I wasn't born in US and I'm only in my 40's, so I never even heard about "Shane" before this summer. One reason being: I don't like westerns in general - just find them formulaic and violent for the sake of violence (although I'm a great fan of the Godfather franchise, so maybe it's not the violence that turns me off in westerns). The other reason being that while John Wayne and Clint Eastwood westerns dominate our TV screens, westerns featuring Alan Ladd (including "Shane") are shown with the frequency of Halley's Comet. I finally saw Shane on Netflix two months ago (only after reading glowing praises of the film from Woody Allen, because, frankly, "Shane's" poster is a huge "turn-off") and I've been watching and re-watching it ever since!!! I even bought a DVD of this film to join the only seven other movies I watch whenever possible (yes: "Godfather I" is among them). "Shane" is filled with great performances: from the "slinking" dogs, to the title role of Shane - and everyone in between. I cannot imagine other actors playing these roles, just like I cannot imagine a different director, different cinematography and different musical score. It's like reading a "Great American Novel" but in pictures. It's timeless. And this is largely due to the excellent editing and George Stevens - Alan Ladd pairing (unhappily never repeated). Alan Ladd is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors (since "Shane" I looked up some of his other movies - his "noirs" are excellent). Despite great talent, most directors (and certainly the studio executives) didn't know how to use him at all. Not so with George Stevens: he knew he got the right stuff here (the fact that he wanted to work again with Ladd on "Giant" shows how much he appreciated Ladd's talents). Stevens worked him hard but he got what he wanted in spades. The intensity Alan Ladd portrays on screen is electrifying. Even when he is off center in the shot, the eye travels to him. His body language is subdued but his eyes are especially expressive. While Brando needed cotton balls to produce the truly memorable performance, Ladd just has to shift the light in his eyes to make the chills run down one's spine. Actors don't operate in vacuum and excellent cast helps make Ladd's appeal even greater. On a flip side, however, other players are shown against Ladd's persona as if he was the canvas that makes their colors stand out. In short: it's a symbiotic relationship. A lot has been written about the fact that the only people on the set shorter than Ladd (other than the kids) were Jean Arthur and Elisha Cook Jr. So what? He was larger than life - especially as Shane - and that's what the movies are about - the illusion. There are also some criticisms about his buckskin outfit and long golden locks. If you think they are too effeminate for a gun slinger, just watch the scene where Shane shows off his shooting to Joey. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be at the business end of his gun. And again: the face Shane shows for a split second when he fires the gun - you know this guy can kill (and most likely has killed) a man. If you want action like Die Hard 8 or Mission Impossible 7 - don't bother to watch this movie. If you are looking for western of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" ilk (or any Wayne vehicle) - don't bother with Shane either. But if you like to watch Kurosawa, Jean-Pierre Melville or Coppola (especially The Conversation) - give it a shot. You might really enjoy it. Then again, you might have to watch it a couple of times to really get into it. I'm not sorry I did.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Shane
(1953)
Repeated viewing recommended, especially for those, who don't like westerns.
17 August 2015
The McConnell Story
(1955)
Life imitates art... or is it the other way around?
12 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The McConnell Story has couple of things going for it and number of things wrong with it. I'll start with the "wrongs": if you are going to do a propaganda movie, be more subtle about it and don't clobber the viewer with frequent boring speeches on the subject (including opening address by a USAF general, no less!!); use the medium of pictures (movies are a visual art, after all) and show us the message instead of reading it out loud to us (as if it was the radio). Second problem with this movie is Alan Ladd - he is too old to play McConnell. Although he was only maybe 41 or 42 when filming this picture (still: 10 years older than McConnell at the time of his death), Ladd looks here closer to 55 (too much alcohol, cigarettes and sun, perhaps). He cannot pull 23 year old McConnell being rambunctious youngster in the Army during WWII and he can barely manage 30 year old ace in the Korean War. He just doesn't look the part. The suspension of disbelief was just too great for this Alan Ladd fan. Having said that, the movie gets going every time June Allyson and Alan Ladd are together on the screen. The first time I saw this movie (not knowing at all the "behind the scenes" story), I though there was great warmth and subtlety in the portrayal of love and friendship in the McConnell household. After I read June Allyson's autobiography, however, and found out a little more about making of this movie (and its "aftermath" in Ladd's marriage) I re-watched it with a renewed interest - and oh what a difference. Every line and love scene has gained a deeper, more tragic meaning. One feels almost uncomfortable watching the doomed romance of two unhappily married stars unfold so publicly, before one's very eyes. I especially "teared up" during the scene when Ladd's "Mac" has to bid silent adieu to his wife (Allyson) before going off to the Korean War. Yes, folks: you are watching the final nail to Alan Ladd's coffin in a beautiful WarnerColor (although it would take him almost another decade to finish himself off with booze and pills). I recommend this movie to Ladd and/or Allyson fans, if only for that biographical reason.
The Great Gatsby
(1949)
I cared about Ladd's Gatsby as much as I did about Fitzgerald's
11 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I've loved this book for many years. First, I've read it in High School (required reading) in a foreign language translation. Then, when I learned English, I read it few times in the original. I agree with all those who believe that this novel is not "adaptable" for the screen: it is written as a single point of view narrative and it cannot be followed closely in a movie version or it would be a mega "snooze fest". In addition it has so many themes that any adaptation would need to necessarily drop some of them or the movie would be an overblown, 4 hour opus. Having said that, I feel I need to write a "few words" in defense of the 1949 adaptation. Even though this version was plagued by many challenges (low budget; censorship crippled script, that seems to assume no intelligence on the part of the viewer, therefore providing endless and superfluous back story explanations; Paramount's reluctance to produce/promote it; last minute appointed director, who was more experienced with light comedy; rather plain actress in the role of Daisy; some liberties with the character of Jordan Baker, etc.), I feel that it hit all the main themes of the book spot on and it kept the viewer engaged for the duration (something, which cannot be said of the much more lavish 1974 version). But most of all: I loved Alan Ladd as Gatsby. There are many gems in his version, such as: Gatsby, awkwardly, trying to bribe Nick; Gatsby giddy with pride and joy, showing Daisy his lavish closets; his confusion when he discovers that Daisy has a daughter; his shock when he finds out Daisy's "true colors"; and, finally, when he sits alone, so small, in the great big house, with all his dreams crumbling around him. I cared about Ladd's Gatsby as much as I did about Fitzgerald's. And in the end that's what movies are supposed to do: make us care. I will skip over the Luhrmann/DiCaprio version (least said, soonest mended) but only to say, that it is the ONLY version of Great Gatsby (I saw 4: 1949, 1974, 2000 – TV movie and 2012) in which I was longing for Wilson to finally show up and put DiCaprio's Gatsby out of his misery.
And Now Tomorrow
(1944)
Could have been a contender... alas: weak script
3 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"And Now Tomorrow" could have been a great romantic picture. It had a top notch cast and interesting premise but the script collapses somewhere in the middle of the story, never delivering the romance a movie of this type needs, to stay interesting. I don't know the book the movie was based on (I'm not really a fan of this sort of stories) but I can hardly believe that it was as weak on logic as this script. This movie got 7 stars from me mostly because Alan Ladd does a very good job showing the 'conversion' of a bitter, resentful doctor, from the wrong side of the tracks, into a passionate man in love with an unattainable woman. He immediately establishes that he finds Emily (Loretta Young) attractive but spoiled. Then there is a slow dawning of admiration for her spunk, followed by recognition of her vulnerability and finally something much deeper. My favorite is the scene in the diner after the somewhat contrived "emergency operation". You can see in Ladd's face (and in his words) that he starts to deeply care for Emily, whom he now, considers a friend. This follows to an inevitable confrontation with Emily and confession of his feelings (totally in keeping with the "straight shooting" never-to-be-able-to-suffer-in- silence type Dr. Vance supposed to be). The movie is worth seeing if only to admire Ladd's range (which, inexplicably, was and is continuously questioned by the critics). Where the film suffers is in the portrayal of Emily Blair: Ms. Young can play to a tee the proud, spoiled socialite with big problems, but she cannot overcome a very inconsistent script. Initially our heroine can be excused to be so self-absorbed (after all she is trying to overcome what she considers "a major handicap") but after while (given that this supposed to be a love story) she should start showing some kind of affinity towards the doctor. Never do we see that she finds him in the least bit attractive. Never do we see any kind of deeper feeling developing for him. For most part she treats him no better than an employee (somewhat tiresome to boot). The above mentioned diner scene shows only that she begins to see him as a consummate professional. In fact, the cure is the only thing she seems to want from the good, handsome doctor (as he bitterly points out in the latter part of the picture). Therefore, the last 15 minutes, or so, are completely incomprehensible. There, in quick succession: she forces the marriage with the long suffering finance (with whom she spends no time, whatsoever, since she started seeing the doctor) driving a decisive stake through Dr. Vance's heart; then she emotionally blackmails the lovelorn doctor into jeopardizing his career and everything he worked for, just so she can take another long shot at the cure for the sake of happiness with another man (she actually tells Dr. Vance that!). Then, improbably, she gets over the shock of finding out that the man she was going to marry in a few days doesn't love her anymore (it takes her less than 30 seconds of the screen time!); and, finally (hold on to your hats folks!), chasing Dr. Vance to Pittsburgh. What?! Frankly, at this point, if I were Dr. Vance I would slam my door in her face! ;D To be fair, Loretta Young is not entirely to blame here - the script and direction gave her character just one dimension: spoiled brat who cannot see beyond her own concerns. Good supporting cast doesn't have too much to do either, with possible exception of Ms. Hayward, who manages to inject some interesting spark into the role of Emily's spunky younger sister.
This Gun for Hire
(1942)
Better than Bogie??
2 July 2015
After watching this film I'll go ahead and throw it out there: Ladd was a better actor than Humphrey Bogart. There, I've said it. I saw almost everything Bogart and Ladd did and I must say, I find Alan Ladd a lot more believable in his delivery and expressions. I think he was just ahead of his time with the understated acting. He didn't grimace much but you knew what was going on in his head just the same. He also didn't have a lot of luck with his scrips later on in his carrier (unlike Bogart). I think he also lacked some of the confidence Bogie had on screen (and off). I don't know why, since he was significantly better looking than Bogie (and only 1 inch shorter). He would have been great in, for example, Casablanca. If you don't believe me, just take a listen to the Lux radio version, where Ladd plays Rick and delivers the iconinc lines. He would have been a lot more believable as Ms. Bergman's love interest than over-the-hill, lisping, hunched over Bogie. Too bad.... Before the mostly dismal 50-ies in Ladd's carrier, however, there was his "noir period" and "This Gun for Hire". All elements of this movie work well together. Script and direction are decent (some of the dialogues are not the best, except perhaps when delivered by Ladd), music is great! (I recommend getting the main theme: classic noir score), photography and sets are very bleak and gritty (very: "noir"). Supporting cast is good and Veronica Lake seems slightly less "wooden" than usual, especially when playing opposite Ladd. I don't know why they had to squeeze in two, very forgettable lip synced song numbers by Ms. Lake, but other than that the action moved at a good pace. Overall, I enjoyed this movie not only for the style (noir) but because I genuinely cared what happened to Raven (Ladd's character).
Lucky Jordan
(1942)
Wish Ladd made more comedies
2 July 2015
This is a very entertaining movie. A lot funnier upon repeated viewing (dialogue is very witty and fast). Alan Ladd (underrated actor to begin with) has made very few comedies and shines here in both delivery, mannerisms and excellent timing. Helen Walker is holding her own and has just about as good an on-screen chemistry with Ladd as Veronica Lake in his noir movies. The plot is pretty stupid because of introduction of Nazis (in US ?!), secret plans, treason, etc. The whole patriotic hullabaloo, in my opinion, only gets in the way of otherwise interesting idea of a wise guy trying to dodge draft by any means necessary (especially as the movie was released in 1942). It's a pity Ladd got "pigeonholed" by his studio (Paramount) into tough guy, action hero and/or tragic roles. He would have been a winner in an intelligent, dialogue based comedy, or even romantic comedy (dare I say: the caliber of Cary Grant?!). I'm buying this one for my collection of Ladd's movies. :D
Tell Your Friends