Days of Wine and Roses

When I hear the names Blake Edwards and Jack Lemmon, my mind automatically jumps to the madcap, sprawling 1965 comedy The Great Race. It was a favorite of mine growing up, and I still enjoy it a lot. As far as critical acclaim, the duo paired for a film that couldn't be a bigger departure in tone, 1962's Days of Wine and Roses.

A successful public relations man for a firm based in San Francisco, Joe Clay (Lemmon) both likes his job and is equal parts frustrated with it. During a boat party hosted by one of his clients, Joe meets Kirsten (Lee Remick), a beautiful secretary who he likes, but she wants nothing to do with him. Upon actually talking with Joe though, she starts to fall for him, and then it's only a matter of time before they are dating and then married with a kid. As their relationship develops though, Joe's main passion, drinking, begins to affect Kirsten too. What starts off as a drink here and there turns into something much more severe, threatening to tear the relationship apart.

As I watch certain movies, I try to remind myself that the purpose of every single movie is not necessarily to entertain. Some movies you just sit back and watch. Take in the acting, the cinematography, the music, whatever. This is a dramatic movie. I feel safe saying you won't just out and out enjoy it, much less like it. Edwards' film documents in great detail two people's descent into alcoholism, and not surprisingly it isn't a barrel of monkeys to watch. It is intensely uncomfortable to watch and never even eases up just a little.

So looking at the entire film, I just can't give it an overly positive review. Seeing the descent into alcoholism is fascinating to watch in a sick way. Early on, we see Joe bring over two grocery bags of booze to Kirsten's apartment, emptying them and giggling about it. He introduces his future wife to alcohol, the duo just drinking occasionally only to eventually end up as boozehounds. The issue becomes -- on a purely movie basis -- is that it just wasn't interesting to watch (for me at least). How many times can we see people going back to the bottle after achieving some sort of sobriety? Yes, I realize that's the reality of alcoholism, but as a film, that doesn't make it any easier to tolerate. It gets tedious, and with a 117-minute movie, it feels significantly longer thanks to its episodic story techniques.

Where the movie is worth recommending is the performances from Lemmon and Remick as Joe and Kirsten. Their chemistry is without question. They look, act and talk like a couple madly in love, drawn to each other as if the universe wants them to be together. There is a genuine connection of some sorts between them, but eventually their relationship becomes more about the alcohol and bonding over their mutual love of alcohol than anything. Their drunk scenes are pretty bad (literally with some unintentional laughs but also uncomfortable to watch), and their crumbling relationship is difficult to watch. On performance alone though, it's two great acting jobs. Both were nominated for Oscars, Lemmon losing to Gregory Peck (To Kill a Mockingbird) while Remick lost to Anne Bancroft (The Miracle Worker).

The story requires a focus heavily on Joe and Kirsten, but two other performances stand out. One is Charles Bickford as Ellis, Kirsten's widowed father. This is a Dad who just wants the best for her daughter, even seeing that this relationship could be an issue the first time he meets Joe. Also look for Jack Klugman as Jim Hungerford, Joe's eventual Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor. Both are small parts, but both left a very positive impression.

Again, my review is only based on an entertainment level as I try to do with all my reviews. As a film, it is easier to judge. The acting is great, Edwards' direction solid as always, and the shadowy black and white cinematography is ideally suited to the darkness of the story. On the other hand, it simply wasn't a film I enjoyed. It's a tough film to get through in spite of all those more technical positives. Ahead of its time for a 1962 audience, yes, but just not a film I will revisit soon.

Days of Wine and Roses <---trailer (1962): ** 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 /****

Experiment in Terror

I tend to avoid horror or slasher movies whenever I can. Seeing people's heads get lopped off or the torture porn in the Saw and Hostel movies just doesn't do it for me. It doesn't take much to make a movie a scary or frightening one, especially for me. You don't need mass murderers wielding chainsaws and machetes to bring out fear. Sometimes all it takes is the unknown, a stranger messing with your life like in 1962's Experiment in Terror.

Probably more well known for the Pink Panther movies, director Blake Edwards bases the story on a frightening premise; someone is always watching you, in this case an individual who knows almost everything about you and is holding it over your head. All it takes sometimes to get someone to do something, often against their will, is to threaten loved ones. That's the basic premise of 'Experiment' and even at over 2 hours it's always interesting with a back and forth cat and mouse game.

Coming home from a late-night party, Kelly Sherwood (Lee Remick) pulls into her garage and is heading to bed when a man grabs her from behind. Calmly and cooly with his arm around her throat, the stranger whispers to Kelly what he wants from her. One day soon, Kelly, a bank teller, will take $100,000 from her drawer and bring it to him. If she doesn't cooperate or goes to the authorities, he'll kill her 16-year old sister, Toby (Stefanie Powers) and then come after her. He leaves with an ominous final threat, someone will always be watching you so don't try any funny business.

Secretly calling the FBI, Kelly talks to Agent John Ripley (Glenn Ford) and enlists his help in finding the mysterious man blackmailing her into robbing her own bank. With Kelly unable to give a physical description of her attacker, all they have is one clue to go on; he's asthmatic and talks in a slow, halting pattern. Can they catch him with so little information before both Kelly and Toby come under the gun?

This is a thriller that is at it's best when it's dealing with the villain, played perfectly by Ross Martin. I won't go into his background or motivations because that would ruin some of the mystery. Known mostly for his work as Artemus Gordon, James West's partner in The Wild, Wild West, Martin is downright terrifying as the bad guy. Edwards always shoots him in dark, shadowy situations in close-ups that rarely give a clear shot of his face. If you've seen him in other shows, you'll recognize the distinctive voice right away. It's quite a departure for Martin who as Gordon was the amiable master of disguise always appearing at the perfect time to save the day. He was nominated for his part for a Golden Globe, but unfortunately was snubbed by the Academy Awards.

As the possible victim, Remick is an ideal damsel in distress. The 27-year old actress is rail-thin here and looks like a good wind would knock her over. At first, she's not quite sure how serious her attacker is in his threats so at times she's terrified of what he'll do and then other times eerily calm in her dealings with Ripley and the FBI. I like Glenn Ford more and more with each movie I see of his. He wasn't in a ton of classics and was almost a poor man's John Wayne, but Ford was always likable/believable as the tough leading man trying to save the day. A young Stefanie Powers, as cute as she ever was, is also good as Kelly's younger sister, a thankless role because she's not given much to do.

The story moves along as the FBI tries to secretly help Kelly and Toby, all the while trying to find the mysterious man threatening them. Martin coasts in and out of the story, making one ominous appearance after another until he finally puts his plan into play. The finale is a good one, filmed at a L.A. Dodgers vs. the San Francisco Giants game at Candlestick Park. With thousands of extras all around, it's a great setting as the FBI attempts to close in on their man, all the while trying to protect Kelly who's out in the open with little protection.

The DVD has been discontinued and can be hard to find, I caught it on TCM recently, but the print I saw was a good one, really taking advantage of the black and white filming. The movie's got a good score from Henry Mancini, here's a sample. Of course, I can't find any trailers, but TCM does have a handful of scenes you can watch through their website. It's a good thriller with a movie-stealing performance from a villainous Ross Martin and good parts from Ford, Remick and Powers.