Tootsie (1982)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Tootsie (1982) – S. Pollack

Of course, there is an inescapable datedness about Tootsie but this lies more in the fashions, music, cinematography, and art direction than in the gender relations at the heart of its plot.  In fact, the central conceit that Dustin Hoffman becomes a better man as a function of spending time as a woman holds up just as well today as in 1982.  This is precisely because the burdens of being a woman (unwanted sexual attention and patronising treatment by men, additional requirements for make-up and body maintenance, etc.) have not changed.  Hoffman learns about these things when he decides to dress in drag to land the part of a hospital administrator on a soap opera, going from Michael Dorsey to Dorothy Michaels.  Perhaps the only sour note is the implication that Jessica Lange, another actress on the soap who is in a relationship with the director who treats her badly, can learn something from the empowered Dorothy who stands up for women’s rights on the set (the problem is that it seems to take a man in drag to take action whereas the actual women here, including friend Teri Garr, are more submissive).  But aside from this, the movie is surprisingly good natured, even when Jessica Lange thinks that Dorothy is a lesbian or when the various available older men (Charles Durning, George Gables) make their plays for Dorothy and she/he wants to resist. We don’t get slapstick here but something more genuine.  Even Bill Murray, as Hoffman’s roommate, plays things straight with only a handful of witty one-liners (apparently improvised), a sign of things to come. All told, although I hesitated when the film began with nary a laugh in sight, sticking it out proved to be worth it for the wider arc and message of the story.  

 

The Rite (1969)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Rite (1969) – I. Bergman

Bergman teleplay that sees three actors interviewed by a judge in an unnamed country after obscenity charges are brought against them.  After an initial session with all three (Ingrid Thulin, Anders Ek, and Gunnar Björnstrand), we then see the judge (Erik Hell) interrogate each actor separately; in between these scenes we see the actors in pairs discussing their relationships. Although Björnstrand and Thulin are married, she seems to sleep exclusively with Ek who is in turn married to someone else (but separated). The three are suggested to be internationally famous actors yet each has their own neuroses that facilitate the awkward situation.  It is never quite clear until the end exactly what the obscenity involves (and even then, it seems a bit obscure) nor do we fully understand the motives of the actors in that final scene.  Bergman seems to be suggesting (again) that actors are unfairly persecuted in society and should be free to pursue creative expression even if (or especially when) it is threatening to others’ values – but he also portrays those actors as deeply flawed.  Although brief and admittedly stagebound, the film somehow grips you with the puzzle it slowly pieces together (and never really solves). 

 

Three on a Match (1932)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Three on a Match (1932) – M. LeRoy

Pre-code drama that shows us three childhood schoolmates (not necessarily friends), first as “types” at grammar school (the bad girl, the good girl, and the popular girl) and then as young adults who have transformed into Joan Blondell, Bette Davis, and Ann Dvorak.  They still fit the same type:  Blondell has been in the reformatory but is now a showgirl; Davis is a hard-working typist; Dvorak is married to a rich lawyer (Warren William), has a young son, and lives in a mansion. But Dvorak’s character yearns to be free from the shackles of marriage and motherhood (this is pre-code, remember) and soon we see her take up with a bad egg (Lyle Talbot), bringing her 3 or 4 year old son into squalor.  Against type, Blondell saves the child.  Alcoholism and drug abuse soon follow for Dvorak and when Talbot gets on the wrong side of the mob due to a gambling debt (led by Edward Arnold with a young Bogart as his henchman), he kidnaps the young boy to try to elicit ransom money.  It’s all pretty bleak, especially the shock ending.  Still, Blondell is her perky self and Dvorak inhabits the wasted girl well (Davis has nothing to do and Bogart gives only a glimpse of his later tough guy persona).  Worth a look, esp. since it clocks in at just over an hour and offers an eye-opening and lurid look at 1932.  The title refers to the famous superstition, of course.

 

Daughters of Darkness (1971)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Daughters of Darkness (1971) – H. Kümel

Euro-horror that is less trash and more arthouse than most, with a dream-like visual sense and eerie soundtrack. A recently married couple visits a Belgian resort in the winter, finding themselves the only ones in the hotel until Countess Elizabeth Bathory (Delphine Seyrig) and her lesbian lover/assistant/slave turn up.  Of course, the Countess seems likely to be a vampire and a series of unexplained murders are currently in the news.  But the film is all cat-and-mouse with the Countess stalking the couple and the new wife discovering that her husband may be harbouring secrets (I’m not sure what to make about his strange call to his “mother” who appears to be a man in drag) including violent tendencies of his own. The movie moves slowly to its conclusion which seems inevitable until a sudden twist and epilogue.  Some haunting visuals adorn this finale.

  

Bombshell (2019)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Bombshell (2019) – J. Roach

Were there always this many films that offer a retelling of recent events using actors and Hollywood techniques?  I feel as though we are being asked to revisit and rethink what we know about history over and over again – is it Oliver Stone’s fault? Can we trust the retelling?  This time, it is the events at Fox News leading up to the sexual harassment lawsuit that was Roger Ailes’ downfall (and Bill O’Reilly’s too).  If I were living in America, I might be able to discern whether the film is telling the “truth” or not.  But at this point, I don’t know who Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is and I’ve barely heard the name Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and that is only because she moderated one of the 2016 Republican debates and got into a spat with Trump (which I read about in the media at the time).  The film covers that spat and Kelly’s complicated relationship with Fox and Ailes (played with fat-suit prosthetics by John Lithgow).  As the “me too” movement gains steam, Carlson sues Ailes and Kelly needs to decide where she stands.  Margot Robbie plays a new recruit who is also harassed by Ailes.  The film gets pretty depressing as the various bad behaviours are outlined and director Jay Roach does let us feel the shame and degradation and powerlessness of the women involved.  For that, its heart is in the right place and it is good to explore the terrible dynamics of this situation that women are too often placed in.  Perhaps it is empowering to see them confront their tormentors.  But this series of films featuring impersonations and restaging of current events is a weird genre and I worry sometimes that these deep fakes might begin to replace our actual history (at least in people’s memories). 

Nothing Sacred (1937)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Nothing Sacred (1937) – W. Wellman

I’ll admit that I was a little underwhelmed by Nothing Sacred (screenplay by Ben Hecht, directed by William Wellman) although I do see the blackness of the comedy here (despite the technicolor) which focuses on how New York responds to the heart-wrenching story of young Hazel Flagg (Carole Lombard) who has been diagnosed with radium poisoning and is soon to die (but the comedy lies in the fact that it isn’t true and she’s scamming everyone but perhaps rather innocently). Frederic March is the reporter (Wally Cook) who sees the value  (for his career) in the personal interest story for his newspaper and travels to Vermont to pick up Hazel and bring her to the big city for one final trip of a lifetime. The daffy dipsomaniac doctor who made the errant diagnosis is also along for the junket. The tension builds as we wonder how soon everyone will find out that Hazel just isn’t sick and the implications of this for Cook’s job, their budding romance, and, well, the investment of all those kind hearted people who have put forward their public acknowledgment of Hazel’s bravery (and encouraged people to join them). The point is that everyone’s out to make a profit or to boost their own images/egos on the back of Hazel’s sad misfortune – that is, nothing’s sacred.  But alas the film isn’t really very funny (not really screwball either – too slow and not sharp enough for that) apart from some sight gags that wryly go by without comment.  A little bit racist and sexist too.  However, Lombard and March are good as usual, even if the character actors in bit parts aren’t of the calibre found elsewhere. Start with Sturges or Hawks.

 

 

Blood and Roses (1960)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Blood and Roses (1960) – R. Vadim

Roger Vadim’s take on Sheridan Le Fanu’s (lesbian) vampire tale, Carmilla, is a haunting widescreen fantasy, slower and more dreamy than most Hammer productions (although obviously there are similarities – Christopher Lee was considered for the male lead role that went to Mel Ferrer).  The vampire here, Carmilla, is played by Vadim’s then wife (and Bardot substitute) Annette Stroyberg – she is jealous that her cousin Leopoldo (Ferrer) is about to marry Georgia (Elsa Martinelli) and begins to fantasise about the family history that involves a vengeful vampire, Millarca, who kills the young fiancées of the cousin _she_ was in love with.  After a fireworks accident reveals a hidden tomb (Millarca’s, of course), Carmilla seems to become possessed by the ancient spirit, although we never quite know whether this is real or all in the mind of the jealous girl.  She does prowl around at night in a white dress amongst ruins – the cinematography by Claude Renoir (nephew of Jean) is quite sumptuous and worth the price of admission.  I watched the French version which is longer than the US cut and contains a woozy dream sequence (Georgia’s dream) as well as extra footage with peasant girls observing the action of the decadent nobles.  In the end, this is more style than anything else and proceeds at an arthouse pace, but at only 79 minutes, how can you go wrong?