Robert Mitchum

  • Dead Man (1995)

    Dead Man (1995)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Criterion Streaming, December 2020) After going through much of writer-director Jim Jarmusch’s filmography over the past few months, I’m no closer to liking his films… but I think I can begin to understand where he’s coming from, and maybe even be satisfied with what he’s doing. Dead Man is like that: Surprisingly, I do like quite a bit of it, but the longer it goes on, the more exasperating it becomes… even if I get what Jarmusch is going for. It’s a western, certainly – it starts on a train where an accountant is about to begin a job in a frontier town; later, most of the action takes place in the woods, as three bounty hunters pursue the protagonist and the Native American who saved him. Other than that, though, it gets a bit weird: The frontier town of Machine is a proto-steampunk nightmare of industrialization leading to decay, and the protagonist spends a lot of time in a delirious state of mind, spurred to consider himself the reborn poet William Blake. Casting counts for a lot – a young Johnny Depp plays the accountant-turned-murderer, while the legendary Robert Mitchum has his last role here as a patriarch. Notables such as Crispin Glover, Lance Henriksen, John Hurt, Iggy Pop, Gabriel Byrne, Jared Harris, Billy Bob Thornton and Alfred Molina all turn up at some point, sometimes very briefly. It’s all shot in black-and-white, with strange visions from time to time. I greatly preferred the opening half-hour of the film – the arrival in town, the walk through the dangerous main street, the nightmarish vision of a factory and the complications of meeting a pretty girl. After that, Dead Man runs out of steam until the ending as it walks deep into the woods and loses itself in pontification. Quirky to the extreme, it zigs where every other western zags, and that’s reason enough to have a look even for those who can’t stand western or remain dubious about Jarmusch.

  • The Racket (1951)

    The Racket (1951)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, November 2020) Probably the best thing about The Racket is seeing bad-boy Robert Mitchum take on the role of a two-fisted police captain hellbent on taking down a major organized crime leader played by Robert Ryan. The film, a remake of one of the first movies ever nominated for the first Oscars, is essentially a grand strategy game between the two, as they vie for the affection of a cabaret singer (Lizbeth Scott), try to manipulate politicians in doing their bidding, and have proxy battles through surrogates. There’s some awareness here of the tricky intersection between justice, politics, the media and the personal emotions of the characters themselves. Mitchum may not be ideally cast as a square-jawed icon of law and order (his celebrated arrest and conviction for drug offences were still fresh in the public’s mind at the time), but I found that his screen persona actually worked in his favour here, as the character didn’t seem above a few horrible actions in order to fight his criminal counterpart. Having seen and rather enjoyed the 1928 original, I wasn’t bowled over by the remake—while Mitchum is remarkable, Scott is good and Ryan isn’t bad (switching roles may have been a better casting decision, but then again no one would have cheered for the police in that case), the rest of the film is merely solid, whereas the original had a few moments of innovative brilliance. (Although the remake keeps the spectacle factor: woo-hoo, a big car crash!) But it may be more fascinating for its behind-the scenes drama, as producer Howard Hugues kept tinkering with the film (as was often his habit) and brought in no less than five directors to complete it. The result can occasionally feel disconnected with too many subplots and plot turns underdeveloped. I still enjoyed The Racket—it’s compelling viewing as a film noir (which the first one wasn’t really, instead heralding the gangster movies of the 1930s) and it clicks in the same ways a competent crime story does.

  • River of No Return (1954)

    River of No Return (1954)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, September 2020) It took a lot to combine Robert Mitchum, Marilyn Monroe and director Otto Preminger on the set of a colour widescreen Western shot in Canada. But was it worth it? Watching River of No Return and then reading about its eventful production history suggest that a film about the making of the film would be more interesting than the film itself. While not strictly a failure, this is a movie that seems oddly conceived, awkwardly executed and barely worth the trouble. Mitchum stars as a taciturn farmer who’s robbed and forced to race to town on a raging river, alongside an estranged son and a saloon singer (Monroe). A very 1950s script doesn’t make things better, considering that it includes a near-rape scene between “hero” and “heroine” and a retrograde portrayal of Native Americans. Technical aspects have not aged well, with obvious differences between studio footage and on-location shooting (which is the kind of thing you learn to tolerate from period films, except this one tries to be an action movie). In the end, River of No Return barely claws its way to mediocrity, which is a far deal less than what we could expect from the talent involved. If you’re even remotely familiar with Mitchum, Monroe and Preminger, then the feeling that all three are out of their urban environment persists throughout River of No Return—and reading about the troubled production of the film only reinforces the idea that there was no way this was going to turn out to be a good movie. As a Mitchum fan, I’m not impressed; as someone who’s not a Monroe fan, I am still disappointed; and as a Preminger fan, I understand why he walked away from the film in post-production.

  • The Enemy Below (1957)

    The Enemy Below (1957)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, September 2020) While The Enemy Below may, at first glance, be nothing more than a naval WW2 adventure between an American destroyer and a German submarine, a few rewards await those looking a little deeper. For one thing, it’s shot in pretty good Technicolor, giving further life to a wartime adventure. For another, it’s directed by none other than Dick Powell, in the third act of his life as a filmmaker after being a musical matinee idol and then a film-noir tough guy. The result of his fourth directorial effort, adapted from a novel, is a tense cat-and-mouse game between two experienced military officers with unequal means. The destroyer does not have an advantage over the submarine, and that keeps the action going throughout most of the film, and provides a spectacular climax between the two war machines. It took two great actors to fill the shoes of the characters, and we get that with Robert Mitchum (surprisingly credible as a military officer) and Curd Jürgens as the Hitler-hating German submarine commander. The Enemy Below won an Oscar for special effects and looks like it. It’s all quite enjoyable—relatively light at 98 minutes, and buoyed by capable lead performances. Even in the generally good subgenre of submarine movies, it’s above average.

  • Undercurrent (1946)

    Undercurrent (1946)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2020) Wait, wait! There’s a film in which Vincente Minelli directs both Katharine Hepburn and Robert Mitchum? Why did no one tell me? Well, it’s probably because they’ve seen it, considering how all three are playing outside their wheelhouse in Undercurrent. A domestic thriller the likes of which were popular at the end of WW2, it features a demure spinster who marries a mysterious rich man but ends up having a closer affinity with his brother. There’s a bit of gothic romance to the story as hints of mental instability creep in and the action moves to murder: it doesn’t escalate to noir, but there’s still a creepy drama underscoring the entire film. The threat may come from inside the house, but Undercurrent’s biggest twist is that Hepburn plays a meek character, Mitchum plays a sensitive guy (for barely three scenes), Robert Taylor plays the creepy villain, and Minnelli tries his hand at suspense, all of which is completely at odds with their strengths. One of Hepburn’s last role as a debutante (she was 39!), the film isn’t particularly good nor terrible: it’s interesting for the eyebrow-raising use of familiar names in unfamiliar roles, but if you’re looking for a good domestic thriller of the era, you might as well have another look at Gaslight.

  • Crossfire (1947)

    Crossfire (1947)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) 1947 was an interesting year when it comes to social-issues drama films at the Academy Awards. Two films in nomination for the Best Picture Oscar were squarely about antisemitism—a bold statement at the time. One of them, the serious and finely controlled major studio picture Gentleman’s Agreement, won the award. But it’s the other, Crossfire, that clearly exceeded expectations. A production of a major studio (RKO) but clearly intended as a B-movie in the disreputable crime thriller genre (now identified as a film noir), the picture went beyond its strict murder-and-investigation formula by tying it to a sensitive social issue—the victim having been the victim of an antisemitic hate crime. (Tellingly enough, the film is based on a novel where the victim was homosexual rather than Jewish.)  It is, in many ways, more overly hard-hitting than Gentleman’s Agreement—the price to pay for discrimination being death rather than social ostracism. Its execution may be less refined, but it’s well in the norms for a film noir—a darkly-lit tale of murder and the investigation to find not only the killer, but his motive. Crossfire is merely one in a long line of crime dramas being used to illustrate deeper issues, but it has the distinction of being the first to punch through the Academy’s prejudice against genre films to earn a handful of nominations. It’s still quite watchable today even if you don’t care about the historical context: Robert Mitchum stars as a police detective, making the film just a bit better every time he’s on-screen. Director Edward Dmytryk keeps things moving through a tight 86-minute running time, delivering a very satisfying film that exceeds noir motifs to deliver a stark and still relevant discussion of hate-fuelled murder. You may watch Gentleman’s Agreement and find that it has aged poorly in its well-mannered depiction of prejudice, but Crossfire will still grab you by the throat.

  • The Sundowners (1960)

    The Sundowners (1960)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2019) There is a weightiness to The Sundowners that makes it both respectable and a burden to watch. The story of a nomadic family trying to make ends meet in outback Australia, it’s a character study (adapted from a novel) of a man unwilling to settle down, something that his wife finds increasingly untenable. Robert Mitchum stars in a very manly role, with Deborah Kerr as his long-suffering wife—despite the mostly happy marriage banter between the two, much of the film’s central conflict is about whether or not they’ll be able to reach an accommodation, and the ending is far less definite than many would have wanted. But the real reason to watch the film may have less to do with plotting and more with the impressive colour cinematography—unusually enough for 1960, much of the film was shot on location in deep Australia, featuring plenty of koalas, kangaroos, sheep and sheep-shearing. Peter Ustinov makes an impression as a refined older man somehow found in the outback. It’s a solid drama that was eventually nominated for five Academy Awards (including Best Picture), but don’t expect much in terms of resolution.

  • The Longest Day (1962)

    The Longest Day (1962)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Blu Ray, September 2018) I often complain about excessively long movies, but even at nearly three hours, I found The Longest Day riveting throughout. A meticulously detailed overview of the Allied landing in Normandy during World War II, this film takes a maximalist approach to the event: It features dozens of speaking roles in three languages, as it tries to explain what happened from the American, British, French and German perspective. Character development gets short thrift, but that doesn’t matter as much as you’d think if you consider the event as world-sweeping history featuring four nations. An all-star ensemble cast helps propel the story forward with some sympathy, as the personas of John Wayne, Richard Burton, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery (in a very funny pre-Bond role), Sal Mineo and may others guide us through the war. The black-and-white cinematography is gorgeous, and hits anthology levels with a sweeping minutes-long uninterrupted shot of urban warfare. (There’s also a great camera movement early in the film that shows the beach landing and many of the 23,000 soldiers used during filming.) While Saving Private Ryan has eclipsed The Longest Day as the definitive portrayal of D-Day, this 1962 production remains important as a historical document in itself: Many cast and crew had been in Normandy twenty years later, to the point where some actors were portraying people close to them when it happened. (Richard Todd was offered his own role and ended up taking that of his then-superior officer, and ends up speaking “to himself” during the movie.) Visually, the movie remains spectacular even fifty-five years later, and it gets better the more early-1960s stars you can spot. (This also works for historical figures—Omar Bradley is instantly recognizable in a one-shot role.) It’s an exceptional tribute to the events of June 6, 1944, a thrilling adventure story and its relatively bloodless nature doesn’t undercut its portrayal of war as being hell where anyone can die at any time. It’s quite a rewarding film, and it’s even better when you can understand more than one of the three spoken languages.

  • The Night of the Hunter (1955)

    The Night of the Hunter (1955)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, December 2017) When watching older movies, it’s natural to assume certain parameters. Aside from the occasional noir movie, themselves neutered by the restrictions of the Hays Code, most films from the fifties are presumed to be fairly soft—neutered in themes, gentle in approach, straightforward in presentation. The Night of the Hunter has endured because it is most definitely not those things. Anchored by a strong menacing performance from Robert Mitchum (in a role that clearly anticipates his turn in Cape Fear), the film soon disposes of its central female character, then turns its attention to mortal child endangerment. What’s more, director Charles Laughton applies nightmarish expressionist style to its hard-core thriller plot for a surreal experience that has as much to do with sheer style as substance. A popular and critical dud upon release, The Night of the Hunter has grown in stature since then for obvious reasons: it’s a film ahead of its time, precise in its impact and still quite impressive to take in.

  • Cape Fear (1962)

    Cape Fear (1962)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, September 2017) I caught this film mostly as a prelude to watching the 1991 remake, but I’m actually impressed at how well this Kennedy-era thriller has held up. Even (slightly) pulling its punches regarding violence and sexual assault, Cape Fear does manage to be gripping and nightmarish. Much of this effectiveness has to be credited to Robert Mitchum: Gregory Peck is fine as the stalwart hero of the story, but it’s Mitchum’s incredibly dangerous ex-convict character that makes the movie work so well even fifty-five years later. The houseboat assault sequence alone, a lengthy one-shot that begins with an egg being smashed on the film’s female lead, is still off-putting even today. It certainly helps that Cape Fear has a strong Hitchcock influence (he storyboarded it; J. Lee Thompson stepped in after Hitchcock quit the project but kept most of the style intact), and remains distinctive despite imitators and a lasting influence. I was favourably impressed by the film, and actually prefer it to its slick 1991 remake in many ways.