden Curls” are all naturally scared for their lives, even if one makes a joke of the popular news stories.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.05.32 PM

The first frame after main titles shows a woman up close screaming, followed by police and onlookers, plus an upset older lady witness, all surrounding a body at the scene of the crime. We learn key details of the crime with a montage of telegraph print outs and printing press images– “murder: fresh from the press” as well as radio promoting further “murder: hot over the aerial.” The visuals are so effective that just having a synchronized music score is enough to satisfy you since you can “hear” in your mind all that is happening here.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.17.19 PM

A mysterious border arrives for…is it Room number 13? The actor Ivor Novello as the mysterious Jonathan resembles a young Frederic March in my mind. In a curious move, he requests all of the pictures of blonde girls and a semi-nude removed by the matron Mrs. Bunting (Marie Ault).

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.16.28 PM

Hearing about this, the neighborhood cop Joe (Malcolm Keen) quips to his blonde girlfriend Daisy (June Tripp), daughter of the Buntings, “I’m glad he’s not keen on girls.” For modern viewers seeking some commentary on “orientation,” obviously not intentional for a film of this vintage, we also get Mrs. Bunting later admitting in title cards that “he is a bit queer.”

However, I do wonder if Hitch & company are still possibly having a few laughs about “straight”-laced society and their gender roles. Arthur Chesney plays Mr. Bunting and what I find most amusing about him is that he is usually seen reading the newspaper, reporting the murder news stories and the like, while Mrs. Bunting does all of the housework. Ditto Joe who is never really shown working but just socializing with the family and getting all jealous of Jonathan when he sports the more competitive Joe College sweater when in embrace with his lil’ woman.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.10.15 PM

If both Joe and her parents work hard to distract Daisy from the “queer” resident, it doesn’t work. Likewise, he becomes as smitten with her as she is with him. We the viewers do, on cue, start questioning his motives occasionally as we see close-up shots of his hands grabbing sharp objects during a key chess game between the two.

Throughout we get plenty of gimmick shots of interest that, of course, reference many Hitch flix of later decades. Most impressive is Jonathan’s pacing about the room that impacts the ceiling light below and is presented with a glass shot of his feet above you in double exposure. Close-ups of his shoes in action resemble the early shots in STRANGERS ON THE TRAIN. The VERTIGO-ish stairway shots also look familiar.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 6.58.20 PM

A bathtub instead of a shower (PSYCHO) is featured as Daisy disrobes at one point, with steam keeping her all innocent on screen while she enjoys washing her arms much like Janet Leigh does later. Close-ups of Jonathan and Daisy kissing foreshadow REAR WINDOW in their sensuality.

More importantly, the overall premise is one that Hitch replayed often: a man is accused of crimes that he must prove his innocence of. Also we get a woman who loves him and stands by his side. Hitch wasn’t terribly fond of the police and we have a main character here who lets jealousy impact his sense of justice and, predictably, arresting Jonathan doesn’t bring Daisy back to him.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.07.18 PM

In more true silent melodrama fashion, we get the familiar flashbacks of a dying mother getting her son to bring the real Avenger to justice because, well, you need a mother in many of these for a noble son to be devoted to. Many films of the era also made subtle reference to Peal White with some cliffhanger action in the end: in this case, we see Jonathan handcuffed to a gate as a mob arrives to terrorize him.

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.20.54 PM

Overall, this holds up pretty well even if some modern viewers will obviously favor much later Hitch. This was a director testing the waters in a burgeoning genre that had yet to be his trade-mark. It also has a pretty standard happy ending, as our title-card reads “All stories have an end.”

Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 10.12.54 PM

The story was popular as a radio adaptation over the years, although the plots changed quite a bit and only the title was consistent. One of these even had Alfred Hitchcock’s participation, if indirectly rather than directly since CBS had an impostor portray him on the air. My guess is that he was too busy with FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT’s post-production at the time, but was perfectly fine having his name promoted . This pilot show for the two decade run of Suspense was aired as part of CBS’s Forecast on July 22, 1940 and, like this film, mentions the novel author Mrs. Belloc Lowndes:

From what I have read online, Hitch made two attempts to redo this film during the succeeding two years, but there were struggles obtaining the rights…struggles that 20th Century Fox successfully overcame. Curiously Hitch wasn’t involved with this version, perhaps because he was busy making LIFEBOAT for that same studio instead.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this one better than you did, going by what you are hinting in your comments. However I did enjoy the version we will get to next week more and, yes, I was a trifle disappointed that this was not quite as good as its reputation in movie critical print suggests. I think the primary reason why this one tends to get well reviewed is because it was the first of Hitch's "Hitchcockian" efforts.

To be perfectly frank, much of his competition in British cinema during the twenties was not all that great. Many in that nation's film industry simply threw in the towel competing with Hollywood, unlike the more self-motivated and innovative filmmakers working in Germany, France (#1 before the war, outstripping anything made in America, but still at a peak in the twenties), the Scandinavian countries and, as recently discovered by American film geeks, China and Japan. Your criticism of silent films being "repetitive" may be less applicable to those other "foreign affairs" than to the Hollywood and British films, which did resemble television in all of its own repetitive ways (since we all know that everything on TV needs to be spelled out over and over because viewers can not remember anything with their short attention spans). Back to the Brits and their movies: where that industry was ahead against other countries was in the field of documentary, including the first wave of nature films featuring microscopic close-ups (F. Martin Duncan),  time lapse photography of plants (Frank Percy Smith) and close-ups of birds in their natural habitat (Oliver Pike), in addition to the early use of Kinemacolor in travelogues backed by Charles Urban.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jlewis said:

I liked this one better than you did, going by what you are hinting in your comments. However I did enjoy the version we will get to next week more and, yes, I was a trifle disappointed that this was not quite as good as its reputation in movie critical print suggests. I think the primary reason why this one tends to get well reviewed is because it was the first of Hitch's "Hitchcockian" efforts.

To be perfectly frank, much of his competition in British cinema during the twenties was not all that great. Many in that nation's film industry simply threw in the towel competing with Hollywood, unlike the more self-motivated and innovative filmmakers working in Germany, France (#1 before the war, outstripping anything made in America), the Scandinavian countries and, as recently discovered by American film geeks, China and Japan. Your criticism of silent films being "repetitive" may be less applicable to those other "foreign affairs" than to the Hollywood and British films, which did resemble television in all of its own repetitive ways (since we all know that everything on TV needs to be spelled out over and over because viewers can not remember anything with their short attention spans). Back to the Brits and their movies: their biggest innovations that was ahead of the other countries, including the United States, was in the field of documentary, including the first wave of nature films featuring microscopic close-ups (F. Martin Duncan),  time lapse photography of plants (Frank Percy Smith) and close-ups of birds in their natural habitat (Oliver Pike), in addition to the early use of Kinemacolor in travelogues backed by Charles Urban.

When I wrote about the repetitive nature of silent filmmaking, yes it was/is a criticism (a film criticism) and not necessarily a negative one. But I did want to point it out.

What led me to make this comment was that when I was at the USC School of Cinema-Television in the mid-90s, a professor of mine (a writer named Max Lamb) had given me a full copy of the script for SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS (1927). I've kept the script with me for years, it having survived numerous moves across the country.

When I read Carl Mayer's script for SUNRISE, as a 20 year old college student, I recall my first impression being how poetic it was AND how repetitive it was. So I was ruminating about that when I watched THE LODGER (1927) which also happens to be from the same year. I think there was a poetic style of writing for the cinema at the time. And as you may realize, poetry does include repetition. 

Also in my first year of college, I was required to take a course on the Greek classics. And I remember the professor had us read Virgil's Aeneid in its entirety. Virgil's prose is very repetitive. Our professor told us that repetition began in storytelling because there were often breaks. Where an audience heard an epic story over a long period of time (serialized you might say)...so when they reconvened with the storyteller to pick up the next part of the drama certain things had to be repeated to refresh the audience's memory of what had previously occurred before continuing with the narrative.

Obviously that is not needed in a film where the audience is in a screening room (theater) for the entire duration of the movie's running time and are not taking breaks or having the story interrupted. But I do think these kinds of storytelling techniques devised by the Greeks carried on through to Shakespeare and well beyond, into the early cinematic age.

I am not opposed to repetition in a movie if it underscores a theme, such as what we see humorously in GROUNDHOG DAY (1993). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew you were not typecasting ALL silent films that way but pointing out a tendency you have noticed in many that you have personally viewed. Nonetheless, it did get me into the whole topic of how countries compared and contrasted with each other in that pioneering pre-Talkies period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jlewis said:

I knew you were not typecasting ALL silent films that way but pointing out a tendency you have noticed in many that you have personally viewed. Nonetheless, it did get me into the whole topic of how countries compared and contrasted with each other in that pioneering pre-Talkies period.

As I stated in my review, repetition may give an audience specific reassurances. For example, yes, we the audience do understand the character's personality and motivation (because his/her actions are being repeated).  Or yes, we do understand the overall theme (because what Character X did is being revisited with Characters Y and Z).

The problem with repetition is that many times it is merely filler, a way to stretch out a film's running time without giving the audience anything substantial to ponder or to reconsider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE LODGER (1944)

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.23.58 PM

TopBilled wrote:

I was unaware of director John Brahm and his filmography before watching this version. It does not surprise me that he directed Laird Cregar a year later in 20th Century Fox’s similarly themed HANGOVER SQUARE (1945) where once more we have a killer on the loose in Victorian England with Cregar again playing the bad guy.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.25.46 PM

I think I should get this observation out of the way, immediately: I find Laird Cregar a fascinating and highly competent performer but I do not think he has a handle on these types of characters. My biggest gripe with Cregar in villain mode, at least in this version of the Jack the Ripper tale, is that he is playing the lodger too ambitiously. It feels like he is giving an operatic performance in the middle of a country and western tune. That’s the analogy I have for this, he’s not exactly hamming it up but he is definitely overacting the part.

Speaking of opera, I think he would have been perfect in Universal’s 1943 remake of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. That’s the type of story that does require an over-the-top quality and daresay camp. But Cregar is trying to reach impossible heights with the lodger role that simply are not to be found in the story, or if those lofty points of the character are suggested, they are not meant to be fully explored. A wise actor would have erred on the side of subtlety and kept some of the pathos muted.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.22.12 PM

It sounds strange my complaining about an actor who is certainly giving a competent performance but I think he has a different view of how the material is meant to be played, opposed to what the writers have intended. This is not a grand character in any sense. He’s a low-life reprobate who gets kicks out of tormenting and destroying women. Vulnerable women.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.25.57 PM

Okay moving on from Cregar, I think Cedric Hardwick is the wrong choice for the male home owner Robert Bonting. He’s too high class and this part requires a middle class character type. Some of Hardwicke’s diction is just too polished and I cannot believe him in the role. Barry Fitzgerald would have been my choice.

On the other hand, I think Sara Allgood is a vast improvement over Marie Ault in the 1927 version and she is also better than what Frances Bavier manages in the 1953 production.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.27.06 PM

As landlady Ellen Bonting, Allgood exhibits all the right mannerisms, she feels like a middle class woman and she also has a convincing accent (which Bavier lacks in MAN IN THE ATTIC). I also like Allgood’s rapport with Merle Oberon who plays her niece.

They’ve changed the name of the niece from Daisy in the British version to Kitty in this first American version. However, they recycled the name Daisy for the family maid. Merle Oberon does look like a refined Kitty cat, and she fits her role purr-fectly.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.26.17 PM

Oberon does an admirable job with the song-and-dance numbers during the scenes that take place in the theater, even if it is obvious her singing voice is dubbed. In short Oberon conveys the sort of coquettishness and energy her role requires. She gets on well with Allgood and has palpable chemistry with George Sanders, who sometimes in his other films is too proper to do justice with romantic storylines. That’s not the case here, thank goodness.

Sanders plays the copper. As I stated last week, the police investigator character does not turn up until a third of the way into this movie. It is a good thing since it means we have to focus on Kitty’s relationship with her aunt and uncle at home, as well as all of them interacting with the new lodger (Cregar). Oberon and Cregar share zero sexual chemistry, which is not Oberon’s fault. There should definitely be heat underneath the daily routines and exchanges between Kitty and Mr. Slade the lodger. But that is absent.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.25.26 PM

This version of the story adds in a bit of forensic science. Inspector John Warwick (Sanders) is trying to connect Slade to the murders by lifting fingerprints from objects that Slade has touched in the room he’s renting. Some of the dialogue is a bit expository, explaining to 1944 audiences what collecting forensic evidence entails. But I did like this added into the plot since it increases realism and shows how a policeman might logically prove who the culprit is.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.22.25 PM

The lodger’s motives change in this telling. He is no longer innocent like Ivor Novello was back in 1927, nor is he trying to avenge a sister’s death. This time he’s off kilter because his brother was ruined by a showgirl. We are not given a full explanation of how the brother’s demise occurred by knowing a showgirl, but because the woman was supposedly so corrupt, Slade is now out to get all showgirls. In some ways this is laughable nonsense. The 1953 version with Jack Palance does a much better job explaining the lodger’s psychosis and includes some Freudian analysis of Slade which is much needed.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.25.35 PM

The costuming is exquisite throughout this production. But I found the set design not as good I hoped it would be. One of the problems I had with the sets is that they seemed like warehouse areas on the 20th Century Fox lot. For instance, the downstairs of the Bonting home is a little too spacious for middle-class folk. And the lodger’s quarters have high walls with too much space to walk around the furniture. An upstairs room in a modest city home would not look like this. The attic upstairs where Slade does his “experiments” would be even smaller. So I don’t think the set designer was correct in these aspects.

The studio warehouse feel is even more prevalent in the final sequence where Slade is chased by the inspector and the inspector’s men through the backstage area of the theater. But my goodness this theater seems to go on and on, with all kinds of stairwells and platforms and windows that Slade has at his disposal in a magnificent attempt to thwart capture. To be honest, the chase felt a bit dragged out, even if Cregar’s final closeup and his smashing through a glass window make up for it.

Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 2.59.09 PM 2

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE LODGER (1944)

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.23.58 PM

Jlewis wrote:

We are backtracking to the Victorian Age and Whitechappel with the actual Jack the Ripper instead of the “Avenger” running loose for this adaptation of Mrs. Belloc Lowndes’ story. The 20th Century Fox art department don’t get all of the details historically accurate, but I do feel that Fox had the best recreations of England and London in particular. They always made sure that they incorporated many actual British stars in such productions so there was always a consistency in accents.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.22.38 PM

This shares certain aspects in common with the earlier Hitch film, but differs with its ending. First we get the new lodger Mr. Slade (Laid Cregar) requesting that the ladies portraits get removed from his room, as in Hitch’s version. Miss Kitty (Merle Oberon), instead of Daisy, is the primary damsel in distress here, being the niece rather than the daughter of room renters, the Bontings (Sara Allgood & Cedric Hardwicke). She is also a very successful stage actress and a brunette, but does not become Slade’s love interest even if he develops an obsession for her later. (Oh… we do get a maid called Daisy, played by Queenie Leonard.)

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.24.59 PM

Apart from Oberon and Cregar, the other big billed star here is George Sanders as Inspector John (or Jonathan as the other character in Hitch’s film was called) Warwick and he has no romantic interest in the star lady.

Filmed in August-October 1943, roughly the same period as Paramount’s DOUBLE INDEMNITY and MINISTRY OF FEAR, this was part of the great “film noir” boom when all three were released in 1944, emphasizing psychological “demons” in humankind and lots of low-key lighting.

Such films had been around for a while and one would consider Hitch’s THE LODGER as another key example from the earlier decades, but you do see a jump in films resembling these from 1943 (6 features listed at Wikipedia) to ’44 (23). I guess we should properly label THE LODGER a half-noir since it has many standard daytime scenes of a hardly cloudy London (that California sun is mighty bright) and reserves shots of Laid Cregar in stark silhouette and ominous shadows for the indoor shots and nighttime streets.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.24.09 PM

One other curio: Fox wasn’t sure if it should turn this into a musical or not, since we get Oberon as Kitty doing two lavish, if short, musical numbers; not that the dramatic actress could ever become the next Alice Faye.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 5.22.44 PM

I have to praise the impressive tracking shots that open it as we see a drunk patron of the pub make her short trip back home around the corner and…does not make it once she walks around a corner, quite literally. We hear her talk to somebody (“Who are you?”) and then scream.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 6.13.33 PM

Although I consider the later murder of Jenny (Doris Lloyd) much more effective and shocking, all of these opening shots are still pretty impressive with the cameras held steady and positioned from a perched pigeon’s point of view. Other memorable scenes here are those of police looking for the killer, again from a high angle and with some nice Caligari-like zigzag compositions that reflect the unsettled state of London’s city-scape mentality.

The screenplay by Barre Lyndon is adequate, as is the cast, but I suspect that the German-born director John Brahm and key cinematographer Lucien Ballard were having much more fun with the visuals than the story. So many freeze-frames make interesting photo art.  Especially love the brief scene of Mr. Slade greeting Kitty (dialogue: “You didn’t mind my sending you the little note, did you?” / “I was glad to have it…”) with his arm and body at the door creating a triangle arch way engulfing her as she files her nails all flirtatiously.

I was instantly reminded of Mike Nichols’ THE GRADUATE decades later with Mrs. Robinson’s legs looking just as menacing over an equally suffocated Benjamin.

Screen Shot 2020-10-14 at 6.09.19 PM

Also great are the mirrors reflecting four Slaters on screen as he menacingly talks to Kitty in a later scene. Love that final zoom-in to actor Laid Cregar’s face as he breaths heavily before his final leap.

Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 2.59.09 PM 2

Spoiler alert: Mr. Slade is not Jack the Ripper, as confirmed by Inspector John’s fingerprint analysis. Kitty doesn’t consider him threatening at all until his personality turns Hyde-ish rather abruptly in one, in my opinion, over-acted scene that has little foreshadowing. Slade is very disturbed with a brotherly love loss that is funneled into a hostility towards beautiful women, a fascinating angle that I wish was developed further on screen. Therefore, he must be punished by getting shot and falling into the Thames. Cue the following dialogue:

  • Kitty: He said deep water was restful, full of peace. The river drew him, even in the end.
  • Inspector John: The river sweeps the city clean.
  • Kitty: Carries things out to sea and they sink in deep water.

Despite some flaws, I actually favored this version over Hitch’s silent one. The many memorable camera angles and artsy compositions sell it to me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'm looking forward to the two of you tackling Psycho (1960) next weekend, part of me is bummed that you are not doing a triumvirate here and reviewing Man in the Attic (1953) instead (even though that third one had the audacity to go with a new title).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LiamCasey said:

As much as I'm looking forward to the two of you tackling Psycho (1960) next weekend, part of me is bummed that you are not doing a triumvirate here and reviewing Man in the Attic (1953) instead (even though that third one had the audacity to go with a new title).


I feel this way too. MAN IN THE ATTIC (1953) is my favorite of the three. (I think Jlewis prefers the 1944 version.)

I did review MAN IN THE ATTIC a few years ago on this thread. I might "dust it off" and rerun it tomorrow, with a new introduction since I agree it would be nice to have all three of the reviews together in this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...