I always worry when I watch one of my favourite films with someone who has never seen it before. Usually I will have built it up before hand but that horrible moment when they say 'yeah I can see why YOU like it but...' always feels like it is just around the corner. I have had this happen with 'It's a Wonderful Life', 'West Side Story', The Bridge on the River Kwai' and ‘Touch of Evil’. It is also a depressingly common reaction to Charlie Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, anything silent and, even, anything black & white. So it was with some trepidation that I settled down with my girlfriend last week to watch ‘Cinema Paradiso’ (1989,*****). Thankfully I need not have worried as Giuseppe Tornatore’s celebration of all things cinematic charmed her as it has charmed millions who have watched it. The story is told in flashback, in the memory of a successful Italian film director named Salvatore (or Toto) who grew up in a tiny village. The centre of village life is the cinema where gruff but inherently decent Alfredo works as the projectionist. Toto loves the cinema and begins an unlikely friendship with Alfredo that lasts through his childhood into his teens and early twenties when he leaves the village with strict instructions from Alfredo not to look back but to follow his dreams.
This film has so much going for it. The Italian countryside provides stunning scenery, the score by the legendary Ennio Morricone must be one of the best ever written and the film shows of a host of character actors bringing the ‘Cinema Paradiso’ to life. Technically the film is superb and even the extra running time and story of the longer director’s cut doesn’t lessen the movie’s impact.
There are three things, however, that raise ‘Cinema Paradiso’ to the pantheon of the greats. Firstly is the presence of a child actor so far removed from your typical Hollywood brat as it is possible to get. Anyone who has ever watched ‘Home Alone’ and thought Macaulay Culkin was cute, lovable and talented should watch this movie (and seek psychiatric help) to witness the performance of Salvatore Cascio. He is funny, he’s mischievous and there isn’t a single moment when you stop believing he is a kid growing up in a one-horse town at the end of the Second World War. The second piece of magic is what has become known as the ‘kissing sequence’. I won’t ruin it for those of you who haven’t seen the film but suffice to say it is a wonderful and moving moment. The third and most important reason I love this film is Philippe Noiret. His portrayal of Alfredo is marvellous as the character moves from the grumpy projectionist putting up with young Toto’s relentless attention to the wise and placid figure that begs Salvatore to make something of his life and forget the sleepy town that would destroy his spirit if he stayed. It is a stunning piece of acting.
If you have never seen ‘Cinema Paradiso’ I beg you to watch it at the earliest opportunity, even if you have a natural aversion to subtitles. You will be rewarded with an experience that few films can ever hope to match and one of the finest male screen performances of the post-‘Star Wars’ era.
***
The performances of children are foremost in the two other films on my movie radar this week. ‘The Innocents’ (1961, ***) is a British horror movie that now seems rather tame but has at its core a terrific performance by the always-reliable Deborah Kerr as the governess assigned to take care of two children whose last carer killed herself after the failure of a torrid love affair. The theme of possession has been done more graphically countless times since this movie was released but it has rarely been done better. Kerr’s optimism and desire to help the her charges in the face or repeated warnings not to delve too deeply into the story spun by the children is gradually built up to the point of mania until the dreadful truth is revealed in an unsettling but slightly rushed climax.
‘The Innocents’ would probably have been a more effective movie if certain aspects of the plot had not been required to be skimmed over by out-dated production codes in place at the time. The same is undoubtedly true of ‘The Children’s Hour’ (1961, ****) where a rumour surrounding the precise nature of the relationship between two female school teachers (Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine) threatens to ruin the lives of all concerned including Hepburn’s doctor fiancée, played by James Garner. Karen Balkin plays Mary, the vile bully whose failure to overturn punishments with fake fainting fits and ridiculous tantrums pushes her to twist an overheard conversation so that her Grandmother will withdraw her from school. The acting here is a treat but that id to be expected with two of Hollywood’s most talented stars at the centre of the picture. The limits on what could be discussed are skilfully negotiated by Lillian Hellman’s adaptation of her own play though a bit of freedom may have allowed a different, less bleak ending. Unfortunately, the message that the production code insists on here, as in so many movies that tried to tackle the subject of homosexuality around this time, is that whilst it’s fine to be sympathetic towards gay characters in movie, their actions are essentially wrong. It must have been like having your movie overseen by Jan Moir (only she wouldn’t have bothered with the sympathy as it is not a word she knows the meaning of).
Note: Anyone interested in the portrayal of homosexuals throughout Hollywood history should seek out ‘The Celluloid Closet’ (1992, *****), an excellent and humorous documentary that traces the depiction of gay and lesbian characters from the silent era onwards. You will never watch ‘Calamity Jane’ in the same way again!
***
Reading Tony Curtis’ new autobiography ‘American Prince’ last week made me realise that his output was pretty poor considering he was in movies from the late 1940s through to the ‘80s. Curtis admits his career took a nosedive towards the end of the ‘60s to the point where if he didn’t work outside the United States he didn’t work. There are several explanations put forward for this from anti-Semitism to a reaction against his perceived poor treatment of Janet Leigh during their marriage but the most likely, I feel, is that when Tony Curtis needed another strong presence on the screen to help his star to shine brightly. Anything he made before 1957 has pretty much been forgotten with the exception of ‘Winchester ‘73’ (1950) in which he had a very small role and the entertaining but overlong ‘Trapeze’ (1956, ***). Likewise, his output post-1960 was almost uniformly poor – ‘The Boston Strangler’ (1968, *****) providing a rare gem. However, Curtis is one of those stars who has managed to cement a place in the list of Hollywood greats by virtue of a handful of excellent movies made in a short space of time. Between 1957 and 1960, Curtis starred in ‘The Sweet Smell of Success’, ‘The Defiant Ones’, ‘The Vikings’, ‘Some Like it Hot’ and ‘Spartacus’ which, by anyone standards, are five top-drawer movies. Perhaps we can learn from this that Tony Curtis was at his best when playing opposite another strong male lead (Burt Lancaster in ‘Sweet Smell...’, Sidney Poitier in ‘Defiant Ones’, Kirk Douglas in ‘Vikings’, Jack Lemmon in ‘Some Like it Hot’ and Douglas again, along with Laurence Olivier in ‘Spartacus) and when, after the success of these roles, he was expected to carry a film all by himself, his limitations as an actor were exposed and his star power is what carried him through to be remembered with such affection.
I love Tony Curtis. I think he is a great star and when he made a good movie, they were great and he was great in them, but rather like his good friend Frank Sinatra he couldn’t quite get along without someone of equal stature to play off. He needed someone to challenge him for his best to brought out and we can be thankful that for four short years he was regularly challenged as he always rose to the occasion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment