James Stewart

  • The Ice Follies of 1939 (1939)

    The Ice Follies of 1939 (1939)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, December 2021) Let’s admit that it is fun to watch James Stewart as an ice skater putting together an epic skating show in The Ice Follies of 1939. It’s even more fun when he’s alongside Joan Crawford playing a mediocre skater who finds great success as an actress even as he’s still putting together his groundbreaking “musical on ice.”  Don’t worry — they’ll make it work eventually, but much of the film is spent with the two obsessing about the other one’s success (or lack thereof) and how it makes them feel. There’s a decent bit of business about showbusiness when our female lead stumbles into stardom thanks to her good looks and great attitude. The conflict between matrimony and success is given a fairer shake in this film than many others, largely because it’s a conflict between two successful people, not necessarily a star and someone offering support. Both lead actors are better than the undercooked material, which feels sandwiched between the requirements of a musical and the demands of making something interesting about ice skating. (The solution, as could be expected, was to blend movies and ice skating.)  It ends with a colour musical… on ice. But that’s Hollywood for you: stars pressed in ill-fitting roles, no matter their suitability for the setting… or the believability of the setting itself. The Ice Follies of 1939 is, at least, worth a look for the climactic dance number on ice, and some of the scenes between Steward and Crawford. Otherwise, well, there’s a reason why it’s more seen as a curio these days.

  • The Cheyenne Social Club (1970)

    The Cheyenne Social Club (1970)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, December 2021) I have no doubt that the filmmakers behind The Cheyenne Social Club did exactly what they intended in casting James Stewart as a cowboy who inherits a brothel. Even at a time when New Hollywood was breaking all of the rules, Stewart’s aw-shucks appeal meant that this wasn’t a film that was out to offend sensibilities. At best, it uses the suggestion of naughtiness as a lure, but doesn’t do anything that could be misconstrued as offensive. (The closest it gets to actual naughtiness is in its repeated suggestions that the house of ill repute is actually a boon for the town… and clearly not of ill repute.)  Stewart plays a laconic cowboy thrust in a situation he doesn’t want — it’s a rather familiar role, and the demands of the comedy don’t stretch his range too much either. Where the film does get more interesting is in pairing him with his good friend Henry Fonda in front of the camera, with none other than Gene Kelly as a director. The plot is thin to the point of aimlessness, an impression that is not helped by a rather disappointing conclusion that fails to show growth for the protagonist. Except that maybe that’s the point — such a fundamentally conservative film (despite Kelly’s often-bawdy instincts) could not end in any other way, and that’s probably the biggest joke in the entire story. Still, even with its flaws and lack of audacity, The Cheyenne Social Club remains a smooth film to watch — more light-hearted than many of Stewart’s previous westerns, and with some cleavage on display. I don’t think it fully uses the elements at its disposal, but that’s the case for most movies anyway. The paying public probably wouldn’t have stood for anything too daring.

  • Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation (1962)

    Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation (1962)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, November 2021) As much as I wanted to like Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation, there’s so much wasted potential in the milquetoast result that it starts to grate. Of course, that may be an overreaction — the film was obviously built by director Henry Koster to be an innocuous broad-public comedy, and isn’t meant to sustain more elaborate expectations. Still, as a family goes to a beach house for an extended vacation, the film skirts the edge of something more interesting but never gets there. James Stewart remains the film’s best asset as a harried father driven nuts by the entire family vacation (the framing device has him narrate a very funny exasperated letter, his drawl making everything even better — a shame that the finale of the film never quite goes back to it.), and having Maureen O’Hara play the mother is not a bad choice at all. Occasional set-pieces involving a persnickety steam heater, or a steam-filled bathroom, hint at a better film. (And the two references to a father purchasing a Playboy magazine for his son are… surprising.)  But for most of its duration, Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation ends up being a curiously tame affair, content to let Stewart run exasperated at everything going wrong during his vacations. It works fine in the way many subsequent family vacations films do — a bit of humiliation comedy, a dash of comic contretemps, and a heaping of traditional values at the trip brings the family back together as one unit. Familiar stuff, perhaps tamer than expected by modern audiences, considering how the envelope has been pushed since then. I can’t, in good conscience, call this a bad movie, but it’s certainly disappointing — although one notes that it led to the somewhat better Take Her, She’s Mine the following year with the same director/star combo.

  • Airport ’77 (1977)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, November 2021) By 1977, both the Airport series and the disaster-movie subgenre had evolved to make the existence of a ludicrous film like Airport ’77 inevitable. While the first Airport was an ensemble melodrama enlivened with some techno-thriller elements, the success of its imitators focused on the thrills and by the time the follow-ups came around, the drama was clearly an accessory to the spectacle, although it allowed some Classic Hollywood superstars one last go at box-office gold. So it is that one of the two most engaging elements of Airport ’77 is James Stewart, with a relatively small role as the owner of an airline—so proud of his newest plane that he loads it up with invaluable treasures right before it’s set to travel from New York to the Caribbean, with none other than Jack Lemmon playing the plane’s pilot. But this wouldn’t be a disaster without a disaster, and so thieves drug the passengers, steal the valuables and make a dumb mistake that sends the plane crashing into the ocean and settling down a few metres down the surface. The other asset of the film kicks in at that point — a relatively credible description of how such a disaster would be tackled by the US Navy (with some assistance from series mascot George Kennedy), slipping large balloons underneath the wings of the plan to raise it up to the surface so that passengers can be rescued. (Let’s all agree to ignore the extremely high likelihood of the plane breaking up upon hitting the ocean in the first place.)  Stewart, Lemmon and the US Navy don’t quite add up to a completely enjoyable film, but they do help rescue it from disaster. I don’t necessarily count the unlikeliness of the plotting against Airport ’77 — it’s a disaster film, after all. But there’s still too much dead weight, too many bog-standard subplots, and too little of a climax to cap things off. It fits with the other films of the series… even if the steady drop-off in quality becomes more and more obvious.

  • After the Thin Man (1936)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, November 2021) Nick and Norah Charles are back for more married-couple high society sleuthing in After the Thin Man, this time going to their hometown of San Francisco for witty repartee and dead bodies. Their triumphant return home is marked by a welcome party they haven’t asked for and, in fact, flee whenever they have the chance. Murder soon follows. As was the case in the first film, the chemistry between William Powell and Myrna Loy (as the very charming married couple trading quips and tracking down killers) is far more interesting than the nuts and bolts of the investigation. Whenever the plot gets going, viewers will wonder when the comedy will get back on track. Still, there are a few noteworthy things about the non-funny scenes: James Stewart is the biggest of them, as his turn as a young romantic premier becomes something quite atypical in his filmography—enough so to make some of his fans very uneasy. Still, it’s Powell and Loy who are the stars here, and the final sequence, in which the usual suspects are brought together, works more on Powell’s pure charm than his deductive talents. Twenty-first century viewers may be particularly interested in the character played by William Law, a rare Asian actor in a cast of Caucasians — and while his role is clearly racist, it eventually ends up portrayed in a somewhat interesting light. As a follow-up to the first The Thin Man, it clearly hits upon the same notes (albeit tempered by the then-recent introduction of the Hays Code) and provides most of the same thrills — namely the comic romance rather than the crime mystery.

  • Fools’ Parade (1971)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2021) A surprisingly older James Stewart anchors Fools’ Parade, a Depression-era comic thriller in which a just-released ex-con with a sizeable check in his pocket gets involved in a number of adventures to protect his hard-earned money. Playing with his usual drawl, good-natured persona and exaggerated squint (the character is missing a glass eye), Stewart does have some company in the cast: It’s a shock to recognize a young Kurt Russell in a supporting role (meaning that you can jump from 2021’s The Fast and the Furious 9 to 1936’s Rose-Marie with this one degree of separation), or have George Kennedy play the heavy. It’s billed as a comedy for obvious reasons—it ends well, for one thing, and there’s one sequence that ends with a surprising bang—but the tone is not always jolly. Clearly shot in the muddy 1970s, it’s a film drowning in browns and blacks, which does take away from a comic atmosphere. Still, it’s reasonably entertaining: Where else can you watch Stewart with sticks of dynamite strapped to his body, genially threatening to blow up the bank if his reasonable demands aren’t met? As you may guess, Fools’ Parade doesn’t quite fit together: a bit too sombre for pure comedy, and too comic for pure thrills. But it does work, largely thanks to Stewart being so effortlessly watchable.

  • An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (1991)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2021) After taking on the classic immigrant experience in An American Tail, the sequel goes after another piece of Americana in sequel Fievel Goes West. As the title suggests, the Mousekewitzes decide to head west after getting tired of the limited opportunities in New York City. As in the prequel, their journey finds young Fievel separated from them, learning valuable life lessons along the way. Taking on familiar western tropes with more enthusiasm than innovation, Fievel Goes West seems content to follow a very classical way of making animated movies, with plenty of songs and dances to go around. Some of the musical numbers are not bad: I’m particularly fond of the short “Rawhide” sequence. Some celebrity voices are also ear-catching: John Cleese turns in a fun villainous performance, while James Stewart’s unmistakable drawl is here heard for the last time. It’s family entertainment in a comfortable old-school mould, perhaps a bit more superficial and fast-paced than other similar films, but clearly having fun with the conventions of westerns. Fievel Goes West feels less profound but more fun than its prequel, which will strike some as ideal and others as a step down.

  • The Gorgeous Hussey (1936)

    The Gorgeous Hussey (1936)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, September 2021) Maybe it’s my still-evolving understanding of English vocabulary, but I’m still grinning at the moxie required to name a movie The Gorgeous Hussey. It does fit, though: As a very fictionalized retelling of the life of a humble woman who became an unlikely power broker thanks to her friendship with American politicians such as Andrew Jackson, it’s meant to be a clash of sensibilities between beauty and politics within a character definitely meant to illustrate more contemporary values. In the surprisingly large filmography about American politics, this film stands out by being more about saucy romance and backroom dealings than policy or memorable speeches. Of course, the project was crippled from the get-go — made in the early aggressive early days of the Hays Code, The Gorgeous Hussey got away with its title, but could not do justice to the affairs, bawdy actions and ostracism of the Petticoat Affair it describes. As a result, it feels neutered — especially when you look up the historical record of the events that the film is meant to explore. It’s not a complete loss, though: visually, the film makes the most out of its period settings with great costumes and sets. Acting-wise, the good news is that the cast has a number of very familiar names, from Joan Crawford in the lead, James Stewart and Franchot Tone as supporting players, and Lionel Barrymore playing Jackson with panache. Unfortunately, that casting is now a double-edged sword: Crawford’s persona is too modern to play a historical figure without reminding audiences of her other films, and a similar problem also affects Stewart — magnified by the thinness of his part. All of these issues make The Gorgeous Hussey more a curio than a satisfying film in its own right. It’s worth a look to see how a Hays-Code-era film tried to portray a subject matter too salacious for its own good, but it’s not really much of a success on its own.

  • Navy Blue and Gold (1937)

    Navy Blue and Gold (1937)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, August 2021) Despite being made in peacetime, Navy Blue and Gold check off many of the characteristics of the wartime propaganda films that became so prevalent during WW2. Its academic setting is tightly focused on one specific area of the armed forces — the US Naval Academy. It features three young men who go on not just to better themselves, but to understand and uphold the traditions of their branch of the service. The wrinkle, so to speak, is that the film combines this recruitment pitch with the ever-popular college football film tradition: Our three protagonists (including a young James Stewart, stealing the show in his usual aw-shucks manner) aren’t just recruits from various areas of society, but all enroll to play on the Navy team. The finale, being in peacetime, takes place not in combat but an ersatz of it — the Army/Navy game, won through theatrics that can only exist in Hollywood since its creation. Director Sam Wood makes sure that all the subplots (romantic, medical, academic) climax at or near the game itself. Navy Blue and Gold is not exactly a bad film, but its elements may be obvious to twenty-first century audiences. On the other hand, they still work… so what does that tell us about the value of a good formula?

  • Come Live with Me (1941)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, July 2021) The casting in Come Live with Me is enough to make any classic Hollywood cinephile perk up — Hedy Lamarr and James Stewart in a romantic comedy? Well, yes — she plays a refugee with citizenship issues, and he plays a single writer in search of inspiration. It’s a match made in citizenship application heaven, and he gets enough inspiration to write a book about their non-romance. It’s all complicated by some adultery (surprisingly enough for 1941), but the key driver of the last act is Stewart saying with his usual aw-shucks “Now, it’s perfectly all right for two strangers to get married; they’ve got to know each other before they get divorced!” Blending screwball comedy of remarriage with a far lower-octane style of romance, Come Live with Me is nowhere near any top tier of film — but it has Lamarr looking beautiful, Stewart ably playing a romantic lead at the height of this romantic-premier era, and that’s more than enough to check off the essential boxes of what the film must deliver.

  • Small Town Girl (1936)

    Small Town Girl (1936)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, July 2021) There is a pleasant matter-of-fact treatment of an outlandish premise in Small Town Girl that’s both a reflection of the common tropes of the time, and a charming reminder that 1930s Hollywood screenwriters played by different rules. The story of a, well, small-town girl swept off her feet by a dashing Boston surgeon, the film quickly goes to a familiar place: the quick whirlwind marriage, preceding romance by quite a margin. What would be truly weird today ends up being just another Hollywood trick to force our characters into an intimate relationship without riling up the Hays Code. Since they are married, they can go all the way at the slightest moment and that’s where the romantic tension emerges. Otherwise, though, there isn’t much more to the film. A still-unknown James Stewart shows up as a distant supporting character—the boring suitor who gets dumped as soon as the surgeon drives into town. Janet Gaynor and Robert Taylor are presented as the protagonists, but neither of them have much of a spark — they do what lead actors are supposed to do and get the film to the finishing line. By 1930s romantic comedy standards, Small Town Girl is ordinary: slightly weird seen eighty years later, but mildly charming at the same time and quite representative of the way marriage would be used as a plotting device in the shadows of the Hays Code.

  • The FBI Story (1959)

    The FBI Story (1959)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2021) National propaganda can take many forms, including a grandfatherly James Stewart narrating the officially approved story of the American national police force. So it is that The F.B.I. Story is one more Hollywoodian take on the FBI (also see the classic G Men), approved by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover himself. From the opening moment, we understand that it’s at least entertaining propaganda: As Stewart begins with the procedural details of how an airplane bomber (itself a then-new and disturbing concept) was caught through meticulous investigation, it sets up The FBI Story as a tale of how an organization can do no wrong. Stewart then plays an agent over the first few decades of the organization’s history, first in imposing some discipline over a lax and scattered organization, then in tackling progressively more difficult cases. In-passing, we get a look at the gallery of rogues that captured the American imagination from the 1930s to the 1950s —Ku Klux Klan, mobsters, Nazis and communists. Vera Miles plays the protagonist’s wife, providing enough domestic incidents to tie the episodic structure of the film together. It’s charming in an intensely paternalistic way — clearly outlining the FBI as a good, even infallible force for order, and their opponents as enemies of the state. (One wonders how the film would have been less amusing had it been completed even a decade later.)  Stewart is often too old to play his role, but he is Stewart and, as such, almost unassailable as the lead voice in the film. Some of the vignettes do represent a revealing look at episodes of American history, even as heavily fictionalized as they are — there’s something about its unspoken racist assumptions (just wait until it talks about Native Americans) that present history filtered through 1950s mainstream attitudes, and the dissonance with modern values can often be arresting. Despite its heavy-handed moral patronization, The FBI Story nonetheless remains a curiously involving film: the script can often be wryly funny, and Stewart’s charm does patch up a lot of issues. It certainly makes for a fascinating case study in media literacy, or how entertainment can serve the state’s interest in hyping its police as essential, righteous and all-powerful.

  • Ziegfeld Girl (1941)

    Ziegfeld Girl (1941)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) In some ways, you can see Ziegfeld Girl as the second of an informal trilogy of MGM movies about Florenz Ziegfeld Jr. —or more specifically the Ziegfeld Follies revue productions that he created for Broadway. Their appeal could be summed up in a word: Girls. 1945’s Ziegfeld Follies was MGM’s attempt to re-create his shows with lavish means and the biggest stars in the business. Before that, 1936’s Academy-Award-winning biopic The Great Ziegfeld showed us the man’s life, and produced some of the most stunning musical numbers of 1930s American cinema along the way. Some of those set-pieces are reused in 1941’s Ziegfeld Girls, which foregoes the man himself to focus on the fictional story of three girls who become part of the show. That, in itself, would be a decent-enough backstage musical, but that’s before taking a look at the cast. Not only do you have James Stewart playing a vaguely disreputable truck driver getting annoyed at his girlfriend’s greater fame (a role somewhat less sympathetic than usual for Stewart, who doesn’t sing a line), you also have the girls themselves being played by none other than Judy Garland, Hedy Lamarr and Lana Turner — a ridiculously stacked cast, if you’ll pardon the expression. Garland is at her youthful best here, not yet showing the strains of studio life — her “Minnie From Trinidad” is the film’s standout number, as long as you put aside the unfortunate cultural issue of having her perform as a darker-skinned girl. Lamarr and Turner don’t sing, but their roles as still good showcases, and the combined impact of all three is not bad — and I’m saying this a someone who’s usually indifferent to Turner and often unimpressed with Garland. Ziegfeld Girl doesn’t manage to be a great musical, but it does have enough running for it to distinguish itself from the crowded arena of Broadway backstage musicals. Reusing some of the lavish numbers from The Great Ziegfeld must have been great for MGM’s bottom line, and it does add visual impact (as well as the gravitas associated with the earlier prestige production) to Ziegfeld Girl. It’s a nice-enough film, although I suspect that some modern viewers (as I nearly did) may run the risk of thinking they’ve seen it already due to its title being very similar to the two other films in MGM’s informal trilogy.

  • Two Rode Together (1961)

    Two Rode Together (1961)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) Considering my lack of affection for westerns and my Canadian citizenship, it’s probably no accident if I don’t have much fascination for director John Ford, nor his seemingly endless list of westerns. But I do like James Stewart, and his starring role in Two Rode Together was worth a look. The story is immediately reminiscent of the much superior The Searchers, as the protagonist goes looking for settlers “kidnapped” by Native Americans. Of course, there’s little heroism here, as the revisionist westerns take hold over a new decade (after Hollywood’s severe overdose of westerns in the 1950s) and Stewart seems only too happy to keep going in the same misanthropic streak he enjoyed in the films he shot with Anthony Mann. His mercenary lawman isn’t admirable, although he does get the girl (against all odds) and the happy-ish ending. I didn’t like much of Two Rode Together: the script is an ambitious mess going in far too many directions than strictly necessary, and the film (despite being shot in colour) is a somewhat downbeat carnival of dashed expectations and overturned presumptions. Whatever humour remains seems curiously glum or immediately dashed by far more sombre material. Even the relatively complex treatment of its Native American character seems hampered by the director’s old-fashioned shooting techniques. While Two Rode Together is worth a look if you’re interested in Stewart’s western oeuvre, or Ford’s touch on material he didn’t believe in (he famously directed the film for money and a personal favour, believing that the material strayed too close to The Searchers). The best scene, amazingly enough, is just Stewart and Richard Widmark chatting away about various things while the camera remains locked on them — it does suggest a far more avant-garde western made entirely of casual conversations and static camera shots à la early Kevin Smith. But not really. Two Rode Together ends up being an unwieldy collection of elements that don’t necessarily fit together, indifferently directed albeit with capable actors and the saving grace of a half-optimistic ending. That’s not much, though… even for Stewart fans.

  • Pot o’ Gold (1941)

    Pot o’ Gold (1941)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, January 2021) James Stewart’s filmography is vast, and not all of his movies are equally good or as well known to modern viewers. By 1941, he was already well known—The Philadelphia Story had earned critical acclaim, and you could see his screen persona coalescing around his specific strengths. These strengths did not necessarily include singing and dancing, making him a curious choice for Pot o’ Gold, a musical comedy teaming him with Paulette Goddard along with feuding families, obscured identities and a radio program distributing cash prizes. There’s singing, dancing, romance and comedy—but the sum of it is less successful than you’d expect. Stewart himself wasn’t a fan of the film, and contemporary reviews were harsh. Nowadays, Pot o’ Gold can be mildly interesting for the incongruous spectacle of Stewart in a musical comedy role, or as another film to feature the beautiful Goddard. Still, it’s not much of a success, and there are plenty of better films to see.