Vatican II: This time it's personal.

'The Agony and the Ecstasy' (1965) ****

'The Shoes of the Fisherman' (1968) **

'The Pope Must Die' (1991) *

'Angels and Demons' (2009) ***

'Foul Play' (1978) ****

'Sister Act' (1992) ***

Pope Benedict XVI: A big Farrelly Brothers fan

Pope Benedict XVI visits Britain this week with much controversy surrounding his trip. Not only has there been widespread incredulity over the reported £12 million cost to British tax-payers for the visit, there is also expected to be a number of protests relating to the child sex abuse scandal that the Catholic Church is engulfed in. The current Pope’s reputation has always suffered in comparison to his charismatic predecessor, John Paul II who, though no more progressive on ethical issues relating to contraception, abortion and homosexuality, tried to foster good relationships with other faiths and had what might be called the common touch which he user to great effect on his extensive travels across the world. Benedict seems rather stuffy and awkward in comparison. He seems to have a dreadful habit of saying the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time and tends to fan the flames of dissent when trying to defend and promote Catholicism, which, lest we forget, is the primary responsibility of his role. His handling of the many child sex abuse scandals has been particularly poor with reluctance to fully condemn the actions not only of those responsible for the abuses but also those who helped cover them up, who had knowledge of the crimes but didn’t act and particularly those in high office who merely re-deployed those guilty into different jobs, some even taking roles that had direct contact with children.

This blog is primarily about films – watching them, criticising them, discussing, thinking, reading and talking about them, and most importantly loving them – and it is also supposed to be fun. However, when an organisation that has so much to say about morality fails to deal swiftly and satisfactorily with heinous abuses carried out by the representatives of their church, it stirs even the most laid back of us into some sort of action, even if it’s protest as mild as this one. You will all doubtless be sick of reading about these subjects in by now so all I will say is that the Catholic Church needs to wake up from the slumber it has been in for so long. An organisation run by old men with old ideas who promote doctrine and dogma above the core beliefs the religion was founded on and preach hypocrisy can only fall into an irreversible decline. It may already have entered that state.

* * * * *

Anthonty Quinn as Pope Kiril, the fast-track pontiff.

So, back to movies and in keeping with the papal theme I’ve been looking at some Hollywood Popes. They are pretty rare in comparison to movies about priests but I guess the ratio of Popes to priests is always going to be low. From Spencer Tracy to Paul Bettany via Bing Crosby, Robert Donat and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plenty of actors have donned a dog collar but very few have got the Ring of the Fisherman on their finger.

The most famous portrayal of a real Pontiff is probably Rex Harrison’s turn as Julius II in the 1965 epic ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy’. The film, which was a box-office disaster on release, tells the story of the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Harrison’s irascible warrior-Pope locks horn’s with Charlton Heston’s Michelangelo who paints the ceiling only out of a sense of duty to God. In what is essentially a two-hander, both actors do a rather good job in making the film entertaining as neither character is particularly likeable and they spend much of the film arguing and being generally pig-headed before coming to realise that they are similar in many ways. In their weaker moments, the two men seem racked with self doubt and seem acutely aware of their personal failings whilst their public faces are arrogant, bullish and totally impervious to criticism. In the end we discover that both men are driven by their faith as they believe that their talents (as a leader and artist) are God-given. ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy’ is a very interesting and enjoyable movie. It is much shorter than most epics of the period and deserves a better reputation than as a flop that cast granite-jawed Charlton Heston as the effete dwarf Michelangelo. It was directed by the great Carol Reed, who spent half his time making peace between the warring co-stars, and it looks fabulous. Not quite as fabulous as the real Sistine Chapel but still pretty good.

We move next to a far from arrogant, far from bullish and very reluctant Pope – Kiril Lakota in ‘The Shoes of the Fisherman’ (1968). Like ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy’, ‘The Shoes of the Fisherman’ is adapted from a best selling book, is an expensively assembled picture designed to be a showpiece for the studio that produced it, and failed to pull in the crowds. This is one of my cinematic guilty pleasures. I know it’s slow and has an overblown sense of its own worthiness but there is something really fascinating about it, not least because it actually has some interesting things to say about the way the Catholic Church is run. Anthony Quinn is a Russian priest (Lakota) who is released from a Siberian prison camp just in time for Pope Pius XIII (John Gielgud is full ‘rent-a-Shakespearean-actor’ mode) to make him a cardinal. Lakota is reluctant enough at this juncture so imagine his surprise when the ham Pope dies and, after a lengthy conclave, he is chosen as the new Bishop of Rome. The rest of the film concerns itself with tackling three points: Church opposition to progressive theology (Kiril is friends with a radical priest and must censure him), the lack of interaction between the laymen and those high up in the Catholic hierarchy (Kiril is told that he cannot go out around Rome at night, but he goes anyway) and whether a wealthy religion can do more to help those in need (the new Pope uses his coronation to vow to use every penny he can raise to help the world’s hungry and poor). Anthony Quinn is probably better in roles that let him express his personality more than this. Here he wanders around with a permanent harrowed look on his face, which is perfectly understandable for a man who has gone from hard labour in the wilderness of Siberia to be head of the Catholic Church in a matter of weeks. However, it does make for a pretty miserable central character and in the hands of a worse actor the movie would have really stunk. Laurence Olivier appears as the Russian premier with an accent straight out of a Vodka advert. Olivier was in that period where he turned up in massive Hollywood productions, normally to play a foreigner, and basically took the piss out of the whole thing before running off to the bank with his enormous pay packet whilst the film’s producers slapped each other on the back for brining their movie some gravitas.

All of that sounds pretty negative but there are some good things about it too, not least the supporting turns from Leo McKern and Vittorio DeSica. The best thing about it is the way the film uses all the rituals, mystery and drama of the conclave as the major set-piece of the movie’s first half. I find all of that pretty exciting and Michael Anderson, the director, stages the whole process very well. Admittedly the final third of the movie seems very dated but it is worth remembering that the book was written at the height of the Cold War.

Papal elections are central to the woeful Robbie Coltrane vehicle ‘The Pope Must Die’ (1991) which came off the back of the surprise international success of ‘Nuns on the Run’ (1988). I won’t dwell on this film too much as it’s very poor and extremely unfunny. The plot centres on a simple parish priest being elevated to the papacy by virtue of a mistake in announcing the name of the Mafia’s preferred candidate. Vatican conspiracies also feature heavily, of course, in the literature of Dan Brown and ‘Angels and Demons’ (2009) features the selection of a new Pope as background to the story of violence towards the favoured cardinals. ‘Angels and Demons’ is pretty good despite being totally nonsensical. It’s exciting and that is all you can ask from this type of movie.

On final point: Hollywood Popes all seem to be in danger. All of the films mentioned here involve the death, near-death or murder of a Pope so they are obviously seen as a disposable breed by film-makers. Even the finger-tapping, Gilbert-and-Sullivan-loving Pope visiting San Francisco in the wonderful comedy-thriller ‘Foul Play’ (1978) is the target of assassins, though he seems to enjoy himself as even more than his counter part in ‘Sister Act’ (1992) who was probably praying to the good Lord to end his life before the annoying, timid one let loose.

TMILN's 100 Favourites - 100

100. Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)
Dir: Blake Edwards
Starring: Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard, Buddy Ebsen, Patricia Neal, Martin Balsam

A struggling writer and a free-spirited call-girl start an affair but reality seems destined to get in the way.

As iconic roles go there are few to rival Audrey Hepburn’s turn as Holly Golightly in ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’. The film would have been a very different experience had Marilyn Monroe been cast as originally planned. Truman Capote, on whose story the movie is based, wanted Monroe but surely she would have been too overt, too ‘Marilyn’ for the film to work in this era of Hollywood. Most of the more salacious aspects of the book were toned down or removed but what remains is an excellent picture with two distinct halves. The first is fairly care free and light as the romance between neighbours begins and we see into Holly’s lifestyle of parties, late nights and the most famous ‘walk of shame’ ever. However, as the story progresses both characters have to face up to the aspects of their lives that they would like to ignore or they thought had been consigned to history’s dustbin. With the regrettable exception of Mickey Rooney as a Japanese pervert, everyone is on good form here, particularly Hepburn who moves from free-spirited to haunted without losing the basic core of the character.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Re-Imagined Detective

Sherlock Holmes (2009) *

Chaplin (1992) *****

Robert Downey, Jr. using his BlackBerry to keep up to date with 'The Man in Lincoln's Nose'... possibly.

I don’t know about you but when I go on holiday the holiday begins as soon as I get to the airport. The sitting around trying not to drink too much, trying aftershaves that I will never buy and getting frisked by a large woman in slacks are all part of the excitement. My joy really increases when I board the plane and we take off as I love flying almost as much as I enjoy long train journeys. However on my recent flight to Istanbul (great city, loved it, go if you get the chance) the soothing ointment of the flight had a rather nasty, irritating, mockney fly in it – Guy Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’.

Released towards the end of last year, the film has been a roaring success. It will doubtless spawn several sequels which will make large amounts at the box office, Ritchie’s stock in America is at an all-time high and it won Robert Downey, Jr. a Golden Globe. However, the film follows what could be called the ‘Virgin’ model. You have a product that you think is pretty good but to ensure that it gets more publicity and a better chance of selling well you pay to use an established brand name. Companies do it with Richard Branson; Ritchie has done it with his film about a bare-knuckle-boxing, all action detective who happens to live in Victorian London. The character bares very little resemblance to Sherlock Holmes as most people know him (via the books, Basil Rathbone’s film series or the television incarnation with Jeremy Brett) but with the Holmes name attached the film was always likely to have a large following. There are Sherlock Holmes fans that went to see what was done to their beloved sleuth, action movie fans who liked the massive set pieces and blood-letting, and sadistic types who were hoping to see an old favourite roughed up by cinema’s Jamie Oliver. What the film amounts to is an eye-catching but ultimately silly, confusing and wearisome picture that, mercifully, will not linger too long in the memory. The plot is so difficult to follow and so full of Guy Ritchie’s usual, unfathomable London-accented tripe that it feels like you are watching and adaptation of Stephen Hawking’s ‘A Brief History of Time’ written by the Mitchell brothers. Defenders of the movie will say that it is a ‘re-imagining’ in the style of how Tim Burton handled ‘Planet of the Apes’ (2001) and ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (2009) but Burton at least kept the essence of the originals in his work. Ritchie plainly knew that after a few duds at the box-office he needed a sure fire hit to ensure he would be in a position to continue to make feature films as a career. He hit the jackpot by pretty much doing the opposite of what has been done in the Daniel Craig era James Bond movies – take a serious, somewhat dour series of stories and make them fast-paced and ridiculous. Call me an old fart but I like my Sherlock Victorian, not from the Queen Vic.

* * * * *

Speaking of Tim Burton, Robert Downey, Jr. appears to have aligned his career with Burton’s most famous and frequent collaborator Johnny Depp. Both were considered prodigal talents who were occasionally overshadowed by their dark good looks. They both tried to combat this in their early film careers by not picking obvious heartthrob roles and scored big successes critically doing so in the early 1990s (Depp as ‘Edward Scissorhands’ (1990), Downey, Jr. in ‘Chaplin’ (1992)). They both had a fairly timid period in the mid-90s, Downey, Jr. due to his drug use and Depp in an attempt to become a more mainstream proposition. Now the two of them seem to alternate between the big summer blockbusters and more interesting, smaller roles. Neither could be considered as more than a supporting player in ‘Tropic Thunder’ (2008) (Downey, Jr.) or ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (Depp) for instance. Neither of them has won the big one yet either but they seem to be there or thereabouts nominations season these days so they can’t be far off a classic ‘it’s their turn’ gesture from the Academy.

For what it’s worth, I think that Downey, Jr. should have won an Oscar for ‘Chaplin’ but he was beaten by just such a sentimental gesture towards Al Pacino. He was a fairly controversial choice to play Britain’s most famous export to Hollywood but his performance was exceptional. Anyone who has read Chaplin’s autobiography will know that he was a man keenly aware of his genius but who worked harder and more obsessively than would be considered normal. Downey, Jr. puts that on the screen. The work ethic, the flickers of self-doubt and the relentless desire for recognition are played perfectly alongside the arrogance, the superficial bragging and political naivety of the real man. For once it was a good thing to be called a proper Charlie.

* * * * *

Don't forget that you can follow me on Twitter @lincolnsnose or twitter.com/lincolnsnose. I will be posting some of my mini-reviews on the blog soon but if you can't wait then from tomorrow use the search #TMILN to find them. Happy tweeting!

More Mini-Reviews on Twitter

Escape to Victory is one of this weeks mini-reviews on twitter.com/lincolnsnose

There are more mini-reviews on The Man in Lincoln's Nose's Twitter feed including:

The Arsenal Stadium Mystery (1939)

Destry Rides Again (1939)

Die Hard (1988)

Escape to Victory (1981)

Foul Play (1978)

The Heartbreak Kid (2007)

The Hustler (1961)

Straw Dogs (1971)

The Ups and Downs of a Handy Man (1975)

Mini-Reviews for Twitter

This week I started to write some mini-reviews of movies for Twitter. If you use Twitter please click the 'Follow Me' link in the top right-hand corner of my blog. If you don't, I will re-print them here next week.

Easy Rider (1969): One of this week's reviews on twitter.com/lincolnsnose

This week's reviewed movies include:

Avatar (2009)
District 9 (2009)
Easy Rider (1969)
Garfield (2004)
The Holiday (2006)
Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)
The Producers (1968)
Remains of the Day (1993)
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Sommarlek (Summer Interlude) (1950)
South Pacific (1958)

Avatar: the new 'Star Wars' or the new 'Titanic'?

Avatar (2009) ***

Titanic (1997) ***

Star Wars (1977) *****

Earlier this month, James Cameron’s ecological epic ‘Avatar’ (2009) got its home cinema release and, predictably for the most hyped movie of the last ten years, the DVD and Blu-Ray sales have been the fastest in history, going against the sharp decline in physical disc sales that has accompanied the age of the download. Whilst this boost will be a temporary one, the more lasting consequence will be how ‘Avatar’s widely publicised ‘immersive experience’ will translate into people’s living rooms. Some movies were made for the big screen and their shortcomings become very obvious on a smaller screen without surround sound. Others can be downsized with their entertainment value and reputation intact. Is ‘Avatar’ another ‘Star Wars’ (1977) or another ‘Titanic’ (1997)?

James Cameron gets to work on the script for the Avatar sequel.

The presence in the queues outside the DVD stores of blue-painted people would appear to hint that science-fiction fans have room in their locker for fanaticism over another movie (and by 2014 its sequel). The almost religious fervour that surrounds 'Star Trek' in all its incarnations, ‘Star Wars’ and fantasy movies such as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) is a thing of ridicule for most of us but it is also the reason these films make so much money and hang around forever in the multiplexes. There is a famous story that George Lucas knew he would at the very least break even with ‘Star Wars’ as the title alone would attract every sci-fi fan in America into the cinemas. Will ‘Avatar’ inspire the same lasting devotion as Lucas’ movies? Unfortunately for James Cameron even with HD technology and bigger TV screens, ‘Avatar’s multiple messages (treatment of the planet, western powers invading countries with no idea of their indigenous culture, the plight of the native American) are so sober, almost po-faced, that it doesn’t have the same sense of fun as ‘Star Wars’ and its deficiencies in not being rip-roaring entertainment are exposed on the small screen where the films technical brilliance is diminished.

Remember ‘Titanic’? It was huge. It was everywhere. It made money by the boat load and had people queuing around the block for repeat viewings when it hit cinemas back in 1997. The sheer scale of the movie had to be admired as a brilliant technical achievement – the sort of spectacle made for a giant cinema screen. If you missed it at the multiplex then you missed the experience of seeing the film as it was intended to be viewed. The effects weren’t as impressive when seen on a television and by dulling the film’s big impact moments you noticed that the script wasn’t very impressive and some of the performances were dreadful – Billy Zane in particular was bad without being bad enough to be funny. ‘Avatar’ looks certain to follow the same pattern. I would watch it again if it was re-released in the cinema in, say five years time, but I would find it difficult to whip up any enthusiasm for a small screen repeat.

‘Titanic’ obviously wasn’t the first film made with a view to big-screen spectacle. Since D.W. Griffith got his hands on a camera numerous film-makers have undertaken projects that were specifically designed to use the grand scale of a cinema screen. Where Cameron went wrong with both ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’ is that you get the feeling that he believed on both occasions that he was making the greatest movie ever made when he should have been happy to make first class, escapist entertainment, like ‘The Terminator’ (1984) or ‘Aliens’ (1986), that he made his name with in the 1980s. The effects were impressive but they weren’t too big for the home video market whilst the nature of the plot and the movie allowed any script issues to go almost unnoticed. When you went to see ‘Terminator 2: Judgement Day’ (1991) you knew it had nothing to say about the world and it was happy to be a first rate action/ sci-fi movie. ‘True Lies’ (1994) had its tongue firmly in its cheek just like the Bond movies it was clearly influenced by, and was all the better for it in the same way that the humourless Daniel Craig Bond movies seem incredibly dull in comparison to Connery’s or Moore’s. ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’ both follow on from many of the huge historical epics of the 1950s and 60s – huge production, superb technical achievements, perfect for the big screen but when you watch them on television the dull stretches become much more apparent. How many of us have sat through the perennial Easter showing of ‘Ben Hur’ (1959) more than once? How about ‘The Ten Commandments’ (1956) or ‘The English Patient’ (1996)? What Cameron needs to remember is that big doesn’t necessarily mean great. For every ‘Gone with the Wind’ (1939) there is a ‘Heaven’s Gate’ (1980) and for every Lord of the Rings there is a ‘Hawaii’ (1966).

For condensed news and mini reviews of movies mentioned here, click the 'Follow me' button inthe top right corner of the screen and follow the Man in Lincolns Nose on Twitter.

Follow Me on Twitter

The Man in Lincoln's Nose is now on Twitter. Follow me at http://twitter.com/lincolnsnose for movie news, mini-reviews and general prattle.

Hollywood’s Forgotten Stars: Part 2

Here in the second of a series of four pieces I will be looking back on twenty of Hollywood’s forgotten stars. This week it’s the actresses numbered 5 - 1 in my countdown. I hope you enjoy it. As always your comments are more than welcome.

A dancer, a southern belle, a girl next door, a bag of nerves and a Queen

N.B.: This list is not intended to be definitive. It is merely intended to highlight the talent of ten largely forgotten actresses who played a significant role in Hollywood history, be it as a great box-office star, an Oscar winner, a pioneer or an unfulfilled talent that shone all too briefly. In deciding on my order, I have rated the actresses on both their contribution to cinema and how little I perceive them to be remembered by the general public. The biggest star will not necessarily come out on top.

5 – Eleanor Powell
Imagine a world where Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra were still as celebrated but no-one remembered Judy Garland. Or one where Clark Gable and Cary Grant were still regarded as great stars but Greta Garbo’s name was only familiar to a small, hardcore group of fans. It wouldn’t seem quite fair, would it? However, when we think of the great dancers of the screen we think of Fred Astaire in his top hat and tails or Gene Kelly splashing about in puddles and we forget the fleet footed brilliance of Eleanor Powell. Powell is best known for the ‘Broadway Melody’ series of films made between 1936 and 1940. They were typical early musicals – a love story set to the backdrop of a young hopeful getting their chance in a big show. There wasn’t much in the way of plot but there was always simply brilliant dancing from Powell. Her tap skills and the music of the great Cole Porter (who scored three of Powell’s movies) was a marriage made in heaven, almost certainly seen to best advantage in the ‘Begin the Beguine’ number from ‘The Broadway Melody of 1940’ (1940) with Powell and Astaire tapping up a storm. Unfortunately for Powell her career in the 1940s began to be that of a guest performer who was included for one or two sequences that were nothing to do with the main plot of the film. For fans of great tap dancing these brief cameos were worth the price of admission alone.
Watch Eleanor Powell in: As with many performers whose careers featured predominantly black-and-white movies, Powell’s films can be hard to get hold of and we are therefore reliant on compilation movies like ‘That’s Entertainment’ to see her in action. However, I have managed to see ‘Rosalie’ (1936) and if you watch it you may forget Astaire and Kelly ever existed… for 90 minutes at least.

4 – Lee Remick
Sometimes perky, sometimes sultry, sometimes perky and sultry, Lee Remick was the most talented of the numerous forgotten cinematic sex symbols of an era dominated by Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor. Her career got off to a fine start with roles in ‘A Face in the Crowd’ (1957), ‘The Long Hot Summer’ (1958) and ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ (1959) all of which helped to define her as a sexually forward but frustrated southern girl. However, Remick was not present purely for the purposes of decoration. These were great roles for a relatively unknown actress to launch her movie career with and her acting ability was much in evidence in all three roles as well as her physical appeal. She was cast as the bank teller blackmailed into robbery in Blake Edwards’ ‘Experiment in Terror’ (1962) which marked her first departure to a different type of role. The emotional vulnerability was still there but her looks were not as significant in shaping the character. Remick excelled in ‘Experiment in Terror’ and her next film ‘The Days of Wine and Roses’ (1962), again directed by Edwards, and then tried her hand at comedy in films like ‘The Wheeler Dealers’ (1963) and ‘The Hallelujah Trail’ (1965). Remick continued to choose interesting roles well into the 1970s but she never again recaptured the sort of magic we saw in her early years. However, for her to be remembered primarily as Damien’s adoptive mother in ‘The Omen’ (1976) is a terrible injustice to a lively, beautiful and skilled actress.
Watch Lee Remick in: Normally I would take any opportunity to recommend ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ but Remick is just one of a tremendous ensemble cast in that. Her performance opposite Jack Lemmon as a couple battling alcoholism in ‘The Days of Wine and Roses’ is probably Remick’s finest career appearance anyway.

3 – Teresa Wright
Teresa Wright’s film career started with a bang. She was nominated for an Oscar for each of her first three movies (the only actor ever to achieve that feat), winning once for ‘Mrs Miniver’ (1942). Her fourth movie ‘Shadow of a Doubt’ (1943) is one of the best of all Alfred Hitchcock’s thrillers and her sixth film ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ (1946) was a multi-award winner and the sixth biggest box-office hit of the 1940s (and if you discount the all-conquering Disney studio of that era it was the biggest film of 1946 and the second most successful of the decade). After that almost anything would be considered a disappointment but Wright continued to make very good films like ‘Pursued’ (1947), ‘The Men’ (1950) and ‘The Actress’ (1953). Like so many stars of the era, her disillusionment with the studio system had a deep effect on her career but, as well as this, her popularity began to fade towards the end of the 40s. It was almost as if Wright was undone by her unprecedented early success and as she got older audiences didn’t accept her as anything but ‘the girl next door’. Her roles were far more layered than that and those ‘girls next door’ always had many more facets to their character than the lazy pigeon-hole normally allows. No-one since Wright has played those roles in anything like her style or with her ability.
Watch Teresa Wright in: ‘Shadow of a Doubt’ is a tense and unnerving thriller where Wright plays a girl who idolises her Uncle Charlie until she suspects he is hiding a terrible secret. Absolute magic.

2 – Jean Arthur
Once described as the quintessential comedic leading lady, Jean Arthur had a dazzling screen career despite suffering from such terrible nerves that she was violently sick before takes and left a number of stage plays early in their run due to stage fright. Those nerves actually contributed to what is felt to be Arthur’s trademark, her high pitched, slightly shaky voice. After a number of supporting roles in serials and B-features she scored her break opposite Edward G. Robinson in ‘The Whole Town’s Talking’ (1935). Over the next nine years she made a series of films of a quality that was almost certainly unmatched by any other star working at that time. She was the great Frank Capra’s favourite actress and worked with him on ‘Mr. Deeds Goes to Town’ (1936), ‘You Can’t Take it With You’ (1938) and ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ (1939), three of the director’s most acclaimed and best-loved works. She was also a favourite of George Stevens’ and he directed her in two further classics ‘The Talk of the Town’ (1942) and ‘The More the Merrier’ (1943). All of these movies were made at Columbia Studios along with here other notable films (‘The Plainsman’ (1936), ‘Easy Living’ (1937), ‘Only Angels Have Wings’ (1939) and ‘The Devil and Miss Jones’ (1941)). When her contract expired she ran through the lot shouting “I’m free!” and then retired, only appearing on the big screen again twice in Billy Wilder’s ‘A Foreign Affair’ (1948) and Stevens’ ‘Shane’ (1953). Easily one of the greatest stars of the so-called ‘Golden Age of Hollywood’, the only thing more remarkable that Arthur battling her crippling nerves to make so many top-drawer films is the sad fact that her name is now so little known.
Watch Jean Arthur in: With so many great performances to choose from it seems almost silly to single out one but I will go for ‘Mr. Deeds Goes to Town’. It’s one of the greatest comedies ever filmed and alongside Gary Cooper she shines.

1 – Norma Shearer
In compiling this list I tried to consider as many actresses as I could and then measure their contribution to the history of cinema, their star power, their ability to act and how little they are recognised or known today. I will not deny that some of the choices have had a more personal touch to them but, as I state at the top, a list of this kind can never be definitive. Many came close to inclusion – Joan Fontaine, Luise Rainer, Kathryn Grayson – but no matter whom you thought deserved inclusion, I don’t think many will argue with my number one choice once they know why I think Norma Shearer is the biggest forgotten star in Hollywood history.

During the 1930s, Norma Shearer was the female equivalent of Clark Gable. Clark was ‘King’, Norma was ‘Queen’. She made movies for the biggest studio, MGM, and she was their biggest female star. Yes, she was married to Irving Thalberg (MGM's legendary ‘boy-wonder’ Vice-President) but no matter how she became a star there were few bigger than Shearer. She started in ‘girl next door’ roles in silent movies though her dual role in ‘Lady of the Night’ (1925) showed her versatility. From the beginning of her career she scored 19 successive box office smashes before she made ‘The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg’ (1927) for Ernst Lubitsch. Even though the film lost money, it was one of MGM’s ‘marquee’ pictures of the year – in other words a film that was made primarily for artistic and critical praise, not for financial gain. When talkies came in Shearer’s clear, medium pitched voice ensured her continued popularity whilst others fell by the wayside due to unsuitably high or foreign accented voices. Shearer, though, didn’t stop at reinventing herself as a talking star. She employed a photographer to take a set of sexy studio portraits in an effort to shed her good girl image. It worked and Shearer scored her biggest successes yet in a series of racy romantic comedies including ‘The Divorcee’ (1930) for which she won an Academy Award. For the rest of the 1930s Shearer continued to alternate between highly successful box-office hits (‘Strange Interlude’ (1932), ‘The Barretts of Wimpole Street’ (1934)) with prestigious productions (‘Romeo and Juliet’ (1936), ‘Marie Antoinette’ (1938)). Shearer retired from the screen in 1942 and her career was always plagued by suggestions that her relationship with Thalberg was the only reason for her prominence. However, she was already MGM’s biggest star before she started dating him and her popularity continued after his early death in 1936. And besides any one who has seen Shearer in action, be it silent or sound, can feel that appeal radiating from the screen that only certain stars had. Shearer was a golden presence in a golden age and whilst time seems to have forgotten her, it hasn’t diminished her lustre.
Watch Norma Shearer in: Like so many silent movies, a lot of Shearer’s output pre-1929 is lost so maybe it isn’t fair to judge. From the sound era you can’t go wrong with her role as Elizabeth Barrett Browning in ‘The Barretts of Wimpole Street'.

Hollywood’s Forgotten Stars: Part 1

Here in the first of a series of four pieces I will be looking back on twenty of Hollywood’s forgotten stars. This week it’s the actresses numbered 10 – 6 in my countdown. I hope you enjoy it. As always your comments are more than welcome.

Five actresses, five stars - but how many do you recognise?

N.B.: This list is not intended to be definitive. It is merely intended to highlight the talent of ten largely forgotten actresses who played a significant role in Hollywood history, be it as a great box-office star, an Oscar winner, a pioneer or an unfulfilled talent that shone all too briefly. In deciding on my order, I have rated the actresses on both their contribution to cinema and how little I perceive them to be remembered by the general public. The biggest star will not necessarily come out on top.

10 – Betty Hutton
If you were to look up the word ‘energetic’ in the dictionary you may well come across a picture of Betty Hutton. Her performances were delivered with total gusto and her obvious enthusiasm is a delight to watch on screen. Her major breakthrough came as the wonderfully named Trudy Kockenlocker in Preston Sturges’ ‘The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek’ (1944) but she hit her peak in movies like ‘The Perils of Pauline’ (1947) and ‘Annie Get Your Gun’ (1950). These roles allowed Hutton to show off her boisterous personality with tomboy personas but the studios knew she was also pretty enough to carry of the romantic sub-plots that sometimes came with on-screen adventure, most notably in ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ (1952). Her screen career was cut short due to contract disagreements and a reputation for being difficult to work with. Be that as it may, Betty Hutton’s sheer strength of personality should have made her a well remembered and much-loved star but the unavailability of her movies, certainly in the UK, seems to have ensured she will continue to be over looked.
Watch Betty Hutton in: It has to be ‘Annie Get Your Gun’. A whirlwind of a performance in a film that seems to have been largely forgotten despite the wealth of talent involved.

9 – Greer Garson
One of the most successful British exports to Hollywood during the Second World War, Greer Garson’s movie career started in a classic (‘Goodbye, Mr. Chips’ (1939)) and carried on in the same vain through the 1940s in well received films with Garson playing strong female characters. As is so often the case for Brits in Hollywood, she was MGM’s star of choice for any role that required a touch of gravitas and her record-equalling run of five consecutive ‘Best Actress’ nominations at the Academy Awards demonstrates that Garson was only given prime material by her studio. She won the Oscar for the rousing ‘Mrs. Miniver’ (1942) playing the head of an English family that have to face up to the various trials of life on the home front during the Second World War. The film was a seriously important piece of propaganda that played no small part in raising support for American intervention in the war. Garson received seven Academy Award nominations in all and she is almost certainly the best remembered of my ten. However, her phenomenal screen appearances during those golden years of MGM in the early 1940s still don’t seem to add up to the sum of her reputation today.
Watch Greer Garson in: Despite not being one of her seven Oscar nominations, it is the portrayal of Jane Austen’s greatest heroine Elizabeth Bennett opposite Laurence Olivier’s Mr. Darcy in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ (1940) that shows Garson in her best light. It also makes you realise what a seriously inept actress Keira Knightly is.

8 – Thelma Todd
A beautiful, blonde-haired actress, best known for allying her looks with excellent comedy timing, becomes a star in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Her talent sees her appear alongside some of the biggest stars of the decade before her life is cut tragically short by her untimely death whilst still in her 20s. All of this is true of Jean Harlow. It is also true of Thelma Todd. At the Hal Roach Studios, she starred opposite the studios biggest names Laurel & Hardy as well as making a series of short films teamed with another long-forgotten actress ZaSu Pitts. She made the odd foray into more serious movies including the 1931 version of ‘The Maltese Falcon’ but her most famous roles came opposite The Marx Brothers in ‘Monkey Business’ (1931) and ‘Horse Feathers’ (1932). In 1936, aged just 29, Todd died in suspicious circumstances, found in her car in a closed garage with the engine running. Some say accident, some say suicide and some say murder. Whatever the truth, Todd’s fans will always be wondering if that really big break was just around the corner or if it would have always remained just out of reach.
Watch Thelma Todd in: ‘Horse Feathers’ is the better movie but ‘Monkey Business’ is a better showcase for Todd’s talent. She’s feisty, funny and ends up being fought over in a barn. How many actresses can say that?

7 – Rosalind Russell
Ask most people who played Gypsy Rose Lee’s mother in the film of the musical ‘Gypsy’ (1962) and they will probably say “Ethel Merman” (or look at you blankly for a few seconds before moving the conversation on to the latest Guy Ritchie movie). Merman played the role on Broadway but the film starred the wonderful Rosalind Russell. This perfectly illustrates Russell’s problem – she always seemed to exist in the shadows of other actresses. No-one would have expected that to happen to Russell’s career in 1939 after she stole the show from virtually every well known actress on MGM’s books in ‘The Women’, the film that established Russell as a comedienne. She followed this up with ‘His Girl Friday’ (1940) where she played Hildy Johnson to Cary Grant’s Walter Burns in Howard Hawks’ reworking of ‘The Front Page’. This is Russell’s best remembered role - fast talking, sassy but ultimately married to the job. Her career during the 1940s was certainly successful. She had a string of box-office hits and three Oscar nominations before the decade was out. However, when stars of that era are discussed these days her name is more often than not missing from the conversation. Overshadowed by Katherine Hepburn, Irene Dunne and Merman who played similar types of characters to Russell at various stages of her career, she seems destined to be remembered as ‘the woman who played Hildy Johnson’ and little else. For someone like Rosalind Russell that is a crying shame.
Watch Rosalind Russell in: Her best roles were behind her when Russell played Patrick Dennis’ ‘Auntie Mame’ in 1958 but she pulled out all the stops for one of the finest performances by an actress ever seen on screen.

6 – Paulette Goddard
Was it her difficult relationship with the press? Was it suspicions over the validity of her marriage to Charlie Chaplin? Or was it just that she simply wasn’t the right actress for the part? Whatever it was, Paulette Goddard would have been a household name forever if she had been cast ahead of Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara in ‘Gone with the Wind’ (1939). How close was she to getting the part? She was, by all accounts, one of four actresses in with a genuine chance of the role. Movie history could have been so different but as it is Goddard, an actress who mixed terrific talent and exceptional beauty, will be best known for her personal and professional association with Chaplin. He spotted her at a Hollywood party and decided that she would be perfect for the ‘gamine’ role in ‘Modern Times’ (1936) and perfect she was. Her career took off from there. Like Rosalind Russell (see above), she was one of the stand-outs of the very strong cast of ‘The Women’. She was the ideal foil for Bob Hope in ‘The Cat and the Canary’ (1939), and in ‘The Great Dictator’ (1940, again opposite Chaplin) her performance was perfectly judged. Before her career petered out in the late 1940s she made ‘So Proudly We Hail’ (1943), ‘Kitty’ (1945) and ‘The Diary of a Chambermaid’ (1946) all of which displayed Goddard’s talent, one that should have brought her greater fame, a lasting legacy and, perhaps, should have landed her that most iconic of female roles.
Watch Paulette Goddard in: I am sorely tempted to go for ‘Modern Times’ as it is rare that one of Charlie Chaplin’s co-stars gives as memorable a performance as he does but I have decided that to see Goddard in all her glory the uninitiated should plump for the ‘Pygmalion’-like romantic drama ‘Kitty’.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you enjoyed this first part and it may propmt you to check out one or two of the movies mentioned. Next week I will countdown the actresses from 5-1. Anyone who guesses the number one gets a chocolate biscuit.

Paul Newman vs. Steve McQueen

From the time I was born right up to the present day I have always been told that I am very similar to my sister. We have similar personalities, a similar sense of humour and we tend to like the same films, directors and actors. However when I was in my teens we realised that there was a pair of Hollywood rivals whom we couldn’t agree upon. My sister was Paul Newman’s biggest fan whilst I loved Steve McQueen. Each of us liked both actors but when it came to who was the bigger star or the better actor we stuck firmly in our chosen camp. When Paul Newman sadly passed away last week it made me think again of those conversations we shared and drove me to reconsider if I had been right all along.

Any discussion on the relative merits of McQueen and Newman will hang on the period between the two films that they appeared in together. The eighteen years between ‘Somebody Up There Likes Me’ and ‘The Towering Inferno’ cover the peak years of Newman’s career and pretty much the whole of McQueen’s. As a picture of how their standing in Hollywood changed, the movies couldn’t be more different.

‘Somebody Up There Likes Me’ (1956) was significant for both men. After the death of James Dean in 1955 the roles he would have played initially went to Newman and Marlon Brando. Newman had made one or two films by this stage but this was the film that launched him as a star. Among the bit part players was a Steve McQueen making his film debut before embarking on the successful television series ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’. Given that two years later McQueen was till a TV star and was making ‘The Blob’ whilst Newman was picking up an Oscar nomination it was clear that the younger man had some serious catching up to do. He finally made his breakthrough in ‘The Magnificent Seven’ (1960) but by that time Newman had a string of hits and was about to make the movie that many consider to be the best of his career. For my money ‘The Hustler’ (1961) is up there with ‘E.T.’ as one of the most over-rated movies ever made but I cannot deny that the one reason I sat through it was because of Paul Newman’s performance.

McQueen did little to follow-up on ‘The Magnificent Seven’s success, making a couple of average war movies and one of his ill-fated ventures into the world of comedy. Newman said that once he saw himself in ‘The Secret War of Harry Frigg’ (1968) he knew he was finished with trying his hand at comedy but McQueen took longer to learn the lesson. ‘The Honeymooners’ (1961), ‘Soldier in the Rain’ (1963) and ‘The Reivers’ (1969) are three very painful watching experiences. After finally making another good film, ‘The Great Escape’ (1963), McQueen mostly stuck to what he did best. His films contained a number of tough, distant, almost unlovable characters that suited McQueen who in reality seemed fairly tough, distant and unlovable. One role in particular drew parallels with Newman. In 1965 McQueen played ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ which tried to do for poker what ‘The Hustler’ had done for pool. The reaction has generally been unfavourable to ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ when the movies are compared but I think it is the superior film. It is one of Steve McQueen’s best performances and he is helped enormously by a terrific supporting cast (much better than ‘The Hustler’), tight direction and the toning down of the obligatory romantic sub-plot. (The film would probably be one of my all time favourites if Spencer Tracy had been well enough to accept the part of Lancey Howard. In the end another great actor, Edward G. Robinson, took the role but despite the esteem I hold him in I can’t help wondering what the movie would have been like with Tracy and McQueen facing off.)

McQueen was by this point becoming obsessed with the idea of becoming a bigger star than Paul Newman. They played similar parts in similar movies and, whilst he was a big box-office draw, McQueen was desperate to be seen as Newman’s superior in terms of star quality and acting ability. Newman had built on his personal success in ‘The Hustler’ by taking on a number of memorable or, at least, interesting roles. Chance Wayne in ‘Sweet Bird of Youth’ (1962), ‘Hud’ (1963) and ‘Cool Hand Luke’ (1967) are the former whilst Ram Bowen in ‘Paris Blues’ (1961), Andrew Craig in the criminally under-rated ‘The Prize’ (1963) and Juan Carrasco in ‘The Outrage’ (1964) fall into the latter category. ‘The Prize’ is an example of the kind of film Newman made that McQueen could never have been successful in. What McQueen lacked was a sort of ‘lightness’ that allowed Newman not to take himself too seriously. McQueen also showed poor judgement in his choice of roles. Newman rarely made truly awful during the 1960’s but McQueen never seemed able to make more that two or three good films in succession. This is best illustrated by considering that in 1968 he made ‘The Thomas Crown Affair’ and ‘Bullitt’ which, for the first time, put him on top of the box-office money list. His next film was ‘The Reivers’. Newman saw out the 1960’s with ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ (1969) a film that should have starred McQueen as well but his other obsession – having top billing – prevented the pairing. The film is better than any western McQueen made before or subsequently. McQueen had a knack of turning down good parts in order to make dud films. ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ (1961), ‘Two for the Road’ (1967), Jaws (1975) and ‘Apocalypse Now’ (1979) are four notable examples.

The 1970’s didn’t start auspiciously for either actor. McQueen’s long planned ‘Le Mans’ (1971) was not only a woefully boring film but was also the first box-office flop of his career. Newman appeared to have gone off the boil as well with films like ‘WUSA’ (1970) and ‘Pocket Money’ (1972), which were solid but unmemorable efforts. Then something significant happened. Steve McQueen met Sam Peckinpah and made two films that went someway to realising his twin ambitions. ‘The Getaway’ (1972) made him the highest paid actor in the world and ‘Junior Bonner’ (1972) shows McQueen acting ability like no other film he made. It is McQueen’s only real character driven piece of work and gives a glimpse of what might have been had he lived long enough to be offered the sort of roles Newman played from the 1980’s onwards. Of course Newman had been a character actor from the very beginning but he had the looks and charisma to make him a star as well. His transition from handsome movie star to distinguished supporting actor was a natural one. It is doubtful whether McQueen’s ego would have ever allowed him to make the same move but ‘Junior Bonner’ and the later ‘Tom Horn’ (1980) gave an indication that it would have been possible in purely acting terms.

If it weren’t so against what we know of Paul Newman’s personality it could be mischievously suggested that the decision to make ‘The Sting’ (1973) was solely influenced by his being knocked of his perch as Hollywood’s most expensive and bankable actor. Teaming up again with Robert Redford and director George Roy Hill after the phenomenal success of ‘Butch Cassidy…’ was as close to ensuring success as is possible. The movie didn’t disappoint. Not only was the film the number one box-office success of 1973 (bettering McQueen’s ‘Papillon') it is very possibly the best and most enjoyable movie made by either man. Robert Redford’s star was at it’s brightest at the time but he still played second fiddle to Newman’s Henry Gondorff. This was the perfect Paul Newman role – belligerent, ruthless, streetwise but likable - the anti-hero with a heart as well as a brain.

On the back of both men’s sustained success they were finally paired opposite one another in ‘The Towering Inferno’ (1974). The stories of McQueen counting lines in the script and going ballistic when he found out Newman had more, the staggered billing and his agonising over which of the main characters was cast in the best light by the film go to the very route of how seriously Steve McQueen felt about ‘beating’ Newman now that they were going head-to-head on screen. He was determined that it should be as equals so that any perceived victory would be incontestable. Newman probably didn’t care and that is probably why McQueen walks away with the film. Even in their few shared scenes it is McQueen who hold the attention. Many reasons have been given for this but I feel that McQueen was always the better action hero and this is what the film called for. McQueen may have won the battle but being declared the best actor in a disaster movie is a rather hollow victory. Nevertheless ‘The Towering Inferno’ was far and away the biggest moneymaker of 1974 and having, by general consensus, dominated the movie McQueen could by rights declare himself to be the biggest star in the world. The fact he had achieved this status by acting opposite Newman and giving a better performance should have made it all the sweeter. McQueen could, in terms of the movies, do anything he wanted and that is what he did. Remarkably, after finally getting where he wanted to be, he snubbed Hollywood. He went bike racing, dune buggy racing and car racing and didn’t make another film for three years. He only made three more films before he died in 1980. Newman, after some disastrous failures in the late 70’s, regained his standing after McQueen’s death with a number of excellent performances throughout the 1980’s and one or two choice roles in the ‘90’s and beyond.

Traditionally it has always been accepted that Paul Newman was the better actor and that he made better movies then Steve McQueen but it was whilst reading Newman’s obituary last week that I realised just how many misguided, imperfect and downright awful movies he had made. The number of genuine classics that McQueen made can be counted on one hand but you wouldn’t need to take your socks off to count the number of Newman films that have sit in that category. What we must realise is that for both actors on so many occasions it is their performances we remember, not the films that contained them. The characters created by Newman as the superior actor rise above some of the films he found himself acting in whilst McQueen is the more iconic. It is the Cooler King and Frank Bullitt who adorn bedroom walls to this day and given that Hollywood has a tradition of remembering its icons rather better then it remembers some of it’s finest acting talent McQueen may very well outlast Newman and their contemporaries in the same way that Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe are remembered better than William Powell and Lee Remick. If we accept that Newman was the enduring actor and McQueen the enduring star then each can claim to be remembered how they wanted.

Paul Newman: Must See
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
The Sting (1973)
The Verdict (1982)

Steve McQueen: Must See
The Great Escape (1963)
The Cincinnati Kid (1965)
The Getaway (1972)

Review: The Strangers (2008) * *

…and so to my first review. First of all I should point out that there is no particular reason as to the order I review films in. I might have just watched it, just read about it, just been reminded of it or I might, as will be the case for the majority of the time, just feel like it. Also if you are expecting to read reviews only of the latest cooler than cool 'indie' flick or to hear what I think of the whole of the French ‘New Wave’ then you may also be disappointed. Those types of movie will doubtless crop up now and again but you as likely to find yourself reading about Doris Day or ‘The Poseidon Adventure’ as you are Jim Jarmusch or ‘The Red Balloon’.

As far as movie genres go, horror has never been a particular favourite of mine so it was with a certain degree of trepidation that I watched ‘The Strangers’ last night. The story, as you may know, involves a young couple (Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman) that leave a friends wedding and travel to spend the night at Speedman’s remote summer home. Whilst there, they are harassed, tormented and assaulted by three masked strangers (Kip Weeks, Gemma Ward and Laura Margolis). That is the sum total of the plot and therein lies the films biggest problem. Nothing really happens. The couple make no real concerted effort to get away from the house and they don’t even come into that much contact with the masked trio. The film consists of a string of scenes involving Tyler or Speedman walking silently around the house to be confronted by one of the three masked figures very suddenly and, as far as the audience I was watching it with are concerned, very shockingly. (My girlfriend spent part of this movie horizontal in her seat and her voice, which she had lost over the weekend, returned miraculously at certain junctures in the form of a scream).

To be fair to Bryan Bertino, who wrote and directed ‘The Strangers’, he has made a film that provides plenty of split-second shocks without resorting to the kind of shock value slashing of ‘Saw’ or the abhorrent ‘Hostel’ However, the film is extremely repetitive and, even worse, derivative. Blank, dead-eyed masks are scary but once one has appeared from nowhere on the screen it is very hard to make the audience jump the next time it happens. This situation crops up about ten times during the film and you always know when it’s going to happen – pretty much every five minutes. Aside from the masks, there are plenty of other clichés (red, scrawled writing appears on the windows, escape is hampered by injury to one of the good-guys). Movies like this rely on disorientation for its scares and, apart from one moment with a stuck record, there is nothing remotely disorientating about ‘The Strangers’ because it’s situations and it protagonists are too familiar from a hundred other movies. Added to the fact there is hardly any dialogue (though given the quality of what there is I should probably call that a plus-point) and the good-guys have much better weapons than the strangers (For fuck’s sake! You have a shotgun, they have one axe between three of them…) I have to say it is a bit dull with a suitably dull denouement.

It is good to see Liv Tyler though. I thought she had dropped off the face of the earth and I always thought she was quite a good actress. I imagine that the similar looking but younger Anne Hathaway gets all the roles once offered to Liv these days. I bet she is gutted she missed out on ‘Get Smart’.


‘The Strangers’ Genealogy

Grandparent: ‘Halloween’ (1978)
Estranged biological father: ‘Funny Games’ (1997)
Annoying, copycat sibling: ‘Eden Lake’ (2008)

The why.

I would love to be able to say that my earliest memories of movies were akin to those of Toto in 'Cinema Paradiso'. If they had been I could tell you of school holidays and weekends spent trying to sneak into the big movie house in my tiny home village and being taken under the wing of a grumpy, yet kindly projectionist. However my childhood was not spent this way. I have always lived in big cities or large towns with more than one cinema, I have never even met a projectionist, I didn’t grow up to be a successful film director, my Dad didn’t die in World War Two and I have never, ever risked pneumonia by standing below the bedroom window of a girl with dodgy eyebrows as the heavens opened.

However, the school holidays certainly had a large part to play in my movie education. When I was very young I used to watch, like the majority of children, any cartoon going. One of my favourites was the Larry Harmon produced 'Laurel & Hardy' series. As a toddler I was aware that these two animated figures may possibly have been based on real people but it wasn’t until I was a little more grown up, probably eight or nine, that I got to watch a real Laurel & Hardy movie thanks to those wonderful schedulers of BBC 2’s late morning programmes for children. What was that first film? Memory tells me it was 'Way Out West' but to be totally honest it could just as easily been 'One Good Turn', 'The Music Box' or 'Me and My Pal'. For six weeks my brother David and I were in wonderland and couldn’t get enough of Stan and Ollie. I did everything I could to ensure I was up and at home for them so that I could not only watch but video them for continued consumption. I mastered how to set the timer to record them at that early age in case my Mum had plans for us to go book shopping at Birkenhead market, bargain-hunting at Ellesmere Port or promenading at Llandudno or Southport. I cursed myself when I forgot to set the video and went ballistic when I discovered a recording of 'Coronation Street' where 'Saps at Sea' should have been. As my eldest brother was not a fan of L&H and I was absolutely convinced that he had purposely taped over them and from that moment on I zealously guarded them like a squirrel does with his nuts.

Perhaps the most pleasing side-effect of all this was that I was never going to be afflicted by that most odious of aversions that can affect the young – that they won’t watch black and white movies. I don’t think I can ever be a true friend with somebody who has this problem though I try to show tolerance. ‘I find them boring’ is the usual defence, in one sentence relegating 'Citizen Kane', 'Casablanca', 'Paths of Glory', 'Wild Strawberries' et al. below 'The Number 23', 'Ernest Saves Christmas' and 'The Spiderwick Chronicles' in terms of interesting or watchable films.

Over the years my love of films grew. I discovered Chaplin and Keaton, Tracy and Hepburn, Newman and McQueen. I grew to love Lang, worship Wilder, and marvel at Minnelli. I wanted to know James Stewart, drink with Richard Burton, make love to Jacqueline Bisset and be Cary Grant. The cinema had invaded me and I was powerless to resist. From Gene Kelly’s feet to Clark Gables’ ears I absorbed any film I could and still cried out for more. I knew about Claudette Colbert’s good side, Gene Wilder’s blue blanket and Sid James’ piles. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I was literally a review reading, movie watching, biography devouring machine and whilst my passion for all things cinematic has never gone away it has never quite reached those heights again (blame booze, girls and Steven Gerrard).

Movies are still a very important part of my life, rivalled only by football as an interest. I like to talk about them and that is really the reason why I have decided to write a blog about them. That is not to say that I am limiting myself to talking only about films, actors, directors etc. but they will make up the spine of what is written. If any one takes the time to read what I write them that is terrific and I hope that whoever they are they will enjoy what is written and feel free to comment on it.