Tag Archives: acting

Setter’s ‘Spectives: A Paean to Luise Rainer

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Today, Tuesday, December 30, 2014, the great actress Luise Rainer reportedly died at the advanced age of 104.

She was a terrific thespian, one of the important Jewish performers in Hollywood, and a standout for roles such as O-Lan in The Good Earth, a classic of the cinema. In that film, she played opposite Paul Muni, who distinguished himself as well. Surprisingly, she isn’t as well-remembered as other celluloid stars, and I’m not sure why. Her body of work is excellent, her performances consistent. This is someone who should be on the tongues of anyone interested in the movies and the history of motion pictures. She was a good one.

I wonder if the lack of immediate recognition her name elicits in some circles is because she wasn’t a traditional Hollywood beauty. She was certainly striking, no doubt about that, but the real glamour was in her acting, not her features. I hope that leads to her name being recalled with fondness in the future.

I will do that, for sure.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Love’s Got No Strings Attached in ‘Humoresque’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613OMG … I actually liked a movie with Joan Crawford in it!

That film was Humoresque, which I watched for the first time on TV last night. Quite a fun, if melodramatic ride, centering on the love affair an egocentric though brilliant violinist (played by John Garfield) has with a married socialite (Crawford). Normally, I don’t care for pictures with Joan in it, but this one had a good script co-written by Clifford Odets and able direction from Jean Negulesco. Plus, simply glorious violin playing by the incomparable Isaac Stern, who did the virtuoso performances attributed to Garfield’s musician character.

So does that mean, all of a sudden, that I’m a big Crawford fan? Not at all. This film rose above the usual sordid plotlines her flicks so often seemed to encapsulate, making it altogether a more interesting work. I frequently find her acting overdone, but in this case, she kept her portrayal in check. Whether that’s due more to the direction or her own ability, I don’t know.

Certainly, any film that features snippets from Bizet’s Carmen and Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde has got to be good, right?

Well … the jury’s still out on that.

Skip’s Quips: Having Another Go at ‘Conan the Barbarian’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Why, I asked myself last night, am I watching the original 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian again?

Isn’t once enough for this film? It doesn’t have great cinematography. Much of the acting – except for stalwarts such as James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow – is atrocious. And the special effects are pretty poor by today’s or even yesteryear’s standards.

Oh, yeah: And the blood squibs are gloppy. Really gloppy.

Well, parts of it are watchable, for some reason. I’ve read one of the original Robert E. Howard Conan stories, “The People of the Black Circle,” and the film stays true to the tale’s sensibilities. You know: blood, gore, lust and all that. Plus, there’s the much-lauded score by Basil Poledouris, which is somewhat bombastic but definitely works.

Then there’s the script, courtesy of director John Milius and Oliver Stone. Pretty simple stuff, but at least it’s not verbose and pretentious. I was grateful for that.

There were also a number of seemingly derivative moments that may have been “inspired” by classic films such as Kwaidan (the scene in which the wizard writes runes on Conan’s body to protect him from demons) and The Seven Samurai (the stake-adorned defense against Thulsa Doom’s cohorts). Surprisingly erudite stuff for a film such as this. I did see part of an interview a long time ago in which Milius lauded Kwaidan as being “dreamlike,” so perhaps he was mining that movie for Conan. Nevertheless, it made for strong viewing.

So all in all: kind of a sloppy film, with dull moments and some very good ones. I may end up watching it again in the future and asking myself, once more, why I’m doing so. Hopefully, I’ll be able to answer myself the same way.

Skip’s Quips: The Horror of ‘Jud Süß’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Everyone should see the movie Jud Süß.

There’s a reason for that: It’s one of the most horrifying pictures ever made. This is slickly crafted Nazi propaganda, a wartime movie that viciously portrays Jews as evil, conniving monsters out to rape non-Jewish women and destroy others while making oodles of money. I watched this film recently because I believed I needed to see it as part of my cinematic education.

I’m glad I did.

It’s a monument to the tyranny of the Third Reich and extremely disturbing. It also has strong production values and impassioned acting, which contributed to its effectiveness as propaganda. I can only wonder what its impact was when it debuted in Germany to already anti-Semitic audiences. It must’ve been scary.

I don’t think this is a movie that should be seen without context. Instead, it should be shown in museums and schools as part of an educational initiative. No one should forget what atrocities the Nazis committed, and this film is part of its effort to blame the Jews for all kinds of problems. As a Jew, I believe it’s essential to see this movie with the perspective that the Nazi regime used all kinds of tools to convey its vile, racist ideology. Everyone should remember what happened. Watching this picture is a way to do so.