Love in the Afternoon

One of the biggest stars to come out of Hollywood's Golden Era, Gary Cooper was at the top of his game in the 1930s and 1940s. By the 1950s on the other side of 50 years old, Cooper's star faded some. He still made some great movies -- Vera Cruz and Friendly Persuasion are personal favorites -- but he didn't age well as cancer slowly spread through his system. He didn't always look well on screen, but he continued on working up to his death in 1961.

The image of Gary Cooper is what many movie fans remember most about him. I always think of Sgt. York, the country boy turned war hero in WWI. I think of Sheriff Will Kane, defending his town against a gang of outlaws even when the entire town turns their back on him. That's Gary Cooper, and without sounding cheesy, he's a symbol of Americana. He's honest, strong, steadfast, and when the chips are down, he's at his best. That is what makes Billy Wilder's 1957 film, Love in the Afternoon, so hard to digest. Cooper plays a philandering ladies man who moves from one woman to the next as he travels across the world. The movie is enjoyable enough, but it is an epic case of miscasting when it comes to Cooper's character.

Growing up in Paris, young Ariane (Audrey Hepburn) lives in an apartment with her father, Claude (Maurice Chevalier), hoping to one day be a concert cellist. Claude is a private detective, specializing in some of the sleazier cases in Paris. Ariane is a little naive to the ways of the world but can't help but be interested in her father's files, reading all about the steamy adventures of globe-trotting lovers. She takes a special interest in one case, one Frank Flanagan (Cooper), an American businessman with his hand in everything. He has a woman in every city, leaving them as quickly as he meets them. Ariane knows that a scorned husband is gunning for Flanagan, and at the last minute, saves him. She quickly falls for the older American, and he's curious about this mysterious Parisian girl. There's no way they should work, but can they?

Director Billy Wilder is too talented for this movie not to be worthwhile. He's just too good behind the camera, and it feels funny to write this, but this is the first review I've done here in over two years of his movies. He never had a dud in his career, just degrees of average to above average. This is a 1950s romantic comedy, full of style and story. It is well-written, and while the Parisian locations aren't used to their potential (Cooper and Hepburn are never outside if I recall), the Paris setting is hard to beat. I enjoyed the movie, appreciated the comings and goings of the story, and watching Cooper and Hepburn is never a bad thing.  

The basic premise of the story though is that we have to buy Gary Cooper as this philandering, globe-trotting, worldly businessman. It's just not happening. Cooper was Grace Kelly's husband, Dorothy McGuire's husband. Flanagan would be TMZ fodder in the modern age, always in the news for his social shenanigans with any number of women. Wilder supposedly originally wanted Cary Grant in the role, and that makes sense. You would believe Grant as this character. Cooper -- as talented as he is -- just was not the right choice for this character. He's too old, and he looks it. It is hard to believe a beautiful young woman like Hepburn's Ariane falling for him as quickly as she does. This isn't a movie-killer, but it is certainly something you can't help but notice.

Because Cooper is too talented an actor for this movie to be a complete botched effort, it is still watchable, especially because of Miss Hepburn. The 27-year old actress was at the height of her success and popularity in 1957. She might be a couple years too old to play Ariane, but it works. As was the case with many of her roles (pre-Breakfast at Tiffanys at least), she plays the innocent, even naive young woman to a T. Ariane wants to be in love and quickly falls for Cooper's Flanagan (why, we never know, he's not smooth or charming). What's great about the character is how she ropes Flanagan in, pretending to be a female version of him, an exotic guy friend in cities all over the world. Hepburn sells it too, throwing off the cuff remarks left and right, Cooper slowly losing his mind, aware that he could be getting played but not knowing how to prove it.

If this is what romantic comedies were still like in 2011, the movie world would be a better place. It just would. The humor is smart, coming from interesting situations and worthwhile conversations. It's never obvious, painful slapstick humor. So while Cooper may have been miscast, the banter between him and Hepburn is well-written and well-delivered. Chevalier is great in the supporting role as Ariane's private detective father, and John McGiver is memorable as Monsieur X, one of Claude's customers. Also worthwhile, Flanagan's almost live-in band, the Gypsies, a jazz band who plays for him and his lady friends in his hotel room. The movie isn't great, and is a bit long in the tooth at 130 minutes, but it's good, old-fashioned moviemaking that rises above its flaws.

Love in the Afternoon <---trailer (1957): ** 1/2 /****

Breakfast at Tiffany's

I can't remember the last movie that threw me off as much as the 1961 classic Breakfast at Tiffany's. I'd never seen it before today and knew nothing about it other than the setting of 1960s New York City, the style, and of course, Audrey Hepburn.  My sister swears by this movie so really, that was my only exposure to it. So over the years, did I convince myself that the movie was something else, something vastly different?  I didn't know what to expect heading into the movie and was quickly surprised by the route this story took.  I don't even know where to start so bear with me.

My biggest preconceived notion of this movie heading into it was that it was the epitome of timeless style, the very beautiful Audrey Hepburn representing this ideal woman that all other women aspire to be. There are posters, books, puzzles, coffee cups, t-shirts, anything at all you care to name with Hepburn on it.  So why does this movie get held in such high regard?  Is it the style alone?  Because honestly, this is an incredibly depressing movie.  It's based on a novella from Truman Capote -- master of weirdness and eccentricity -- and is definitely a casualty of the decade/era it was released.  So here goes, I'll try and be fair.

Washed-up writer Paul Varjak (George Peppard) is moving into his newly furnished New York City apartment when he meets one of the other tenants in the building, Holly Golightly (Hepburn). To say the least, Paul doesn't know what to make of this young woman, a carefree individual who seems to float along wherever life will take her.  She is the oddest of oddballs and lives on a series of whims and gut feelings, not wanting to get pegged down wherever she is or whatever she is doing.  Paul is instantly intrigued (and probably a little attracted) by Holly, but he just can't figure her out.  They seem like such different people, but really, they're almost the same person and as Paul figures out, they belong together.  Can he convince Holly of that though?

Okay, for openers director Blake Edwards is handicapped by 1960s censors and limitations around his storytelling. He is limited by what he can actually do or have characters talk about so instead of actual revelations or explanations we get subtle roundabouts and hints at what is going on.  I was more than a little taken aback to find out that Hepburn's Holly is a call girl and Peppard's Paul is a gigolo.  Really?!? None of this is ever directly addressed, but it's fairly obvious to put 2 and 2 together to make four.  Weirder though, Holly is a call girl/escort who takes the money of the guy she's with and then bails on him, later calling him a 'rat' or 'super-rat.' Paul seems to have one customer -- Patricia Neal's 2-E, a middle-aged married woman -- after giving up a potentially lucrative writing career.

So the stylish duo is a call girl and a gigolo, not a movie breaker in the least, right?  Okay, it did take awhile to get used to that idea, especially in a movie released in theaters in 1961 and held in such high regard some 50 years later.  But that's the least of the problems if you ask me. At a certain point you just accept what the characters are.  It's that the movie doesn't know what it wants to say or where to go.  Are we supposed to support Holly or even like her? In reality, her character is not likable but as a wise IMDB poster explains...'She's pretty so we like her.' Is it a drama or a romantic comedy? Is it neither? Are we supposed to drift along and let the movie wash over us? I was surprised by where the movie went in the last half hour, but it was one in a long line of surprises.

Now where I can understand moviegoers falling in love with 'Tiffany's' is in the casting of Hepburn and Peppard.  Throw aside the fact that both characters are willing to sleep with you for cash.  There hasn't been a more classically beautiful actress in Hollywood before or since Audrey Hepburn.  She's that perfect blend of cuteness and being amazingly sexy. She's headstrong and funny, adorable and cute, vulnerable and exciting, all rolled into one.  The chemistry Hepburn has with Peppard is top-notch and is believable in a way that never makes you question if they're acting.  They're just good together, plain and simple.  Hepburn is the vision of beauty as Holly, a stylish icon that will not be soon forgotten in movie lore.  Yes, her character isn't always likable -- Peppard either to a lesser degree -- but credit to both actors for making Holly and Paul not despicable to the point where you hate them and the movie they're in.

Maybe this is a movie that will hit me differently after I digest it fully in a couple of days, but I doubt it.  As a whole, finished product, it is an odd movie and there's no other way to describe it.  Also in the cast is Buddy Ebsen as Doc, a man from Holly's past, Martin Balsam as O.J., her quasi-agent, and Mickey Rooney in one of the most grossly stereotypical performances I've ever seen, playing an Asian man living in Holly's building.  If it was intended as humor, it falls horrifically short. Too bad because Rooney is typically one of the most reliable character actors around.  All in all, I can't give this a positive rating, but if I was it'd be because I looked at it through romantic comedy-colored glasses.  Hepburn is perfect, Peppard is cool and NYC never looked so stylish.

Breakfast at Tiffany's <---trailer (1961): ** 1/2 /****

Wait Until Dark

Not being an actor, I can only imagine that it's a tough gig to be good at.  But just playing someone else is one thing.  What about when you're playing someone who has a physical disability, an ailment that forces you to do something that you actually can do? Think of playing a handicapped person getting around in a wheelchair, a deaf person who can't hear, or in the case of 1967's Wait Until Dark, playing a blind woman. Beyond preparing for something that you can only prepare for so much, an actor/actress has to sell it too because if the audience doesn't buy it, the movie is sunk.

The actress playing a blind woman in this 1960s thriller is the very beautiful and very talented Audrey Hepburn who I've only seen in three other movies.  Hepburn's great performance leads a list of positives to come out of this movie that I was happy to see was based on a play.  That's what this movie experience was like, watching a play without being a part of the audience.  It's an odd little movie, full of interesting and worthwhile performances in an incredibly unique, innovative setting.

Waiting for a drug shipment -- heroin smuggled in a child's doll -- mysterious Roat (Alan Arkin) is double-crossed by his carrier and now has to find the doll the drugs are being transported in.  He tracks them down to a married man, Sam Hendrix (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.), who lives with his wife in a small New York basement apartment.  Roat blackmails two convicts recently released from prison, Mike Talman (Richard Crenna) and Carlino (Jack Weston), into helping him get the doll back.  His plan is anything but simple and involves all sorts of trickery and deception. Roat gets Sam out of the apartment for an extended time thinking the doll has to be someplace in there.  The only thing standing in his way is Sam's wife, Susy (Hepburn), a woman who just a year before was blinded in a horrific car accident.

With the exception of the first 10 minutes of the movie, the whole story takes place in Sam and Susy's quaint, little NYC apartment and the empty street just outside their window.  In other words, it's easy to see this movie coming from a stage-based play.  In addition to the cast, the apartment ends up being another character -- a key one at that -- in the story.  Where could this small doll be hiding? There's only so many places it could be tucked away in, right? As Roat's plan reveals itself, Susy begins to question if the doll is even in the apartment.  At 108 minutes, the story does slow down a bit at times, but it's never long before things get back on track.

An obvious key to whether this movie sinks or swims is Audrey Hepburn as the recently blinded Susy Hendrix.  It's easy to forget looking at her that she was a damn good actress too, and she gets a chance to show off her chops here.  Because her character could fairly recently actually see everything she cannot see now, it adds a dimension to Susy.  She still struggles to adjust to this new life and does her best through all the ups and downs, the positive and the frustration.  It all works because Hepburn brings this incredible feeling of vulnerability to the part.  Duped by these three crooks, she literally can't see what's being done to her (and I don't mean that as some sort of dig).  Susy is worried for herself and for her husband. That's all.  A home invasion on any level is one thing, but being unaware of the fact because of a con job, that's hard to wrap your head around. She convinced me in her performance as a blind woman, and I wasn't alone as she was nominated for an Oscar for her part, eventually losing to Katharine Hepburn for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

So going up against the innocent, vulnerable Susy is a trio of crooks including two actors I don't normally think of as playing villains.  The exception of the three is Alan Arkin as Roat, the cold-blooded, callous leader who doesn't really care who gets hurt or how as long as in the end he gets his hand on his drugs.  I think Arkin's going for some sort of mix between a hippie and a beatnik with his odd hair cut and constant wearing of stylish 60s shades, but whatever he's going for, it works.  He's creepy as hell.  Crenna and Weston are the exceptions, actors who typically were on the good side with a majority of their roles.  To appease that feeling, director Terence Young doesn't make them out-and-out baddies.  They're blackmailed into helping Roat so it's not like they're enjoying it. Crenna still manages an icy edge to him that hints at his character's past, and Weston is his usual sweaty, bumbling self.

I won't say the fun of the movie because seeing a blind woman duped in her own home isn't fun, but the best, most unique part of the story is seeing Roat's plan unfold.  After a chilling introduction, we see a plan with Roat, Talman and Carlino all acting as if Susy has stepped into a murder case.  There's multiple characters, several twists and turns, and a constant attempt to throw her comfort level off, all aided by her lack of sight.  Susy's smart though, and even Roat couldn't plan for that because it's only a matter of time before she starts to piece things together.  It's an exciting thriller with one of the more unique stories around, give it a try! You can watch it at Youtube starting HERE with Part 1 of 11.

Wait Until Dark <---trailer (1967): ***/****

The Lavender Hill Mob

In the years following the end of WWII, British film company Ealing Studios became known for one thing above all else, comedies.  These were often smaller budget, smaller scale pictures that featured a long list of actors who would go on to become some of the most well-known British actors to ever work in the movies.  At the top of that list is Alec Guinness, later more well known for serious roles like Bridge on the River Kwai, the Star War series, and his teamings with super-director David Lean.  But before he made those dramatic classics, Guinness was quite the comedic actor with great parts in The Ladykillers and 1951's The Lavender Hill Mob.

This 1951 British comedy is everything that's good in a light-hearted heist movie.  It's a story of amateur crooks who take advantage of a situation presented in front of them.  Where so many heist movies have twists and turns and betrayals left and right, 'Lavender' is content to tell a story featuring the ever-present idea of honor among thieves.  At just 81 minutes, there's no worries about any downtime or even any scenes that slow the pace down.  It's a funny story that gets funnier as these amateurs go to work on a seemingly perfectly executed plan.  But if we've learned anything from other movies, there's no such thing as a perfect plan.

After 19 years of working the same post as a bank clerk supervising gold bullion shipments, Henry Holland (Guinness) decides he's had enough.  There's no hope for promotion or advancement in his job so he decides to rob his employers of a gold shipment.  How can he do it though?  Exporting a large supply of gold bars is nearly impossible.  But one day, a new tenant moves into Holland's apartment building and gives him an idea.  Pendlebury (Stanley Holloway) is an artist who owns a foundry so after some beating around the bush Holland asks if he would be interested in joining in on the caper.  He agrees and a plan is developed where the stolen gold will be melting the gold into Eiffel Tower statues and shipped out to Paris without causing the least bit of suspicion.

With some help from two petty crooks (Sid James and Alfie Bass), they lay out a plan to take out the gold shipment without harming anyone involved.  Little do they know, the actual robbery may be the easiest part of the plan.  I'm not giving anything away when I say that most movies pre-1960s tend to believe (as studios forced them to) that crime doesn't pay.  Take that for what it's worth when considering how this story will play out.  The fun though is how the Lavender Hill mob (the gang is named after the street Holland lives on) get to that point.  Holland's plan is ingenious from the start, but it's a comedy about a heist.  It's obvious this is not going to go as smoothly as hoped.

For the most part, the humor that comes out of this situation is saved for the post-robbery half of the movie.  Up until then, the laughs were chuckles here and there that put a smile on your face.  The second half produces more of the laugh out loud variety.  SPOILERS  The plan works and the golden Eiffel Towers are sent to Paris but six of them are accidentally sold to English schoolgirls on vacation.  Holland and Pendlebury must track them down so stumped Scotland Yard can't connect them in any way.  Of course, even convincing six young girls to trade their souvenirs is easier said than done.  This little twist is a great extended sequence that turns into a chaotic car chase leading up to the ending.  Some physical humor blends well with some of the more subtle laughs to cap off a great story.

As a dramatic actor, I love Guinness, but seeing him in roles like this and The Ladykillers makes me wish he had done more comedy.  It's hard to explain, but he does things with his face -- little mannerisms and quirks -- that are hilarious on their own.  His Holland is a quiet, mild-mannered middle aged man who does his job and does it well, then comes home and reads mystery novels to an old woman living in the building.  He's the butt of jokes where he works because of his cautiousness, but nothing really gets to him.  He's a lovable crook because it's easy to root for him.  I wanted him to get away with his plan.  The same for Holloway's Pendlebury, an older man cut from the same cloth as Holland.

These amateur, bumbling crooks are exceptionally intelligent in every day life, but when problems arise in their plan, they just aren't as smooth.  One great scene has them trying to get on-board a ship about to leave with detours continually slowing them down.  It's a scene that is funny because of its awkwardness and tension working together, not to mention the looks on Guinness and Holloway's faces.  The script won the Oscar that year, and Guinness was nominated for best actor (which he unfortunately did not win, losing to Gary Cooper and High Noon).  This is a comedy that isn't trying to be anything else, just a very funny, entertaining story with two great characters.  Also look for a quick appearance by Audrey Hepburn, making just her fourth movie appearance.

The Lavender Hill Mob <----trailer (1951): *** 1/2 /****

Charade

Cary Grant was as cool and smooth as any Hollywood actor. Audrey Hepburn was an iconic actress known for her style and she's adorable. Do we really need a reason to put these two stars in a movie together? Not really. Any movie with the duo has an appeal right off the bat, and it doesn't hurt that their only pairing together -- 1963's Charade -- did not just settle for their charm bringing in the audiences.

A blend of comedy, romance and spy thriller, Charade has the distinct feel of a Hitchcock movie, even the opening credits have the look of a Hitchcock.. With all that genre blending going on, a movie has the potential to overload. That's not the case here as the plot weaves in and out from romance to comedy to oh so ghastly murders. But hey, it's in Paris so who cares? There's so many switches and betrayals and misdirections, it can be difficult to follow at times but it is never enough to distract from what is an otherwise highly entertaining, stylish, well-made movie.

On a ski vacation in Switzerland, Regina Palmer (Hepburn) debates whether she should leave her husband, Charles, who always seems to be away on work. She meets Peter Joshua (Grant) and strikes up a conversation with him, telling the mysterious stranger to look her up if he's ever in Paris. But returning home, Regina finds out from French police (Jacques Marin) that Charles has been murdered. At her husband's funeral, three complete strangers show up to 'pay their respects.' There's Tex (James Coburn), a drawling cowboy, Scobie (George Kennedy), a bear of a man with a hook for a right hand, and Gideon (Ned Glass) a nerdy-looking fellow.

Not sure what is going on, Regina visits a CIA agent at the American embassy, Hamilton Bartholemew (Walter Matthau), to try and figure out what is going on. Bartholemew tells Regina a story that makes her think she never really knew her husband. Late in WWII, Charles, Tex, Scobie, Gideon and a fifth man, Carson Dyle, were guarding a gold shipment -- $250,000 -- to the French resistance but they buried it and says the Nazis took it. Now, it looks like Charles was going after the gold, and the other three think Regina has it now. She turns to the only person she thinks she can trust, Peter Joshua.

Handled by director Stanley Donen with a tongue-in-cheek feel, Charade is a stylish 60s thriller that highlights the onscreen charisma of its two leads, Grant and Hepburn. Grant was 59 when the movie was made, a little older than your typical romantic lead, but it's hardly noticeable whether it's the action scenes or the love scenes with Hepburn. As the damsel in distress, Hepburn gets to show off some of her comedic chops (I was surprised by how funny she was) while also handling the chase scenes well. The movie's success hinges on the chemistry between the two, and surprise, surprise, Grant and Hepburn pull it off with some great dialogue exchanges throughout.

With the whudunnit story though, there's one pretty major flaw that is hard to avoid. As the bodies start mounting in the search for a quarter million in gold, the clues and evidence point to Grant's Joshua as the culprit. The problem is this...Cary Grant just can't be a murderer. I'm usually pretty slow when it comes to figuring twists out, but this one was easy. I might not have known the 'why' but I figured the 'who' pretty easily. That doesn't take away from the fun though as two twists in the last act don't come across as forced like some twisting storylines tend to do. The final scene is particularly good because there are no hints/clues at all that would have led to this revelation. Sometimes it is fun just to let a movie pull you along, so sit back and enjoy.

This is a movie that's fallen into the public domain so beware of those cheap, low quality DVDs that pop up. I saw one of the lesser quality prints on TV and was still able to enjoy it, but if you're looking for the most watchable version look for the Criterion Collection DVD which is a little pricey but worth it in terms of quality. Or if you're looking to save some money, Youtube has it available to watch, starting with Part 1 of 12. This is the lower quality version so be forewarned.

Charade <----trailer (1963): *** 1/2 /****

The Unforgiven

Some westerns are content to go for the lowest common denominator, an entertaining story with ridiculous amounts of action. I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds, I own a lot of movies like that. But some westerns strive for something else whether it be getting a message across or trying to make a statement about the times. These can be hit or miss because sometimes they strive to do too much, but every so often they find that balance, like John Huston's 1960 adult western The Unforgiven.

Based on a novel by author Alan Le May, who also wrote The Searchers, you have to figure you're not getting a typical shoot 'em up western. And in general, westerns were getting away from the old stereotypes, especially in the 1950s with some adult, psychological westerns like Anthony Mann's movies teaming up with Jimmy Stewart (all highly recommended). The Unforgiven doesn't settle for anything easy in it's story about a western family dealing with the revelation that their adopted daughter may be a Kiowa.

The Zacharys are a frontier family working their spread in the Texas panhandle and looking to put together a cattle herd to drive north to Wichita. The patriarch of the family since his father died years before, Ben (Burt Lancaster) is the leader, the oldest brother who keeps everyone else in check. His mother, Mattilde (Lillian Gish), runs the house and makes sure the family stays together. Helping Ben around the spread are his two younger brothers, Cash (Audie Murphy), a fiery, hot-tempered cowboy, and Andy (Doug McClure), the youngest brother who's still growing up. Then, there's Rachel (Audrey Hepburn), their adopted sister who their father supposedly found after her parents were massacred by Kiowas.

One day, a mysterious rider (Joseph Wiseman) rides into town with some revealing news. He says that Rachel has Indian blood in her, and that the story her father told was a lie. Everyone around turns on the Zacharys, and the news even tears the family itself apart with Cash refusing to live in the same house as a 'red-skinned' Indian. Even Ben's longtime partner and neighbor Zed Rawlings (Charles Bickford) refuses to deal with the family. All the while, Ben must hold the family together, even when the Kiowas come to take Rachel back.

Any movie, including a western, that deals with racism as straight forward and honest as this one is going to be polarizing. The Unforgiven can be brutally honest in that sense. We're introduced to all these characters, get to know them, and across the board they seem like good people. But the moment the possibility arises that one among them could be an Indian, they turn on each other. That could have been what the times were like, but it's a story that could be set in any decade or time in American history. It works because it doesn't try to whitewash the story.

Credit for that goes to Huston and his cast, an impressive listing of actors. It's not Lancaster's best part, but he's solid in the lead role. Hepburn is a bit of an odd choice as Rachel, but she pulls it off even if she looks little to nothing like a young Kiowa woman. This movie is known as much for the behind the scenes issues with Hepburn, but her role as Rachel works because she makes the character easy to identify with and very sympathetic.

Surprisingly enough with Lancaster and Hepburn in the leads, it's Audie Murphy that has the best part. His Cash Zachary is a deeply flawed character, a racist at the most basic who wants nothing to do with Indians of any sort, even his own adopted sister. Always known for playing the good guy in a white hat, the WWII hero plays completely against part here as the racist cowboy and comes across the best because he puts it all into the part. Of the rest of the cast, Gish and McClure round out the family, a believable representation of a frontier family, and John Saxon has a cool if small part as Johnny Portugal, an Indian horse wrangler/breaker, including this well choreographed chase scene.

Judging the movie apart from its story is a lot easier because Huston presents such a well-package western. Visually, he gets the spectacle down, the epic feel of what living in the west was like. The movie was shot in Durango, Mexico where many westerns were filmed, and it looks beautiful. The west was full of big, wide open spaces and Huston utilizes that feeling with some memorable long shots, some seemingly from miles away on a rock butte or hill. Composer Dimitri Tiomkin's score isn't as consistently strong as some of his others, but his music in those scenes fits perfectly.

A western that's dark and gloomy and doesn't pull any punches with its story dealing with racism and prejudices in the wild west. The movie benefits from some great performances, including a career-best part from Audie Murphy, and location shooting in Durango. This isn't as well known as Alan Le May's other highly respected western The Searchers, but it deserves more recognition than it's gotten in the years since.

The Unforgiven (1960): *** 1/2 /****