I've seen the original edit. One of the boring scenes (the main one) that was cut has Bogart explaining the plot. The scene goes on a while. The thing is, the plot still isn't clear even with it. The release print has a lot more flirting with the two principals and it is a lot more fun.
The bookstore scene is hilarious with the "Why Miss Malone, you're beautiful!" bit. The actor is Dorothy Malone who, if you ask me, is a good deal prettier than Bacall -- especially with her hair back and wearing glasses. When Bogart asks her to remove her glasses, all I can think is that he's gay. I've known a few gay guys who, before coming out, were ridiculously critical of female looks.
Brackett is impressive. I think The Long Goodbye would have been better if they had stuck closer to the script. The scenes that seem most improvised are also the worst scenes in the film. Also, I assume the ending is her's since the entire film leads to it. And it is totally different from the book.
I think Howard Hawks was a great director. But these kinds of directors (Michael Curtiz is another) don't tend to get their due. Or rather, other directors who are roughly the same today are worshipped as geniuses when they largely just do a job well.
Anyway, I like this film. It's fun. But The Maltese Falcon is way better!
Actually, in the heyday of auteur theory, Hawks was considered a god. Along with Ford and Nicholas Ray and Anthony Mann and Hitchcock; of these, only Hitchcock is still worshipped. (And all the worshipped ones did have some good movies.)
Why not Huston? Or Curtiz? Or Sturges, or Wilder? Your guess is as good as mine.
Kael pointed out that auteur theory was a corrective, and a useful one; it rejected Hollywood “prestige pictures” and celebrated things that often had more vivid energy, like gangster movies or mysteries or westerns. But every corrective runs the risk of becoming dogma, and that's kinda what happened with auteur theory. In a way, we're still living with it; certain modern directors are infallible until they fall out of favor.
That's an interesting point about Long Goodbye and the improvised scenes; I'll have to watch it again. We recently saw California Split and enjoyed a lot in it, but there was one scene I could tell was improvised that I hated. Not that improvisation can't sometimes be great!
I don't even know who the New Wave critics were arguing with. Mainstream critics? I don't care what any of them think. But Kael is correct. Before this, Hollywood thought it was genius and after this, Hollywood thought it was genius. Hollywood is so full of itself all the time that it's shocking it hasn't exploded.
My biggest problem with auteur theory is the idea that a film is somehow the vision of the director. It really depends on the film. There are films where you can say this. There are other films where you could say it is the producer. Certainly, directors with the power usually surround themselves with the same writers, editors, cinematographers, etc. What does that mean? I think auteur theory dumps on all these artists -- turning them into nothing but technicians who the auteurs use for their vision. And let us not forget that directors very often destroy films!
My favorite Hawks film is, unsurprisingly, The Thing from Another World. Of course, I also have major problems with the film. But for its time, it's excellent. Carpenter's remake is, of course, better -- with an excellent script from Bill Lancaster. That's another film where the producers were very important.
I should have mentioned Wilder as well. And Capra. I didn't even think of Huston for that category, but you are quite right. Sturges, however, I think is different. He was a specialist. I think of him as more of a writer anyway. But I don't know of anyone who directed comedy better.
I'm generally pretty anti-improvisation. I don't think it normally works that well. At this point, I think Altman's best film was Gosford Park, and I think it works because it is primarily a British cast that stuck to the script. I'm not saying that improvisation doesn't ever work. But in general, the costs far outweigh the benefits. (I have a long history with The Long Goodbye. There is so much in the film that I love. But it is so uneven it is hard to love it overall. But you could say that about Altman's entire career. Even McCabe & Mrs Miller, which is probably my second favorite of his films, could be tightened. I should revisit California Split. I love that period of George Segal. Actually, I always liked him but that was a prime period.)
That's close to an essay in itself. A lot of good points.
I'm not sure who the New Wave critics were rebelling against, either! Did most Americans even read critics? Or just follow whatever got the most publicity? James Agee was a pretty bright guy; was he widely read? I don’t know.
If the rebellion was against the kind of “careful good taste” dramas favored by the likes of Louis B. Mayer, then sure.
I wonder if (aside from Agee and Bosley Crowther and a few others at prestige publications) most critics then weren't like most critics now; you praise the same movies everyone else is praising, or nobody reads you.
As for Hollywood exploding… it sure seems like it is. A game we play now is “count the logos.” There's usually at least three before the opening credits. Often more. You never see a movie that’s just Universal or Paramount or whatever. I don't even know who owns all those big soundstages, anymore. Who owns the Warners stages in Burbank? AT&T? It's all a muddle. I'd say “good riddance” to the old studio system but I don't think most of what's being made today by a zillion different investors is much better.
I'm almost afraid to watch Gosford Park again because I love it so much!
I love coming on old Crowther reviews. Regardless of his age, he was so wonderfully crotchety. He's the only critic I can think of who I respect even when I disagree with him (which is a lot).
I think part of the multiple logos is actually good because it is a function of how (mostly) actors and directors have cut themselves in on the producer money. But it clearly demonstrates that film is commodity. You have to go way down on the food chain to get to people who are doing it for love and art.
Don't fear Gosford Park! It is as good as ever. I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of it and Downton Abbey. I enjoyed DA at first. But it quickly became clear that everything interesting Julian Fellowes had to say was put into GP. And that ultimately, his upper-class background (and widespread acclaim and money) blinds him to what made that script work. If you haven't done so, his commentary on the DVD is one of the best I've heard.
Crowther's so completely, terribly wrong on so many movies (what a total prude who got bugged by anything depicting horny people!) but I like the crotchety. I think he'd have a been a fun guy to have a few whiskeys with.
I agree on enjoying DA at first, then quitting on it hard, and thinking Gosford Park was so much better. But don't ask me to listen to Julian Fellowes's DVD commentary, or his thoughts about anything. I DON’T WANT TO KNOW what a guy who sorta worships and sorta criticizes the English upper-class thinks in his thinky-brain. It might be alright, I don't care, life is too short to know what Julian Fellowes thinks about anything! I prefer the Altman who thinks the money people are morons!
And Bob Balaban as the Hollywood producer wandering around that drafty English manor house trying to get a phone...
I love that Blaban spends much of the film on the phone using the absolutely worst language. It's brilliant! As for Fellowes' commentary, it works because he was the product of that class but part of a line that didn't have any real money. There are many interesting anecdotes. Of course, I'm sure it's not as much fun now that he made DA... But it does have insights like the upper class not liking movies for class reasons but somehow jumping on the cocktail train as soon as that became something!
I've seen the original edit. One of the boring scenes (the main one) that was cut has Bogart explaining the plot. The scene goes on a while. The thing is, the plot still isn't clear even with it. The release print has a lot more flirting with the two principals and it is a lot more fun.
The bookstore scene is hilarious with the "Why Miss Malone, you're beautiful!" bit. The actor is Dorothy Malone who, if you ask me, is a good deal prettier than Bacall -- especially with her hair back and wearing glasses. When Bogart asks her to remove her glasses, all I can think is that he's gay. I've known a few gay guys who, before coming out, were ridiculously critical of female looks.
Brackett is impressive. I think The Long Goodbye would have been better if they had stuck closer to the script. The scenes that seem most improvised are also the worst scenes in the film. Also, I assume the ending is her's since the entire film leads to it. And it is totally different from the book.
I think Howard Hawks was a great director. But these kinds of directors (Michael Curtiz is another) don't tend to get their due. Or rather, other directors who are roughly the same today are worshipped as geniuses when they largely just do a job well.
Anyway, I like this film. It's fun. But The Maltese Falcon is way better!
Oh, I do really like Cook playing a sweet guy.
A fan, I see!
Actually, in the heyday of auteur theory, Hawks was considered a god. Along with Ford and Nicholas Ray and Anthony Mann and Hitchcock; of these, only Hitchcock is still worshipped. (And all the worshipped ones did have some good movies.)
Why not Huston? Or Curtiz? Or Sturges, or Wilder? Your guess is as good as mine.
Kael pointed out that auteur theory was a corrective, and a useful one; it rejected Hollywood “prestige pictures” and celebrated things that often had more vivid energy, like gangster movies or mysteries or westerns. But every corrective runs the risk of becoming dogma, and that's kinda what happened with auteur theory. In a way, we're still living with it; certain modern directors are infallible until they fall out of favor.
That's an interesting point about Long Goodbye and the improvised scenes; I'll have to watch it again. We recently saw California Split and enjoyed a lot in it, but there was one scene I could tell was improvised that I hated. Not that improvisation can't sometimes be great!
I don't even know who the New Wave critics were arguing with. Mainstream critics? I don't care what any of them think. But Kael is correct. Before this, Hollywood thought it was genius and after this, Hollywood thought it was genius. Hollywood is so full of itself all the time that it's shocking it hasn't exploded.
My biggest problem with auteur theory is the idea that a film is somehow the vision of the director. It really depends on the film. There are films where you can say this. There are other films where you could say it is the producer. Certainly, directors with the power usually surround themselves with the same writers, editors, cinematographers, etc. What does that mean? I think auteur theory dumps on all these artists -- turning them into nothing but technicians who the auteurs use for their vision. And let us not forget that directors very often destroy films!
My favorite Hawks film is, unsurprisingly, The Thing from Another World. Of course, I also have major problems with the film. But for its time, it's excellent. Carpenter's remake is, of course, better -- with an excellent script from Bill Lancaster. That's another film where the producers were very important.
I should have mentioned Wilder as well. And Capra. I didn't even think of Huston for that category, but you are quite right. Sturges, however, I think is different. He was a specialist. I think of him as more of a writer anyway. But I don't know of anyone who directed comedy better.
I'm generally pretty anti-improvisation. I don't think it normally works that well. At this point, I think Altman's best film was Gosford Park, and I think it works because it is primarily a British cast that stuck to the script. I'm not saying that improvisation doesn't ever work. But in general, the costs far outweigh the benefits. (I have a long history with The Long Goodbye. There is so much in the film that I love. But it is so uneven it is hard to love it overall. But you could say that about Altman's entire career. Even McCabe & Mrs Miller, which is probably my second favorite of his films, could be tightened. I should revisit California Split. I love that period of George Segal. Actually, I always liked him but that was a prime period.)
That's close to an essay in itself. A lot of good points.
I'm not sure who the New Wave critics were rebelling against, either! Did most Americans even read critics? Or just follow whatever got the most publicity? James Agee was a pretty bright guy; was he widely read? I don’t know.
If the rebellion was against the kind of “careful good taste” dramas favored by the likes of Louis B. Mayer, then sure.
I wonder if (aside from Agee and Bosley Crowther and a few others at prestige publications) most critics then weren't like most critics now; you praise the same movies everyone else is praising, or nobody reads you.
As for Hollywood exploding… it sure seems like it is. A game we play now is “count the logos.” There's usually at least three before the opening credits. Often more. You never see a movie that’s just Universal or Paramount or whatever. I don't even know who owns all those big soundstages, anymore. Who owns the Warners stages in Burbank? AT&T? It's all a muddle. I'd say “good riddance” to the old studio system but I don't think most of what's being made today by a zillion different investors is much better.
I'm almost afraid to watch Gosford Park again because I love it so much!
I love coming on old Crowther reviews. Regardless of his age, he was so wonderfully crotchety. He's the only critic I can think of who I respect even when I disagree with him (which is a lot).
I think part of the multiple logos is actually good because it is a function of how (mostly) actors and directors have cut themselves in on the producer money. But it clearly demonstrates that film is commodity. You have to go way down on the food chain to get to people who are doing it for love and art.
Don't fear Gosford Park! It is as good as ever. I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of it and Downton Abbey. I enjoyed DA at first. But it quickly became clear that everything interesting Julian Fellowes had to say was put into GP. And that ultimately, his upper-class background (and widespread acclaim and money) blinds him to what made that script work. If you haven't done so, his commentary on the DVD is one of the best I've heard.
Crowther's so completely, terribly wrong on so many movies (what a total prude who got bugged by anything depicting horny people!) but I like the crotchety. I think he'd have a been a fun guy to have a few whiskeys with.
I agree on enjoying DA at first, then quitting on it hard, and thinking Gosford Park was so much better. But don't ask me to listen to Julian Fellowes's DVD commentary, or his thoughts about anything. I DON’T WANT TO KNOW what a guy who sorta worships and sorta criticizes the English upper-class thinks in his thinky-brain. It might be alright, I don't care, life is too short to know what Julian Fellowes thinks about anything! I prefer the Altman who thinks the money people are morons!
And Bob Balaban as the Hollywood producer wandering around that drafty English manor house trying to get a phone...
I love that Blaban spends much of the film on the phone using the absolutely worst language. It's brilliant! As for Fellowes' commentary, it works because he was the product of that class but part of a line that didn't have any real money. There are many interesting anecdotes. Of course, I'm sure it's not as much fun now that he made DA... But it does have insights like the upper class not liking movies for class reasons but somehow jumping on the cocktail train as soon as that became something!