Reviews

It's Great to be Young, (1956) is a narrative of a co-educational school and its pupils excepting their rights. Look further into the sub-text to find it is more about an evolving education system. Moreover it is a comment on the grammar school system. In this era, as is the case nowadays, the grammar school system was designed for more academically able pupils. In other words, a school for the children of the middle class who can avoid paying the education fees of expensive private schools at the expense of the tax payer.

In this film it is notable that the boys are asked questions by the teachers on the subjects of history, Latin and music, whilst overlooking the girls on such questions. Instead girls are encouraged to pursue romance and domestic duties, such as knitting.

Overlapping this dark side of the British education system is the upbeat, energetic, effervescent feel to it, with great performances, good acting and a fine cast of players, including the great Sir John Mills, and a very young Richard O'Sullivan.

It is in many respects a time-piece of traditional school teachers, and education, with corporal punishment and conservative attitudes verses the post-modern jazz, the pre-rock 'n' roll era.

A film that is upbeat, if a tad cheesy, with its dark comments on the British education system.

"I need a holiday, I need time in my hands" (sic), are the words of Hercule Priorot with the acute if not astute observance of a famous detective renowned for his excellence in detecting. Accordingly, it seemed, Priorot ate my words as that was my sentiment as I went to see this film adaptation of the classic Agatha Christie novel at the cinema recently.

The film's cinematography laid bare the scenery through which the steam train chugged through snow clad mountains. The film set left, it seemed, nothing amiss, and the attention to detail, from the decor to moustaches to hairstyles of the period, was perfection itself. And yet, such extravagant a visual feast seemed worthy of more than the modern day cinema with its minimalist theatre and pop corn munching audience.

And while the period was given attention to detail, the director, Kenneth Branagh, who also plays the Belgian detective, forgot that in a freezing cold setting we should see breath belching from the mouths of the characters during the outside scenes in the frozen isolation of the mountains, where the Orient Express runs aground. Likewise none of the characters appeared cold, or shivering. This is especially given that they are all suspects in the murder case.

The suspects are played by such a rarity of an all star cast with none other than Kenneth Branagh, Johhny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Dame Judy Dench, Derek Jacobi, Willem Defoe and Penelope Cruz to name a few.

And so if you love murder mystery, and Agatha Christie and plush, period settings and snow covered mountains, then take a look at this film.

This film is perfectly cast, with Joan Crawford at the helm, playing out her trademark histrionics. She was accustomed to this typecasting, and accordingly played it to the hilt in The Story of Esther Costello. This melodramatic on screen persona is a far cry from her early work, in such films as Rain (1932) where she plays a prostitute.

Crawford's melodramatic persona was a safe bet for her since Mildred Pierce (1945) for which she won the Academy Award. This was the making of Crawfod as well as the breaking. She seemed to be stuck in the character of Mildred Pierce from then on in.

As for her co-star Rossano Randi, it was a brave move for him to take on the part of the slime ball rapist, embezzler, and exploiter. It was a risk for his career as an actor, and it could have the affect of stereotyping people from Latin extraction.

The part of the title role; as in Esther Costello, was played exceeding well by Heather Sears. All of her acting was conveyed through emotion and gestures alone. This was especially played well in her vulnerable scenes, such as that of the rape victim.

The fact that Esther overcomes many of her obstacles, the narrative of the story turns victimhood into survival. A powerful theme with a message of hope. However the end of the film, where Esther recovers from her disabilities, is too much.

If the viewer can overcome the melodrama of this film, it has some powerful messages in it. For that reason it's worth a look at.

From the celebrated British playwright David Hare the film Denial is the prism through which the rigours of history are questioned and placed on trial, as is academia, the English Criminal Justice System and its elitism.

Indeed, the English Justice System is here compared to the American one with their opposing methodologies of ensuring justice is achieved. It subsequently pays homage to the English Justice System as imperfectly good. By that it's elitist, but democratic and fair according to the film's point of view that is!

Academia is also put on trial by the film. This is accomplished by using British Holocaust denier, and Hitler fan David Irving as a tool by which truth is juxtaposed with postmodern ideas of truth as a subjective phenomena which needs questioning and re-interpreting. As such postmodern ideas of subjective truth of one's own interpretation of it as in this case 'history' is suggested as not merely corrupted but dangerous too. It can lead to all kinds of complications when we question truth!

Other themes in this film include sexism, feminism, racism Zionism, and much more.

This film is multilayered ad highly recommended for those who like to think!

The Lady in the Van is, on the surface a showcase of sublime acting by Dame Maggie Smith, but the film is multilayered. Firstly, Alan Bennett plays with the notion of reality and fiction, between consciousness and the subconscious. He uses The Lady in the Van to question whether his years of writing, alone at his desk, has blurred reality and the unreality (the imagination). Then he projects that onto the reader, and audience.

Now I get why Alan Bennet is a genius. Kudos also to the director. Nicolas Hynter for interpreting the essence of Bennet's brilliance. The narrative of the story also deals with mutable social issues, such as eccentricity, abuse of homeless people, and the idealistic social worker., corrupt police, and the hypocrisy of the liberal elite.

That hypocrisy could be directed squarely at Bennett, who, as a wealthy man, could have easily bought a house for the lady who lived in a van. I feel she was fodder for his project and to that extent what are is skewed ethics here genius writer or not?

If you like Bennett's style of writing, and Dame Maggie Smith's acting and the work of director Nicholas Hynter, then this film could be your cup of tea!

This was made in the day when men were rational and women were either hysterical or dotty. For example, the part of Doctor Robert Amour played by Donald Houston is portrayed as the rational, sane and logical man, against his wife, the irrational hysterical, weak woman. Similarly the doctor's aunts are portrayed as dotty eccentrics with unusual hobbies.

Of course these are women's stereotypes, which through the medium of cinema helped to shape attitudes toward women in the public's mind. This is the power of cinema.

In the end though the film illustrates that the doctor's wife was indeed perfectly rational and sane, with a lot of guts in a dangerous situation. Everything turns out...... well let's not spoil it.

Overall a nice mystery film with a fabulous old house feel. It's full of suspense albeit played through the idea of women stereotypes. Nevertheless it's worth a look for fans of mystery and suspense.

This film left me with many emotions such as: anger, pity, cynicism. My frustration turned to anger as I noted that it was a woman cleaning the cinema, and wondered what had changed. Have women gained true equality? Was the 'right to vote' just 'lip service' to the women's cause?

The film got me wondering about my grandmothers, and the exciting period they witnessed, and yet my grandmothers still struggled as a woman. My grandmothers were always scrubbing floors, washing clothes, cooking whilst still going out to work in some menial, low paid job. This despite gaining the right to vote!

The film is set in London's East End, and looks at the life of one woman in particular. This woman might represent all of our grandmothers, and great grandmothers; the typical lives they lead and the low expectations of a working class woman at that time. This part was delivered competently by actor Carey Mulligan as Maud the laundry worker, who was swept up into the movement by default.

Her plight was a daily grind of hard, physical labour in a low paid job, daily sexual harassment from her boss, and obedience to her Edwardian husband. Therefore, not much different from the lives of many working class women today.

To that end, this film was not essentially one about the first wave women's movement, but about working class women's lives. These women were at the bottom of the social pile, and subject to exploitation by their employers, their men folk, and by middle class women and their causes! You might say, as suggested in the film, fodder of the cause!

As for the acting, the part of Maud was played well by Mulligan; she and other actor, Anne-Marie Duff, who played Violet, were the epitome of careworn working class women, who were vitamin deficient and malnourished and plainly worn out.

However, superstars such as Meryl Streep just re-acted the part she played as Mrs. Thatcher in The Iron Lady (2011). Accordingly, she just didn't convince me that she was the great Emmeline Pankhurst of the women's moment. I expected more acting ability from Streep gven her world class record. As for Helena Bonham-Carter, she just playis the same part in every role. She never changes her style of acting. She is also typecast as an Edwardian woman in most films.

And while this film is set in an Edwardian period of British history, it has many anachronisms, such as when the suffragettes chained themselves to the railings of the period were wrongly situated. But, I won't nitpick, as the main point was made! That point was to protest in a radical way.

This radical method of protest was met with the ultimate sacrifice to the cause, by Emily Davidson, who died in the name of the cause at the feet of the King's house at the Epsom Derby. The film portrayed her as an almost innocent protester, who thought that the horse would stop and acknowledge her protest. But the most telling aspect of this ultimate sacrifice was, as the the film points out, that the derby officials, medics and spectators rushed to tend to the jockey and the horse as opposed to Emily Davidson.

At this juncture in the film, it morphs into the actual black and white film reel of the real suffragettes, who marched, agitated and died for women all over the world. This was illustrated beautifully with a roll call of countries where women gained the right to vote, and the one that has yet to give women the vote.

All in all, a great film, directed by Sarah Gavron in tribute to these brave women. The question is, was their bravery all in vain? Moreover, where are the feminists to the cause those days?

An audience may be forgiven for viewing Carry on Spying as a spoof of an eclectic range of spy films. However, in fact this is a mistaken view. Films such as The Third Man (1949), Casablanca,(1942), The Lady Vanishes (1938) and James Bond are all borrowed in order to spoof British culture; the eccentricity of the British and our view of the world, particularly during the Cold War era. Moreover, the film suggests that as Brits we are not afraid to send up ourselves and, moreover, that we have a sense of humour, thereby detracting from the'stiff upper lip' persona.

Acting wise the ' Carry On' team performed well, and were particularly adept at stereotyping British eccentrics. The message they conveyed via their respective acting roles in the film was to look on the bright side of life! The film has broad appeal to those interested in the genres of thrillers, spy, or comedy. Moreover it will appeal to film buffs of the black and white genre.

What many viewers of Sleepers seem to over look is the system of morals which allowed the abuse of wives, of which no one seems to care. The boys seem quite accepting of their fathers beating up their Mothers. The Mothers are, like the boys, part of system where they're trapped. Women had to suffer this abuse as divorce was not an option as pay inequality, lack of opportunities and the binding sanctity of marriage prevented this.

It is interesting that the abuse of the women in this film is a backdrop to the abuse of the boys; symbolising the secondary nature of womens' suffering at the hands of brutal, cruel and sadistic men. Accordingly the film's director, Barry Levison is actually confronting the audience with a set of moral dilemmas. Child abuse is abhorrent yet the abuse of women by their husbands is acceptable!

Likewise the director confronts the audience with the ideas of torture and whether in certain moral systems and situations it's permissible as in the reform school guard's opinion when he asks the lawyer to define torture. To the reform school guard it was an acceptable way of discipline as it was a part of his own childhood. This was the remnants of Victorian society whereby cruel forms of discipline over children and women were viewed as a positively good method of keeping them them in line! This is commented on in David Copperfield by the great British Victorian novelist Charles Dickens.

Other moral dilemmas the film looks at includes the question of American values of personal revenge over societies' collective legal responsibility. This utilitarian perspective of ' the greater good' is further put to the audience by the director of the film via the Catholic priest's willingness to lie on oath for personal justice of his charges. The priest is left to question whether telling lies can be justified and thereby bursting asunder all his Catholic beliefs and values.

Therefore the film's director is very clever the way he juxtaposes violence against women with boys and ideas of discipline and abuse whilst confronting us with the cliché 'two wrongs don't make a right' moral dilemma in American cultural ideas of revenge and justice.

Acting Kudos goes without doubt to Kevin Bacon as the sadistic guard, Vittorio Gassman as Mafia boss King Benny played by him in a none stereotypical way as seen in The Godfather trilogy of films. Acting kudos also goes to Dustan Hoffman's restrained performance as the broken, yet clever lawyer, and his ability to illustrate the tenuous ambiguity of law, and, of course, to Robert De Nero as the Catholic Priest. There is almost a tangible mutual admiration of their respective acting talents from both Hoffman and De Nero which is obvious when they act together in a the scene where De Nero as the Catholic priest takes the stand in court.

Finally kudos goes to director Barry Levison for his excellent multi-layered film direction in three acts. This director makes it not merely a film for a passive audience, but a one for them to confront themselves with morals, value systems, duty and responsibility to their fellow human beings and citizens of their country.

Scum (1979) is a British film that can be likened to a criminology student's theses about the system of correction for young, male offenders in Britain. Accordingly it illustrates the flaws of the system without being able to offer solutions. This is a potential cause of frustration to the viewer.

Like the inmates of Scum the viewer is asked to submit to director Clarke's interpretation of the British Criminal Justice system as fact. Indeed Scum illustrates to the astute viewer that borstal and its current substitutes are merely a part of a system all of society is subjected to, albeit a more direct, hasher reality for those who buck it.

However, the harsh reality conveyed by Scum is one in which brutality is contextualised. One example is the rape scene of a gang of adolescent boys raping an isolated lad. By comparison women working in the sex industry are viewed in a context of glamour, as for example, those portrayed in so called 'lad mags'. As such it is the portrayal and context of violence which asserts its brutality as opposed to the actual act. This is not to undermine the reality of violent acts.

As to the acting, all credit to the cast, and in particularly that of Ray Winstone for a virtually flawless performance. Credit also goes to director Alan Clarke with his variation on 'kitchen sink' style direction ala, Milke Leigh (Vera Drake -2004), Danny Boyle, (Slumdog Millinaire - 2008) and Tony Richardson (A Taste of Honey - 1961) et al.

The only misgiving pertaining to Scum is the middle class, philanthropic slant on brutality in the form of Victorian patronage via a predominantly bourgeoisie film industry full of appeasement via supposed good intentions.

The early Hitchcock feature film; Murder (1930) was a stroke of genius by the director the way he utilised suspense for a higher issue involving the ethics of capital punishment. The audience must sit holding their breaths while the jury decide the fate at the trial of a woman charged with murder.

The suspense is buttressed and amplified purely by the incapacity of the lay members of the jury to decide a person's guilt. As ill equipped lay people, they must not divulge their fear that such perplexity is beyond their scope. Such inadequacy is camouflaged by the utility of the British 'stiff upper lip' .

Further camouflage of such inadequacy is that of the clique which permits weaker persons to be lead by the stronger, as discussed by eminent German psychologist; Erich Fromm (March 23, 1900 – March 18, 1980)whose studies on 'the psychology of the crowd' concluded that the conservative nature of less liberal cultures in Western society caused submission to stronger individuals. Accordingly, the jury in Murder relieve themselves as individuals of any personal responsibility and are mitigated for their decision in favour of a collectivism in the name of a democratic justice system.

Meanwhile it is notable that despite the obvious lack of substantial evidence, paradoxically the woman is charged with murder. The fact that a woman is assumed to have committed murder irrespective of hard evidence is clearly what causes her to be assumed to be guilty. She was acting out of context of her traditional role of nurturer: wife, mother, and home maker.

She is presented as a stereotypical weak damsel in distress waiting for her knight in shining armour to rescue her. This image affords her a man willing to help prove her innocence. If she had acted like a cold murderer she would surely have not afforded such chivalrous action on her behalf. As such she could have been wrongly hanged via a miscarriage of justice.

Such a case as Hitchcock clearly states illustrates the inadequacies and biases of the British justice system in the 1930s. Such inadequacies of justice was to culminate in the eventual abolition of capital punishment in Great Britiain a couple of decades on.

In sum, Hitchcock managed some contribution in illustrating the inadequacies of the British justice system via his clever use of suspense. As such this is a brilliant film, and highly recommended, particularly to both students and professionals of the social sciences, humanities and law.

The film Baby Face (1933) is contextualised within the depression, and in particular the US aspect of it. It is within the depression era US women are liberated and yet, paradoxically must get ahead by any means in a man's world, and abandon all prescribed morals. As such morality becomes open to interpretation and revision.

Such revision of morality as the film suggests, culminates in death and destruction. Accordingly the abolition of conventional morality is blamed for what in fact was caused by the implosion of a laissez faire capitalist system. Indeed, as Baby Face illustrates,the true immorality is the corrupt and avaricious bankers run by white middle class men who flaunt their wealth via superficiality and material commodities. Of course Powers (Barbara Stanwyck) is just one of those prize commodities of Courtland Tenholm (George Brent).

Such withholding of wealth from the poor, caused the deprivation of Lily Powers who was subjected to abuse by her father at his speakeasy. This has caused her to be vulnerable to a follower of the revered German philosopher, Nietzcher. This man, a humble artisan, utilises the vulnerable Powers as a protégé of Neitchian thought.

In this respect, Nietcher is put on trial as the primary cause of immorality, greed and corruption. This is, it could be argued , a mis-guided notion of Nietche's theories. The survival interpretation of Neitchian thought is a Darwinian concept, which likewise is often mis-guided as an excuse for raw capitalism to exist as a moral concept.

Therefore Baby Face illustrates Hollywood's endeavours to blame women via Neitcher for the dysfunction of a capitalist system which culminated in the 'depression' and eventually war. This begs the question as to the liberty pre-code era Hollywood afforded as suggested in The Celluloid Closset,(1995) when in fact it was the Tinstle Town moguls who shaped the viewers' concept of morality and immorality.

For example in Baby Face the moguls have approved the idea that immoral methods of survival are associated with Powers' blonde hair. As such blonde haired women have gained a questionable reputation by association.

In reference to the acting, Stanwyck gives a first rate performance as a hard boiled survivor of a man's world. Other cast members also perform well, particularly the fantastic Therasa Harris, albeit in a black stereotypical role of servant.

Brorrowing from the docufilm; The Celluloid Closet (1995) permits the viewer to focus on Possessed (1947) from a perspective which is the main point of the film. To explain further, The Celluloid Closet (1995) points out that the Hays Code (1930 - 1968) endeavoured to regulate morality. As such the Hays Code's purpose as a guide, leads the viewer's interpretation of the film. This has culminated in a narrow, one dimensional way of looking at film as in the case of Possessed.

Accordingly, this has culminated in many consumers of this film to focus on the chief character Louise Howell (Joan Crawford). This has distracted the viewer from the bigger picture which is that of the ignorance pertaining to mental illness at that time. The ignorance is apparent when Howell's husband Dean Graham (Raymond Massey), ex-lover David Sutton (Van Heflin) and step daughter, Carol Graham (Gereldine Brooks) are oblivious to Cowell's breakdown which is in fact symptomatic of schizophrenia.

Pointedly, when making his diagnoses Cowell's physician's approach to the condition is indirect. It is by skirting around the subject, Howell's physician deviates from having to use the word 'schizophrenia'. This prompts a reaction by Howell and as such she doesn't suffer fools by telling the doctor that she knows that he is diagnosing schizophrenia. She then went on to describe herself as 'crazy'. This negative stereotype of mental illnesses such as schizophrenia is not only a cause of ignorance, but moreover fuel's ignorance.

Indeed the film's subtext is to convey a message to the Hay's Code and how it's prohibition on certain subject matters fuels ignorance. Such ignorance climax is tragedy as Possessed shows.

An excellent marketing commodity, Crawford's VIP celebrity status permits a focus on her calibre as a star and actor. By focusing on Crawford too much the viewer overlooks the bigger picture of Possessed. Moreover the film becomes more of a tool to buttress Crawford's acting status which, as has been well documented, was vital to her vocation just prior to her Oscar win for Mildred Pierce (1945) when apparently her career as an Hollywood actor at MGM was on the slide.

Warner Brothers who produced Mildred Pirce and Possessed utilised the Crawford MGM had forged, (for example see her in MGM's Grand Hotel 1932) which was the archetypal film star and turned her into a bona fide credible actor , which were acknowledged by her Oscar win and subsequent nomination for each film respectively. From here on in Crawford's film career took on a new direction.

While the supporting cast in Possessed is credible their acting did not convey the depth of ignorance to mental illness as convincing as could have been. As to Crawford's acting she being a histrionic actor placed this film's genre as a hybrid of soapy nior. An example can be viewed in one scene when Howell pushes (albeit accidentally) step daughter Carol Graham down the stairs which turns out to be a hallucination, which is a prominent symptom of schizophrenia.

Where the cast lack in their endeavours to highlight the ignorance pertaining to mental illness the director Curis Burnhadt makes up for this by utilising audio affects. This method serves as a tool to maximise and covey Howell's hallucinatory state.

In sum this film is a recommended portrayal of the ignorance pertaining to mental illness. This is conveyed as a message to the Hay's Code enforcers that they were responsible for fuelling such ignorance. For that endeavour Kudos goes to director Curtis Burnhartd.

The docufilm, The Celluloid Closet (1995) is enlightening on several levels. It has illustrated how film can be re-interpreted. In this case a few references have re-interpreted carefully selected film clips as a subtext of homosexuality. This is a retrospective prism from the perspective of a homosexual audience. This revised perspective of film becomes the premise from which to forge a tool to critique English speaking cinema, primarily that of the Hollywood variety.

In other words the issue of 'homosexuality' is utilised in order to highlight the power of Hollywood and its conservative bent (pun not intended) on morals and values. The set of values are a reflection of public morality throughout the ages. This perception of morality by the audience is a further reflection of the contested and contrasting ideas of ideals between conservative and liberal factions. This is reflected as an ever shifting attitude by Hollywood's toward homosexuality, thereby exacerbating the public's confusion of morality.

On closer examination this confusion is explained less by whether homosexuality should be referenced on film, but more about how it should be portrayed and interpreted. Where the stereotyped 'pansy' has been portrayed by film makers and promoters as none-threatening as it's more palatable, the actual practise of homosexual sex acts within film, is pushing the boundaries in order to force the audience to question their own values. Ironically, this forces an almost inverse immorality where the film makers portraying homosexual acts are moral whilst the audience are made to feel unethical even for questioning whether this is acceptable causing a collective, guilt trip among the latter.

This 'guilt trip' of the film audience has been averted by the Conservative rulers of morality, which frees the public of their obligation towards shaping morality democratically. These conservative moral formers manifested themselves via the likes of the Hays' Code which actually permitted audiences to view films without moral obligations. At this point film became conceived as merely entertaining, rather than an artistic medium to challenge perceptions of morality.

Conversly the Hays' code gave artistic license to creative film makers and actors to introduce subtexts into the plots. As such,The Hay's Code was an involuntary contributor to creative film makers who utilised the 'subtext' as a tool for the re-interpretation by differing audiences. The question is were these subtexts introduced to bypass the Hays' Code, challenge it, or an excuse for to advance the ego of the film maker, thereby promoting her or his credentials as an artist? The docufilm is after all a showcase of talented editing!

Paradoxically, where the Hay's Code alleviated audiences of moral obligations, it awakened the conscience of some who became post modern moral leaders. These new moral leaders insist their interpretation of film is superior based solely on the fact that they assert that they can see what others can't. As such, these interpretations of film merely serve as instruments to promote a sense (as opposed to actual) authority to certain post modern commentators. Many of these commentators infer that Hollywood is a conspiratorial medium to cause an unthinking, unconscious, naive audience. Rather the post modern idealists who pride themselves on their advocacy of the individual who thinks for her or himself have hijacked film in an artistic coup for their own agenda.

In sum, the celluloid closet is a most enlightening, informative docufilm. Highly recommended.

The film Public Enemies (2009) is in its abstract sense an artistic look at surrealism within the context of narcissism. In other words the Gangster has a fascination with crime in an almost comic book like way. This is notable for the literature Dillinger, reads and moreover the Hollowood films such as Manhattan Melodrama (1934) which he watches, and which is about 'gangsters'. These gangsters are glamorised via the prism of a camera lens and the Hollywood public relations machine. That Hollywood machine manufactures stars such as Clark Gable and William Powell and juxtaposition them with gangsters and beautiful women. This is reflected back through gangsters such as Dillinger who emulate their heroes. This is further reflected back through Hollywood films until eventually the stereotyped gangster is born. In a twist of irony this is further reflected by Michael Mann's direction and Johnn Depp's acting in Public Enemies.

The '30s was a time when heroism was being promoted via the likes of Italian fascist Musolini and his adaptation of philosopher, Neitcher's idea of the 'superman'. As such heroism was in vogue. For the likes of Dillinger the Great Depression gave way to opportunities for his like to become the anti-hero, divesting the wealthy banks of their riches, and as such their power gained through the accumulation of money. From a Marxist perspective, the FBI and the police were therefore only protecting the wealthy bank owners from gangsters, rather than the citizens.

This is a film that is clumsily put together. However, it does permit an abstract reading of it. Johnny Depp looks pretty as usual, while Christian Bale was the better actor.

Depite a few anachronisms it was a treat to see men in Fedoras again! If nothing else Public Enemies could promote a Fedora come back, and a market for good old black and white classic cinema of the Hollywood Golden Age, such as in Manattan Melodrama, which seems difficult to get hold of on DVD at present.

The Desperate Hours is an intelligent film that has brought fourth cerebral comments on IMDb. Moreover, it is a turning point in character study contextualised within suburbia that became a blue print for film adaptations such as A Clockwork Orange (1971) in which gang culture ravages suburban life and its automated, docile acceptance of routine.

Therefore, whilst being a prism for highlighting the conservative lifestyle of suburban America, The Desperate Hours is a rude awakening of the human condition. In other words, Glenn Griffin (an adeptly accomplished role by the great Bogart) and his criminal gang on the lam rudely awaken the consciousness, and as such re-install the human which was lost to the clockwork robots of suburban families as in the example of the Hilliards.

As in The Stepford Wives (1975), the suburban woman submit to being chattels, as portrayed via home-maker and wife Eleanor Hilliard (Martha Scott). Indeed Eleanor's subordinate position is highlighted when her husband Dan Hilliard (the brilliant Fredric March) informs Griffin that his wife is not Griffin's servant. Note, Hilliard doesn't say "a servant" and thusly implies that his wife is actually HIS servant. This also implies the 'ownership' of women by men, in a patriarchal family.

Another commentator has suggested that Griffin is regretting his criminal lifestyle and envying the suburban secure,lifestyle of the Hilliards. Conversly, why would Griffin want Hillard's humdrum suburban lifestyle? Indeed, it is Hilliard that envies Griffin's courage to be insubordinate, albeit perhaps not the apparent immoral methods he utilises in this process. Indeed, the lacking of opportunity has culminated in a rebelliousness within the context of felony by Griffin and his cohorts, which has usurped Hilliard's perceptions and pre-conditioned comprehension of criminals propagated by the media.

Perhaps Hilliard views Griffin's none-conformity to the suburban ways of the middle classes as a punishment, as opposed to any criminal act the latter has committed. Accordingly, Hilliard should be thankful for awakening his consciousness. Can this family ever be the same again? At least they should be less conformist, and at most rebellious.

The Desperate Hours is a showcase of lamented talent as in Wyler for his outstanding direction, and Bogart and March for their equally brilliant leads. There is also some resplendent turns by the supporting cast with particular mention to Walter Baldwin (the refuse collector) for his convincing portrayal of the frightened 'everyday man' of suburbia. Special mention should also go to Robert Middleton in the part of psychopathic murderer,Sam Kobish.

The Desperate Hours is deeply intense, and intelligently realised and brought to fruition by all involved.

The film Smash - Up The Story of a Woman was controversial, particularly for its time as it contravened the then strict Hays Code (1930 - 1968), which acted as a censorship and as such a moral guidance. In this respect the Hays Code defined morality for the masses, which of course Smash Up defies.

Therefore, Smash-up is not merely a controversial subject matter, but a defiant, rebellious film. With this image, it is rumoured that major film actors of the day didn't want any part in it as it might compromise their carefully contrived film star image. This left a chasm in which a film role of an alcoholic mother, wife and homemaker needed filling.

The controversial nature of the role is ripe for a struggling actor, such as Susan Hayward. Consequently, Hayward seizes the opportunity to gain fame via notoriety, and controversy. Accordingly, notoriety is the agent of Hayward's fame, which inadvertently relegates her acting ability to a secondary position.

In this respect, it is the acquiring of a role for its controversial nature that portrays Hayward, (or at least her agent) as somewhat, calculating. This form of Machiavelianism has been seized upon by many public relations' agents subsequently, and none more so than today. Indeed, the popular press is full of controversial stories about contemporary celebrities, such as actors Agelina Jolie and Brad Pitt adopting children from developing counties. There are many other examples of today's celebrities courting fame via controversy. Smash-Up illustrates this well as in it acts as the agent of Hayward's fame.

Despite the speculative reasons why Hayward took on the controversial part, she's been short-changed as her role lacks flesh. In order comply with the then Hays Code, it is watered down, and too melodramatic. The subject matter of alcohol dependency is therefore undermined. This is exacerbated by Hayward's always glamorous presence on screen, in her role as Angel.

Of course her glamour is partly made by Angel's, middle-class lifestyle where she complies to the role of the dutifully wife, mother and home-maker, which as a former career woman she finds lacks fulfilment. Part of her trouble is that Western society doesn't value Motherhood, or home-making as it is not seen as directly contributing to the wealth of a nation. All Angel wants is to feel valued and worthy in her role at home.

This film has important issues which should not be dismissed just because it's melodramatic. At least it was a brave decision to produce it, which deserves credit alone, particularly during the Hays Code era. It is also particularly interesting as it illustrates how controversy serves as the agent of celebrity and fame. As an aside note, it was 19th Centuty, classic English novelist Charles Dickens who noted that controversy brought about celebrity. In this respect Dickens was referring to public hangings.

The film Calandar Girls is far from an exaggerated true story. It is more of an account of how the celebrity machine operates for the primary purpose of profit via consumerism. In other word, the novel idea of a 'calendar girl' born out of 'celebrity culture' , which is then blown out of all proportion, and subsequently relies on the nihilistic consumer culture to gain further celebrity and profit.

As it's for and by the Womens Institute (WI) the 'calendar girl' world, traditionally applied to glamour modelling is now revised as an art form which is acceptable for their class, with the inadvertent addendum of serving the purpose of maintaining the sensibilities of society's conditioned perceptions. This is supposed to bestow on the older woman a long, overlooked, neglected value. Ironically these women are captured within the calendar in traditional white middle class roles, such as flower arranging, and cake baking. As such the calendar reinforces the white, middle class women stereotype and roles, as opposed to empowering them.

These white middle class women are traditional conservative stereotypes, who carry on that most Tory of traditions, which is philanthropy. Therefore, they raise money for 'good causes' which are reliant on charity as opposed to the misanthropic state, via a constructive tax system, which is ironically enforced via democracy, by these same altruists.

As for the acting, it was not too difficult a role for Julie Walters, who bodes well with this type of acting part, while the rest of the cast were like the calendar girls they played, on a promotional quest of themselves, and their talents. However, the former attribute of these actors undermined the latter.

Likewise the beauty of Yorkshire was promoted via the prism of a camera lens to show off the region's glorious beauty, with a sprinkling of urban style crime crossing into country life by way of a gullible marijuana smoking youth. Multiculterism is also contextualised within white, middle class rural northern England with a character of mixed ethnicity.

In sum, this film is a portrait of nihilistic celebrity culture and consumerism, and societies' accepted dependency on philanthropy and good will.

The film Man At The Top is quintessentially British in that it has the characteristics that make up the British culture. There is the class system where the bourgeoisie at the top appear to the passive observer, dignified, mannered, and serene, like the characteristics of a Tory gent or lady.

This facade is deceptive, and perhaps deliberately so. The facade is like a weapon and also armour. Therefore, what Man At The Top does well is remove that facade, in order to highlight the double crossing, double dealings, the cheating, the cuckolding, and pointedly the two faced masks of the upper classes.

The two faced attitudes of the upper classes contrasts with the straight talking, down - to - Earth, albeit ambitious Joe Lampton (Kenneth Haigh) who has learnt the measure of his upper class compatriots, and who uses this to his advantage. He wades his own, personal, and bespoke proletariat revolution.

Therefore, Man At The Top is essentially about the on-going British class war. Modernity has given way to opportunities for the proletariat to succeed in business and usurp his and her traditional ruler, and as such the demise of the old order.

The film is full of class war symbolism, such as the fox hunt in which the pray becomes the proletariat, as in Joe, or the 'sparring' within the boxing match, and the suicide revealing the death of the old order, via its own self murder. In other words the freedoms bestowed on society by the establishment have culminated in the latter's destruction, only to give rise to polemic new orders during the 20th Century, such as for example consumer capitalism versus communism.

Besides class war, this film is foresighted, as it reveals capitalism to be full of corruption which is relevant today in 2009 where 'dirty dealings' have exposed the fragility of the system in post-modernity.

This is an excellent film for those who want to see into the British class system and the sparring that goes on between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. It is also a good way of revealing the fragile fibres that endeavour to hold together post modern capitalism

The hitherto under-publicised film; My Dear Secretary (1949) illustrates that lead film stars were often there as a marketing tool such as in this example of Kirk Douglas, while the real talents were the character actors, such as in the case of the multi talented Keenan Wynn - see this versatile actor in his highly adept sinister role in Kind Lady (1951). In other words Wynn is the driving force of this film as opposed to the star attraction. In this film Wynn is the comedic talent to the drab cliché straight man role of Douglas'.

Douglas here plays the role of Owen Waterbury, the egotistical writer with a misogynistic womanising streak. In this respect it could be said that Douglas was playing himself. This egotistical persona was merely exacerbated for Douglas' later heroic roles such as in Spartacus (1960). Like his role in Sparticus, in My Dear Secretary,Douglas likes to show off his masculine torso when he puts his shirt on minus vest. This is somewhat of a tribute to Clarke Glable's famous vestless scene in; It Happened One Night (1934).

Douglas' role of the writer Waterbury uses the secretarial school as a licence to his womanising ways, making passes at them and auditioning them for the role of wife, of which is eventually awarded to Stephanie Gaylord (Laraine Day) who plays his bland, docile, door mat wife. That is until she comes into her own with her own award winning novel. This culminates in the roles being reversed as Waterbury becomes the subordinate partner in their marriage. In this respect the film's denouement was ahead of its time, illustrating women as not only a success in their own right, but as the matriarchal head of the family.

Though the acting parts of Douglas and Day were stereotypically bland, the supporting cast are outstanding in their respective roles. This is especially attributed to Wynn. He alone makes the film a must see. Of course, the great Irene Ryan (Mary, the housekeeper) is adept at scene stealing in her minor role.

In sum, this is a film of talented characters with bland stars.

Bud Abbott And Lou Costello In Hollywood (1945) is a sketch film that utilises the premise of Hollywood and the film industry there to assemble a bunch of incongruous gags. Some gags work better than others, while some are a tad over done, and protracted, especially for a fast moving 21st Century audience.

Within the sketches of the storyline is a murder case. This taps into the then trendy period of film noir, a genre of film style that was at its peak at that time. In this instance Abbott and Costello satirise film noir, making a mockery out of the genre. They also take a pop at Hollywood and the inside corruption and backstabbing that goes on.

The boys ( probable unintentionally) make a mockery out of education. In one scene we see Costello's character, Abercrombie struggling with basic maths, yet he and Buzz (Abbott) are intelligent in a way that isn't obvious or conventional. They are enterprising, and clever at the way they achieve their goals, albeit in an unusual, haphazard way. In the end, the boys are the ones who end up rich and successful over the rest of the characters. As such the message here is that a formal education does not make a person clever, but is more about conditioning the cognitive processes. Abbott and Costello proved this time and again.

In sum, this film is interesting for its peak at Hollywood in the mid '40s. It's also worth watching it for the cameo by the marvellous Lucile Ball.

A critique of the film; You Can't Take It With You could start with the character Poppins ( wonderfully played by Donald Meek) who is the culminated end product of The Wealth of Nations originally initiated by the celebrated Scottish philosopher Adam Smith. (B. 16 June 1723 – D.17 July 1790) That is the capitalist's Utopia of the spread of wealth. When this wealth spreads, its gravitational pull ends with a man performing a mundane task for a pay cheque that ties him there. Ironically, Poppins is counting the wealth of his rich, miserly boss. As such Poppins is the extrapolation of Charles Dickens' Scrooge's hand found in the Auther's classic, Christmas Carol fable.

This causes Poppins to rebel against his mundane life by creating innovative toys in his spare time. The problem is such innovation and creativity are hampered from reaching their full potential by his miserable job, which he feels he must do to pay the bills. That is until Grandpa turns up and (Lionel Barrymore) shows him the light.

Grandpa invites Poppins to live with him and his family who are living the 'utopian' dream, full of creative bohemians. All are really a bunch of 'freeloaders' dependent on Grandpa. Likewise, Grandpa is dependent on his tenants who rent properties on his estate, for his income. Therefore Grandpa is similar to his nemeses Anthony P. Kirby (Edward Arnald). The difference lies in how their wealth is spread and the purposes it is used for. Where the latter wants to use his to accumulate more wealth, the former wants his to live a bohemian lifestyle in a type of pre-hippie era commune.

Apart from these differences, Grandpa and Kirby both like power of sorts. Where Kirby gains his through the accumulation of wealth, Grandpa gains his through utilising his charisma and the propagation of his ideals. The mens' differences lead to a confrontation where one tries to undermine the other with their own specialised brand of power, one being charm, the other money.

The power that winds up winning is Grandpa's as his is sentimental and appealing, and none threatening in an obvious way. It is further irony that Grandpa rejects the power of Bolchavic communism, Italian fascism and Amercan capitalism only to have amassed such power himself. But Grandpa's power is that of humanity, which prevails and triumphs in a predictive ending.

This film could have influence Orsen Welles' Citizen Cain (1941) as it deals with the detachment from reality and humanity that obscene wealth brings. Nevertheless the film is quintessentially Capra. Its sentimental persona belies its more complex multi-layered story of power, corruption, humanity, greed and value systems.

Overall You Can't Take It With You is deeply political which makes it controversial. Nevertheless, this is a great film, with a great scrip, production, direction and acting from a brilliant cast.

In Adam's Rib (1945) the scorned wife Doris Attinger (Judy Holiday) is put on trial for attempted murder. This situation gives her barrister Amanda Bonna (Katherine Hepburn) an opportunity to prove a point for the feminist cause. As such she places feminism in the dock. Here 'femisim' becomes the issue rather than 'attempted murder'.

Central to Amanda's point is the idea that a person broke into a family home and broke it up. This allegation puts the 'other woman' at the centre of blame. It ergo excuses the husband and suggests he is not responsible for his own actions of infidelity and cruelty. This is quite ironic and contradicts, Amanda's whole point. which ultimately undermines her cause.

Judy Holiday plays her character Doris Attinger as a dimwit, rather than what was necessary to the role. What was necessary for the role was a nervous woman on trial, not a dimwit. But Holiday is surely using the part for her own agenda, which is to create a persona that got her the top role on Born Yesterdat (1950). From here on in Holiday typecasts herself! Director Geoge Cuckor should have rectified this situation and took control. No wonder he was popular with his actors if he permitted them to act as they pleased! This is not to detract from Cuckor's brilliance as a director, rather a minor quibble! All of the rest of the cast do sublime jobs, especially Tracey as Adam Bonner and David Wayne as Kip Lurie.

A film that puts the feminist cause on trial to prove a point for womankind!

The celebrated German philosopher Immanual Kant's premise of theory was that there is no originality, because we are influenced by what we experience. In that case Johnny Eager (1942)is a clichéd gangster film. But the clichéd roles give way to nuanced characters, which have originality within their various slants of their respective stereotypes. Director Leroy achieves this by adding to the clichés of sharp suited mobsters and their dolls anomalies as in the emotional, erudite gangster with ethics.

A classic stereotype, (well observed and researched by the production team) is that of Lana Turner's character; Lizbeth Bard. She is the clichéd sociology student. That is she is a middle class naive ingénue, whose fascination with her subject matter gets her in too deep. This role gave Turner credibility as an actor! Likewise, the film gave Taylor the credibility he deserved as an actor of dimensions. His caricature of the solipsistic gangster gave him an edge which usurped his 'pretty boy' image. Nevertheless Taylor's Johnny Eager seems to have a sense of his beauty that has the women running to him. One example is the scene when the women run to serve him at the desk near the start of the film. This begs the question of was Johnny Eager's looks that had the women eating out of his hand? or was it his 'gangster' image that attracted them? Could Eager have had the women falling for him with just looks alone? His character wouldn't be half as sexy in the role of Bard's other love interest, that of the sweet, well intentioned good -guy as in Robert Sterling's character; Jimmy Courtney.

The other stand out performance (deserved of his Oscar) is that of Van Heflin playing the complex ,sesquipedalian and polymath, Jeff Hartnett. He is the cerebral side kick of Eager. Like the women, he has got in too deep with Eager because of his homo erotic attraction to the latter.

Mention should also go to the excellent turns by Edward Arnald as the over protective Dad, who has come from nothing,making it as a respectable lawyer, with ambitions for his daughter to marry a wealthy socialite with a good name. His over protectiveness as Bard's Dad gives way to a subtext of incest. This has Hartnett (Heflin) mention the famous psychologist Freud.

Also outstanding in this film is the clever script, which is evidently well researched, as in the example of the naive sociology student. The direction of the film is a credit to Mervyn LeRoy who portrays the clichéd caricatures of the characters to almost perfection. . The film takes allot of twists and turns, which defines it as 'film noir'.

This was the film that altered the career of Robert Taylor, transforming him from a 'pretty boy' film star to a credible actor. It definitely is worth seeing.

The 1938 adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion is here the voice of Shaw. To explain further, Pygmalion is utilised as the carrier for Shaw's opinions and socialist ideals, and his satirising of the middle class values and moral coda. As such, the irony is that Shaw who utilises Pygmalion to critique middle class patronage and their imposition of a moral code in the style of English imperialism, is here the dictator of opinions.

The further irony of Shaw's somewhat naive, gullible views of socialism of that time period is about 'freeing' the subordinate classes and women from the shackles of their positions. Yet as the passage of time reveals, such ideas of freedom have not seen the realisation of either groups.

The lack of freedom of the subordinate classes is measured by their absence in defining British culture which is still premised on middle class morality which is imposed from above by the media. This middle class imposition of their values and morality is illustrated by television shows such as Trinny and Suzanna or Jamie's Minitery of Food. These television shows are imbued with patronising nannying, teaching the average Joe how to dress and cook in th middle class image. It all but says the subordinate class are ignorant.

This is ironic when it is the proletariat whose hard work, intelligence and values shaped industrial Britain and changed working conditions for the better. Meanwhile the middle classes remain ignorant and patronising. They're left scratching around to find new ways to re-assert their dominant position in a class society. This is achieved via their moralising, and ironically, as well as being controversial and telling society that conformity is the back bone of Britain, rather than the toil of the labouring classes.

This moralising by the middle classes is illustrated in the film adaptation of Pygnmalion when the police officer confronts an innocent kiss by the courting couple in he street. It begs the questions of what crime is?, what morality is?, and more to the point what the role of the police officer is? The police are here obviously the middle class enforcers of morality.

As to the acting in the film it is of the highest standards from Howard, Hiller and the rest of the cast. Hiller is particularly excellent at her perfection of Eliza Doolittle.

In sum, this is a film which acts as the preachy voice of George Bernard Shaw.