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 - 98

98. The Departed (2006)
Dir: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg

A policeman, working undercover in the Boston mafia, discovers there is a mafia mole within the police force and must work quickly to expose him before his own cover is blown.

Hollywood has been littered with remakes over the last decade with everything from TV shows to foreign horror movies to all-time classics getting the once over. The majority have been either forgettable or pointless but some have defied this trend, none more so that ‘The Departed’. Martin Scorsese, who finally won the long-deserved recognition of the Academy voters, moved the action of the Hong Kong action movie ‘Infernal Affairs’ (2002) to Boston and the result is tense, brutal and magnificent. Scorsese is back in the territory to which he is most associated – the crime thriller – and he displays all the assurance that made him the most revered director working in Hollywood today. Despite a running time of two and a half hours not a scene is wasted nor a plot twist unnecessary, and the tension is racked up with rare skill to each of the movies dramatic, often violent, climaxes. Scorsese is ably abetted by the cast with DiCaprio and Nicholson as assured in their performances as I’ve come to expect though it’s the supporting turns of Alec Baldwin and, in particular, Martin Sheen that stand out. Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg could easily have been lost amongst their more accomplished co-stars but both are impressive and hint at greater depths than they are usually employed to show on screen.

Soooooo 2010

Inception (2010) ****
Up (2009) *****
Shutter Island (2010) ***

"BBC Three are showing 'Anchorman', you say?" Carl Fredicksen feels my pain

Last week, something very strange things happened to me. No, it’s not that after seven weeks away from the keyboard I settled down to type a new entry for the blog. The strange thing was that in the space of three nights I watched three movies, none of which are more than 18 months old. This might not sound unusual but for The Man in Lincoln’s Nose watching three recent releases in succession is akin to spotting Halley’s Comet. My movies in my DVD collection come almost exclusively from before I was born 28years ago and any regular readers will have come to the conclusion that my personal motto is ‘they don’t make ‘em like that anymore’.

They certainly never used to make films quite like Christopher Nolan’s current blockbuster ‘Inception’ (2010), which opened in UK cinemas a couple of weeks ago and has, so far, been the smash hit of a summer dominated by remakes and sequels. If you happen to have been living in some sort of cocoon recently, the plot is about a team of people who can ‘invade’ the dreams of others with a view to finding out the best kept secrets of the victim. They are challenged to carry out the much harder task of planting an idea into the brain of a young businessman whose cold, tyrannical father has died, leaving his son a wildly successful string of businesses. Most say it can’t be done, but troubled Leonardo DiCaprio says it’s definitely possible, especially as he stands to end his exile from his children (he’s on the run as his wife died in suspicious circumstances) if the task is carried out successfully. That is about as much as I can give you without spoiling the many plot elements and twists of this fine thriller. In fact parts of the story are so confusing that you may have to surrender a couple of week s in the immediate aftermath of seeing it to have the sort of internal dialogue that even Raymond Babbitt would have given up on. Nolan was working on the script for over eight years and whilst all that toil still couldn’t deliver a movie without any holes in its plot, we would do well to remember that this is a science fiction movie and it makes enough sense to let us bend our minds in Nolan’s favour.

Where ‘Inception’ really sets itself apart from the rest of the summer’s output is its cast. Every one of the major roles is occupied by actors of real ability as opposed to just a star name. DiCaprio’s boyish good looks are going. He’s only 35 but he’s already starting to look a bit rough around the edges so that in mind it’s a good job he can not only act but also seems impervious to bad decisions when it comes to picking projects. Here he is ably supported by indie flick favourites Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon Levitt, the cast’s standout performer. Brit Tom Hardy looks set to be the next big export to Hollywood whilst Cillian Murphy and Ken Watanabe are as perfectly believable as one can be playing men whose dreams are being manipulated. Even Marion Cotillard, in a small role, makes the most of what screen time she is afforded. Producers of movies such as ‘The Expendables’ (2010) would do well to remember that it’s very easy to make a summer blockbuster populated by familiar faces, but if none of them can act then you film will be forgotten before it even makes it to DVD. ‘Inception’ will last a lot longer in the mind and given the quality of the entertainment it’s almost a pity that sequels to the movie itself will be cluttering up our screens in the coming summers.

* * * * *

Another movie that producers who care about quality as well as financial success should learn from is the Disney-Pixar phenomenon ‘Up’ (2009). ‘Up’ is about a widowed curmudgeon who attempts to fulfil a life-long dream aided, and sometimes hindered, by a stowaway boy scout, a talking dog, a temperamental, giant bird and thousands of helium balloons. It says something pretty sad about the movie industry that, these days, the majority of characters who make you care about them and evoke genuine emotion within you aren’t played by actors but are computer generated. I don’t think I have spoken to many people, men, women or children, who haven’t admitted to shedding a few tears whilst watching ‘Up’. It’s certainly tugs on your heart strings with quite an old fashioned sense of love, loss and the emptiness that results... and that’s all in the first ten minutes! Maybe this is the problem. Maybe today’s audiences will only allow a film to come with a large slice of sentimentality if it’s animated. They can always pass it off as being ‘aimed at children with a few jokes for the parents thrown in’. That way the old-world, tear-jerking elements can be accepted. This begs the question what is wrong with a bit of sentimentality now and again? Young adults now are encouraged to be cynical of anything that wants to make you get a lump in your throat and that is sad. Cinema shouldn’t just be chewing gum for the eyes. Now and again it should drag you in, strip you down and leave you feeling heartbroken, heart warmed or, as in ‘Up’s case, both together.

Anyway, one mustn’t digress. Suffice to say that anyone from the age of 5 to 105 should check this brilliant movie out at the earliest opportunity. It is an admirable fusion of old and modern Hollywood and, what’s more, it has something very pertinent to say about the danger of hero worship, a lesson well headed on a weekend when one of the nation’s most popular radio stations spoke about nothing but Will Ferrell, a man whose career I am all to happy to see has crashed and burned.

* * * * *

Last, and I’m afraid least, from last week’s viewing was Martin Scorsese’s ‘Shutter Island’ (2010). This is a well made but predictable psychological thriller that marks something of a departure from the director’s usual output. This isn’t a problem as Scorsese has made departures before and come up trumps (‘Raging Bull’ (1980), ‘After Hours’ (1985), 'The Age of innocence' (1993)). Leonardo DiCaprio is again the star but this is more on a level with the disappointing, meandering ‘Gangs of New York’ (2002) then his excellent Scorsese projects ‘The Aviator’ (2004) and ‘The Departed’ (2006). The problem with ‘Shutter Island’ is that it’s been done before, not necessarily better, but definitely often. It also suffers from being more implausible than a movie like ‘Inception’ which isn’t even set in our version of the universe.

It’s very difficult to criticise Scorsese as his films always have something to recommend them. ‘Shutter Island’ is no different in fact it’s perfectly watchable. The problem is more one of reputation. Scorsese, for me and for many others, exists in the absolute top echelon of movie makers. He is probably the only person in that group still living so his less successful efforts are more apparent to me than someone like Hitchcock or Lang whose weaker efforts are ignored by the revivalists. In that respect I have no doubt that in fifty years time the Scorsese revivals will be free of ‘Shutter Island’.

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)

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.

Hollywood’s Forgotten Stars: Part 4

In the last of a series of four pieces I will be looking back on five more of Hollywood’s forgotten stars. This week it’s the actors numbered 5 - 1 in my countdown. Can you guess who will come out on top? I hope you enjoy it. As always your comments are more than welcome.

Are these men Hollywood's five most criminally forgotten actors?

N.B.: This list is not intended to be definitive. It is merely intended to highlight the talent of ten largely forgotten actors 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 actors 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 – Glenn Ford
In ‘Superman Returns’ (2006), after our hero returns from Krypton to visit his mother, there is a photograph of dear, departed Pa on the mantel piece. The photo is of Glenn Ford, a nod to his role as Jonathon Kent in ‘Superman’ (1978) but also a tribute to a great star and underrated actor who has been largely forgotten. Ford’s career spanned over fifty years, beginning in the late 1930s in a few largely undistinguished roles. The Second World War delayed his crack at stardom but when he was paired with Rita Hayworth in ‘Gilda’ (1946), their on-screen chemistry ensured that Ford became a very hot property. He starred with Hayworth in a further four movies but none of them recaptured ‘Gilda’s spark. Ford specialised in three types of role; weary anti-hero (‘The Secret of Convict Lake’ (1951), ‘The Big Heat’ (1953), ‘The Blackboard Jungle’ (1955)), heroic yet understated cowboy or soldier (‘The Fastest Gun Alive’ (1956), ‘3:10 to Yuma’ (1957), ‘Torpedo Run’ (1958)) and ordinary ‘Joe’ in awkward situation (‘Teahouse of the August Moon’ (1956), ‘Ransom’ (1956), ‘The Gazebo’ (1959)). Usually, though, the film makers would use Ford’s inherent likeability and an extreme situation to get the audience on-side. This is what made Ford a huge star throughout the 1950s and early 60s. Never conventionally good-looking, he was able to move into character parts smoothly but it may be that ‘ordinary guy’ charm that has allowed Ford to be overlooked whilst contemporaries like Humphrey Bogart and James Stewart remain hugely recognisable.
Watch Glenn Ford in: There are a lot to choose from but ‘The Blackboard Jungle’ just has the edge performance-wise over ‘The Big Heat’. It’s the now-clichéd story of a seemingly mild-mannered teacher taking a job in a rough inner-city school but this is the original and the best.

4 – Van Johnson
Having red hair has often been a problem for men in the pursuit of movie superstardom. Those who have made it were not normally seen as ginger on screen. Stan Laurel only appeared in colour once in a government information film; with a few exceptions, Spencer Tracy had gone white by the time he made the majority of his colour movies; Danny Kaye and Robert Redford both went blond; and, believe it or not, Harpo Marx’s hair was actually a wig! Van Johnson was the exception. He was unashamedly red and freckly in an era when that look was shunned for men on screen unless you were either 8 years old or you were the hero’s comedy side kick who dies in scene three. Johnson was a dancer on Broadway when MGM came calling. However it wasn’t his twinkle toes they wanted. It was the boy-next-door looks that MGM desired as they were casting plenty of war pictures and wanted all-American guys to play the parts of servicemen. After a couple of supporting parts Johnson got his big break with the second lead in ‘A Guy Named Joe’ (1943) alongside Tracy. More WWII dramas followed but Johnson’s biggest success of this era was ‘The Thrill of Romance’ (1945), a musical which marked the first of four pairings with Esther Williams. The movies success meant that Johnson topped the box-office chart for 1945. From supporting player to Hollywood’s most bankable star in less than three years, Johnson is an example of how the studio system worked. Stage stars, models or extras were spotted and then carefully groomed for stardom in a few well chosen support parts before being given the big launch in films with the studio’s big names. Johnson’s success continued through the 40s with the same mixture of war and musical pictures – 1949 being a particularly good year for both with ‘Battleground’ following ‘In the Good Old Summertime’. Never nominated for an Academy Award despite working in an era where stardom virtually guaranteed recognition, Johnson’s finest performance came in 1954 in the ensemble piece ‘The Caine Mutiny’. More challenging work followed such as his role as the blind man embroiled in a kidnap plot in ’23 Paces to Baker Street’ (1956). His career stalled in the 60s as his marriage break-up descended into a bitter divorce and never picked up again after just one big screen appearance between 1960 and 1967 but Johnson continued to work until the late 1980s. As an example of what the studio system could do and as a beacon for red headed actors everywhere Van Johnson deserves far more recognition then he is afforded.
Watch Van Johnson in: ‘The Caine Mutiny’ may be primarily remembered for Humphrey Bogart’s last great role but Johnson is a stand out in a powerful cast.

3 – Joseph Cotton
When your most prominent movie roles were opposite Orson Welles it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that very little of the limelight was afforded to you. Joseph Cotton would have been unlikely to complain as without roles in ‘Citizen Kane’ (1941) and ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’ (1942) he would never have been a Hollywood name. However, purely in terms of acting ability Cotton was easily the equal of Welles as proved by a string of excellent dramatic performances throughout the 1940s. Starting with his appearance as Jedidiah Leland, Kane’s right hand man, Cotton then made ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’ and the wartime thriller ‘Journey into Fear’ (1943) with Welles. All three are excellent movies in their own right with ‘Journey into Fear’ surely ranking as one of the great forgotten thrillers. He was stunning as Uncle Charlie in Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Shadow of a Doubt’ (1943) and then supported Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman in the remake of ‘Gaslight’ (1944). This was followed by a sympathetic role in another underrated movie ‘Love Letters’ (1945) as a soldier desperate to find some answers after the murder of his friend. Before the decade was out, Cotton had added a classic western (‘Duel in the Sun’ (1946)) and a classic fantasy (‘Portrait of Jeannie’ (1948)) to his CV and he then returned to thrillers with the seminal ‘The Third Man’ (1949). Cotton was the lead but, again, he was overshadowed by Welles as Harry Lime who doesn’t even appear until the movie is half gone. As a decade of work, Cotton’s output was consistently excellent, yet his great performances have fallen foul to either being forgotten or to the presence of a co-star who went on to bigger things. Is that a reflection on Cotton and indicates that maybe he wasn’t that good? Watch the films and see for yourself.
Watch Joseph Cotton in: A straight choice here between ‘Shadow of a Doubt’ and ‘The Third Man’ with Cotton’s performance in the Hitchcock thriller winning out. He is just so damn menacing. You will never invite your relatives to stay again.

2 – Paul Muni
During the 1940s, the cracks in Hollywood’s studio system were starting to show more than ever. One man’s contract dispute was another man’s big break. In 1941 Paul Muni was one of Warner Brothers’ biggest names with four Academy Award nominations (and one win) under his belt. He had made his name with highly popular and critically acclaimed crime dramas before undertaking a series of historical biopics that usually required him to hide his distinctive features beneath make-up and false beards. Given his status and popularity, the studio assigned him to the gangster picture ‘High Sierra’ (1941). Muni wasn’t having it though and, after effectively being put on suspension, the role went to up-and-coming Humphrey Bogart. Muni made fewer and fewer films from that point on and, from being fairly prolific in the 1930s, ended his life with just twenty-five screen credits to his name. A successful stage career brought him to Hollywood’s attention. In the early days of sound, actors with stage experience were sought after as they were used to speaking lines and being understood. His first movie ‘The Valiant’ (1929) was a death-row drama that set the tone for much of Muni’s early output. It was bleak, realistic and, for it’s time, dealt brutally with its themes. His next two movies, after a return to the stage, were ‘Scarface’ and ‘I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang’ (both 1932). More than any James Cagney picture of the period, these were the best examples of Warners’ gangster/crime output. ‘…Chain Gang’ in particular is a terrific piece of movie-making with Muni’s performance at its core. After another couple of dramas in a similar vein, Muni was cast in the title role in ‘The Story of Louis Pasteur’ (1936). This was quite a departure from Muni’s previous films but when he was awarded the Oscar for his performance it ensured that similar roles came his way, most notably in ‘The Life of Emile Zola’ (1937). After leaving Warners, Muni’s roles became far less frequent but that meant that he only picked quality such as ‘Angel on My Shoulder’ (1946) and his last role in ‘The Last Angry Man’ (1959).
Watch Paul Muni in: To convince you that Paul Muni didn’t need heavy accents, false beards or hours of make-up to electrify the screen watch ‘I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang’. Mercifully, they chose to remake ‘Scarface’ and not try to take this on as you cannot improve on perfection.

1 – Fredric March
Due to the era that most of the twenty stars I have written about in these posts worked in, I have again and again referred to Hollywood’s ‘studio system’. Put simply, Hollywood movies in the early sound era through to the 1950s were predominantly made by a handful of powerful studios (MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros., Columbia, Universal etc.) that signed up actors, directors, writers and whoever else they needed on long, virtually unbreakable contracts with a regular weekly wage. The omnipotent heads of the studio would then assign the talent on the books to whatever picture they saw fit. In return, the stars got the most efficient publicity machines ever created behind them to enhance and, when misdemeanour required, protect their image. For most actors the system worked well, but for a number it was a stifling environment that meant typecasting. Rebellion was biting the hand that fed you and could mean professional suicide if you were anything less than a huge star. My number one male star, Fredric March, was even rarer. He was almost unique in that he was a hugely successful actor, with the critics as well as the public, despite never signing a long-term studio contract. The sheer force of his star quality and the consistent excellence of his performances was all the publicity March needed to have the studio executives clamoring for this relative rebel to star in their prestige productions.

March, like Paul Muni, came to Hollywood in 1929 when established stage actors were in great demand as silent movies took their bow and exited. He had some minor success with his first few films but came to prominence playing Tony Cavendish in ‘The Royal Family of Broadway’ (1930), a play based on the legendary Barrymore family (grandparents and great-grandparents of Drew). The performance garnered an Oscar nomination for March and he went one better the following year with the definitive screen portrayal of ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ (1931). Urbane as Jekyll, terrifying as Hyde, March was superb in the dual role and this helped him, as well as his refusal to sign up to a single studio, to avoid being pigeon holed. March was excellent in the melodrama ‘Smilin’ Through’ (1932) and the war movie ‘The Eagle and the Hawk’ (1933) but also showed he could handle comedy with ‘Design for Living’ (1933). His next truly great performance was as Death in ‘Death Takes a Holiday’ (1934), a movie inadvisably remade over sixty years later as ‘Meet Joe Black’ (1998) (Brad Pitt taking on a role played my Fredric March is the cinematic equivalent of The Cheeky Girls covering Ella Fitzgerald). Before the 1930s were out, March had starred in a series of movies based on great novels such as ‘Les Miserables’ and ‘Anna Karenina’ (both 1935) as well as pulling out a truly heart-breaking performance as Norman Maine in the original ‘A Star is Born’ (1937). The war years brought still more variety in March’s choice of movies but ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ (1946) brought March his best role of the decade and a second Academy Award. The film’s plot concerns three men trying to piece their lives back together after returning to America after WW2 and March is the cast’s stand-out performer. He concentrated more on stage work in the ensuing years but when he did appear on the big screen he had lost none of his power. ‘Death of a Salesman’ (1951), ‘Executive Suite’ (1954) and ‘The Desperate Hours’ (1955) all contain brilliant, layered performances but if there was one last film performance for the ages left in Fredric March he delivered it in 1960’s ‘Inherit the Wind’. Based on the real-life 'Scopes Monkey Trial' of 1925, March plays a famous and fiercely Christian prosecuting lawyer in the trial of a school teacher who slipped Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution into the syllabus. His scenes with defence attorney Spencer Tracy are a tribute to two titanic talents of Hollywood’s golden age. March continued working until his death in 1975 but like so many whose careers were predominantly in black and white movies he seems destined to remain a star on in the minds of a the minority. For March more than anyone that is a tragedy.
Watch Fredric March in: More than any of the nineteen other actors I have written about, this is an impossible choice so I am going to cheat and go for ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ for early March, ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ for the middle of his career and ‘Inherit the Wind’ for March the elder.

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.