Burt Lancaster

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(YouTube Streaming, December 2019) There is a place and a time for everything, including slow-paced dramas dealing with heady questions of shared responsibilities and war crimes. What I’m getting at is that you should give yourself plenty of time to get into Judgment at Nuremberg—at a staggering three hours and eight minutes of mostly courtroom dialogue, it’s a long sit. But you do get a lot for your time—starting with an all-star cast that starts with Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster and Marlene Dietrich, all the way to one of William Shatner’s earliest prominent roles. This film is a debate of ideas, as the American occupation struggles with the prosecution of war crimes at a time when Germany is becoming a crucial Cold War playground, and the US can be accused of having inspired some of the Nazi rhetoric. The battle between lawyers gets to some crucial issues, not the least of which is assigning blame for atrocities. Perhaps the most affecting moment of the film comes from well-known material—starkly-presented footage of concentration camps shortly after liberation, with piles of corpses and bulldozers doing mass burials out of health concerns. (Those images aside, be careful about seeing the film as fact—while it’s adapted from real-life events, nearly all the characters are deliberately fictional and condensed from the proceedings.)  Judgment at Nuremberg doesn’t pull any punches in its topic or depiction—it’s cinema as consciously codifying right and wrong, dismissing feeble objections to the contrary. Despite good-faith efforts to make the film cinematic, there is a lot here that could play as a theatrical piece, including a lengthy summation-as-judgment from Tracy that can be seen as a template for director Stanley Kramer’s climactic sequence in the later Guess Who’s Coming for Dinner. The leisurely pace, repetitive material and fixed location doesn’t work against the film as much as you’d think, though: there’s a moral argument here, and it’s not as much about finding right or wrong as it’s about how to establish right in such overwhelming fashion that there can be no lingering doubt about it. Judgment at Nuremberg does amount to an admirable piece of cinema, as compelling today as it was in 1961. But give yourself plenty of time to immerse yourself in it.

Separate Tables (1958)

Separate Tables (1958)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, November 2019) It’s interesting how various genres of film age well (or not) due to different factors. Something often underestimated is thespian intensity, especially in those movies designed to be actor showcases. Separate Tables starts from strong dramatic material, being adapted from a pair of short theatre plays. This is most clearly seen in the strong dramatic unity of the result, taking place over a few days in a secluded hotel where two pairs of guests have largely separate subplots. On one side, a man (a typically intense Burt Lancaster) has to pick between his nice new girlfriend and his shrewish ex-wife (Rita Hayworth, glammed up to the point where she can be mistaken for Grace Kelly). The dialogue pyrotechnics here occasionally suggests Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?, with a conclusion that may surprise you. On the other main subplot, an officer with a mystery past (David Niven, up to his high standards) beguiles a spinster (Deborah Kerr, strongly de-glammed) trying to get away from the influence of her mother. The addition of a bit of romantic comic relief between two young lovers helps ease into the film before the dramatic intensity starts. Under Delbert Mann’s direction, the film benefits from clean images, unobtrusive direction and full leeway for actors to deliver on the material. The result was nominated for nine Academy Awards (including Best Picture) and won two acting awards. Clearly, this showcase certainly worked, and it helps Separate Tables to be worth a look even today.

The Killers (1946)

The Killers (1946)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, October 2019) There’s a lot to love in The Killers for fans of classic noir, whether it’s the unusual structure, archetypical characters, glum script, or good dialogue. Burt Lancaster makes his film debut here, and Ava Gardner ignited her career thanks to her performance. It’s all very twisty with a man consenting to his own murder and the film flashing back to what could possibly explain such an event. The opening moments of the film (directly adapted from a Hemingway story) are immediately absorbing, with manly pursuit such as boxing and robbery being touched upon on the way to the end. In many ways, The Killers is pure noir to a fault—if you’re a fan of the genre as I am, you won’t need anything more to appreciate the film, while those who don’t care for noir (is that possible?) won’t see anything here to make them change their minds.

The Gypsy Moths (1969)

The Gypsy Moths (1969)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, September 2019) Looking at director John Frankenheimer’s filmography and The Gypsy Moths’ production year, it’s hard to avoid thinking that it’s his attempt to come to grip with the New Hollywood that was beginning in earnest at the time. It takes a potentially white-knuckle topic (skydiving, at the time something so novel that you could charge admission for such shows) and ends up wrapping it in small-town existentialism, as the quiet lives of the locals are contrasted with the devil-may-care attitude of the nomadic protagonists. It’s not hard to see the clash of culture between the two Hollywoods here, especially when it features a pair of Classic Hollywood icons (Burt Lancaster as an aging daredevil, and Deborah Kerr in one of her last performances) playing off a pair of actors who would later become far better known (Gene Hackman, quite compelling; and Bonnie Bedelia whom most will recognize from performances twenty years later in Die Hard and Presumed Innocent). As an illustration of a pivotal time in American movies, it’s not uninteresting. As a straight-up drama, however, it does have problems: The skydiving sequences are compressed at the end of the film, the climactic sequence arguably comes twenty minutes before the end, the small-town drama takes forever to get to a point and can’t quite manage to become effective. Compared to other films of the period, it fails to engage fully with the social changes that were sweeping America, despite half-hearted nude sequences and adultery. Compared with three of the other four Lancaster/Frankenheimer collaborations, The Gypsy Moths feels limp and meandering for most of its duration, only becoming alive when shooting the skydiving sequences. Said sequences are still interesting, but they’ve been duplicated so often (in everything from Moonraker to both Point Break films) that they’ve lost their impact—not to mention the rise of skydiving as a recreational sport. The film’s most flawed aspect comes at the very end, when what should have been a climactic moment merely leads to an extended epilogue that doesn’t go anywhere that a better ending would have achieved in thirty seconds. Historical accounts of the film suggest that studio meddling may have been responsible for the film’s refusal to fully engage with its uncensored themes (and that’s probably true—not everyone knew what to make of the post-Hays-Code artistic freedom) but there’s a limit to the amount of interference in a project with a lopsided structure. The Gypsy Moths does amount to an interesting curio if you’re going for a complete Frankenheimer filmography (especially since he considered it one of his favourites) or an illustration of late-1960s changes in movie history, but overall, it’s a bit of a disappointment.

Birdman of Alcatraz (1962)

Birdman of Alcatraz (1962)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, July 2019) There’s always something off-putting about bio-fiction that ennobles its subject beyond any reasonable bound. Watching Birdman of Alcatraz, for instance, you’d be ready to go to the barricades to understand why an intellect bright enough to write a book about birds and their diseases would remain locked up inside the American penal system with no hope of parole. Why, he seems so good-natured and mild-mannered! But, of course, that’s the magic of movies for you. Dig deeper in the Wikipedia entry for the Birdman of Leavenworth (for he had no birds once transferred to Alcatraz—that’s right, the film’s inaccuracies begin in the title itself!) and you’d find that the real story is quite different. The character in reality was a violent, short-tempered, abusive person, to say nothing of his younger sexual preferences. While the basic facts of the film’s narrative are based on reality, much of the details are wildly off, exaggerated when it suits the narrative (such as having a singular antagonist within the prison walls) and downplayed or elided when they don’t. Every character is prettier, smarter, kinder than reality. But that’s Hollywood for you. With Burt Lancaster in the lead and Lancaster-handpicked director John Frankenheimer at the helm, Birdman of Alcatraz goes for inspiration and amazement—if that character was able to achieve so much when locked up, then what’s stopping most of us? Taken on its own, the film is watchable enough … if it wasn’t for the gnawing suspicion that we’re not getting half the story.

The Train (1964)

The Train (1964)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, May 2019) If there’s a subspecies of suspense movies that usually aged well, it’s those thrillers that deal with cold mechanical steel—cars, trucks, trains, planes. One of the best, The Wages of Fear, is dull right up until it onboards the trucks and then suspense feels as immediate as anything else since then. So it is that The Train also deals in rolling stock; plus it has Nazis as antagonists. The premise is different enough to be interesting, but simple enough to put in a few words: As the Allies advance toward Paris, Nazis are stealing artwork and stashing them on trains bound for Berlin. The resistance won’t have any of this—but the problem is that they can’t just blow up or derail the train without harming the artwork itself. In steps our protagonist, played by Burt Lancaster with his usual solidity. He’s a top resistance operative, but he’s not the artistic type: he couldn’t care less about the paintings, but events soon steer him toward pure vengeance. In the hands of veteran director John Frankenheimer, The Train is a steely action/adventure film, not particularly given to humour when there are more serious topics to tackle. The camera fluidly moves through trainyards, immersing us in the environment before blowing them up. There are some amazing shots in the film, including the bombing of an entire trainyard at Vaires. While the film does feel a bit long at times, Lancaster couldn’t be better, and the tension remains high as there’s a limit to the amount of mayhem that the resistance can do to stop but not destroy the artwork. The film’s spectacle arguably peaks before its climax, but the result is nonetheless satisfying.

Atlantic City, USA (1981)

Atlantic City, USA (1981)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, April 2019) Cultural decades never end on December 31st of their tenth year—they linger on for a while and in retrospect often begin before they chronologically do. This is even truer for “The Seventies” in cinema, often used interchangeably with “New Hollywood”—a period in which American filmmakers understood that they could say anything without being beholden to the censorship of the Production Code or the aesthetic standards of glamorous Classic Hollywood. There was plenty of innovation during that decade, but also a lot of depressing and ugly films. Atlantic City, USA feels like one of the last echoes of that period, and another one of the reasons why the 1980s placed emphasis back on entertainment and spectacle. In it, director Louis Malle delivers a decidedly unglamorous vision of Atlantic City in the early eighties, focusing on an ensemble of characters eking out a meagre living in the shadow of the casinos. He does work with a great pair of lead actors at very different stages of their careers: Burt Lancaster and Susan Sarandon. Much of the story has to do with small-time scams and criminal enterprises—and not in a flashy film-noir way but as a disreputable grimy drama. Many of the characters are deluded in their own ways, leading to a very depressing result. While there are a few moments of comedy, it’s not fun to watch and not meant to be fun to watch. Given the film’s origins as a Franco-Canadian production, there are a surprising number of Canadian and French references in the story (starting with a lead character coming from Saskatchewan!), as well as Canadian actors in supporting roles. The film certainly has its fans—It figures on a few best-of lists, earned a few Academy Awards nominations, and got added early on to the National Film Registry. Still, Atlantic City, USA is perhaps best seen as one of the last statements made by New Hollywood before it got replaced by a far more commercial crowd-pleasing aesthetic. I’ll let others mourn for it.

From Here to Eternity (1953)

From Here to Eternity (1953)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, May 2018) For all of the continued acclaim of From Here to Eternity as a classic piece of Hollywood Cinema, the film itself is often a disappointment. From its descriptions, you could maybe expect a sweeping drama set in pre-Pearl Harbor Hawaii, with high romance being interrupted by the beginning of the war. Alas, that’s just you going from the iconic beach scene and hazy memories of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor—the reality of From Here to Eternity has more to do with it being an adaptation of a gritty dramatic novel in which nobody gets a happy ending. On the menu: a sordid affair (one of many) between a traumatized housewife and an indecisive soldier; physical abuse in the military; a character falling for a high-end prostitute (oh, OK, “hostess”); and the Japanese on their way to ruin the melodrama right before the end. Also on the menu; terrifying dumb decisions from the characters to ensure that they will not get what they want (often dying in the process). As a period piece, From Here to Eternity is not that successful—until the Japanese attack, the film feels far too intimate to reflect the reality of living on a military base and the way it spends nearly all of its time in small sets does undercuts its bigger ambitions. The image of the beach romance suggested by the film’s reputation is far worse in context: Not only is the beach frolicking limited to a few seconds, it’s in support of an adulterous relationship that’s not particularly admirable, and it leads straight to a soliloquy of intense personal grief. Frame the picture of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr smooching if you want, but don’t expect the film to heighten the fantasy. This being said, much of this reaction is a reaction to the film’s sterling reputation—taken on its own, From Here to Eternity does remain a good dramatic piece, anchored by able performances by Lancaster, Montgomery Clift and (especially) Frank Sinatra, with Kerr and Donna Reed on the distaff side. Still, reading about the film (and the changes from the original novel) is often more interesting than the film itself. Overinflated expectations or under-delivering period piece—I can’t decide for now (and I suspect that watching three WW2 movies in a row due to Memorial weekend doesn’t help), although I am glad to have seen it to complete that bit of Hollywood History.

Seven Days in May (1964)

Seven Days in May (1964)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, May 2018) In between Seven Days in May, Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe, 1964 was a big, big year for black-and-white techno-thrillers in Hollywood. Dr. Strangelove distinguished itself through black comedy and Fail-Safe made few compromises in showing a nightmare scenario, leaving Seven Days in May as the more average film, although this is a relative term when discussing a film in which the United States government discovers an impending military coup and tries to defuse it before it’s too late. The black-and-white cinematography highlights the non-nonsense atmosphere that the film is going for, trying to make the unthinkable at least plausible. There is something admirable to the way the film builds not to an explosive guns-and-explosion confrontation, but to a quiet climax in which the would-be traitors are sent scurrying, and the country avoids a dramatic confrontation that would have had terrible consequences. The film works hard at instilling a basic credibility to its plotting, even with some then-near-future technological touches such as video screens. The tension is there, and being able to rely on capable actors such as Kirk Douglas, Fredric March (at the close of a long career), Ava Gardner or Burt Lancaster. Director John Frankenheimer made his reputation on thriller much like Seven Days in May, and is still effective today. Compared to its two other 1964 techno-thrillers, the film has aged very well—it may be hard to imagine nuclear war today, but overthrowing a president is still within the realm of possibility…