Broken Arrow (1950)

Why it's here:
For the simple reason that it was filmed at Old Tucson.

Specs:
1 and 1/2 hours. Color! We watched on a dvd from our local library
Set in the 1870s

Our family's average rating:
7.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I didn't know much about the film when I chose it for the festival, but when I picked up the dvd from the library and read the back, I was amazed to see that the story sounded just like Dances with Wolves -- Later, when I read the back of the case to my kids, my older son said: "that sounds just like Avatar." It turns out that we were both somewhat correct, and it certainly could have been an inspiration for both movies.

Jimmy Stewart, as always, gives a great performance -- this time as a disenfranchised Union soldier, Tom Jeffords, who stumbles upon a tribe of Apache Indians, is tasked by his government with convincing them to allow the U.S. mail to go through their territory unmolested, and who ultimately finds beauty in their lifestyle, makes enduring trust-based friendships, falls in love with and marries a native woman, and endures tragedy due to the clash of cultures and advancing white men.  Sound like DWW? Yes. But, unlike the latter, Stewart's character stays connected to the white people in Tucson throughout the film and does not completely leave "his kind." According to my sons this is also pretty much the same story you find in Avatar with a few key plot differences, such as the two cultures aren't already at war when our hero joins them and their is no element of attempted peace treaty. The themes are good ones, so no wonder the movie gets made over and again.

To watch a film like this is a bit of a test for a modern viewer. I found it troublesome and distracting that the lead Apache characters were played by actors who were clearly not natives. In the case of the character Cochise, Jeff Chandler was at least very capable and quite convincing as an Apache chief. However, the leading "lady" (and I have to put that in quotes because Debra Paget was a girl - just 16 when the film was made) was woefully inadequate in acting skill and in "look" to manage the task of compelling love interest/Indian maiden. I don't know if orange spray tan had been invented in 1950, but that seemed to be the approach to make this clearly Anglo girl an "Indian." How sad that this ever seemed acceptable. Some of the Apaches in the background scenes did appear to be Native actors, and the character Geronimo, though a very small part, was played by Jay Silverheels. The lack of Native actors in key parts is troublesome, but not as much as the attempt at the optimistic tone the film seems bent on sharing. It is hard to see this film strive for a positive if not happy ending, when we know that there is no Chiricahua Apache land preserve anywhere near us in southern Arizona and no chance that the Americans kept their word to keep the peace and stay out of Apache lands.


Still, one has to appreciate that this film boldly portrayed the Apaches as sympathetic and honorable people. An unusual touch for 1950.

Probably the film's biggest failure was with it's strained love story. Debra Paget is an unbearably and inappropriately young love interest for Jimmy Stewart. We've seen plenty of May-December romances in Hollywood films of this era, think Judy Garland/Fred Astair. But in Easter Parade, Garland was at least a fully grown woman of 26 choosing a much older man after a long build up that made it clear why she liked him. Paget's character here is given no such build-up, no motivations, and no reason why she would fall for Stewart's.  Paget is a teenager. She seemed hardly able to manage to kiss him, and even Stewart seemed only slightly less troubled by the match-up. They were horribly unsuited. I wished heartily that the film makers had not tried to make this a love story!

Interestingly enough, in researching the movie, we learned that much of the story is true. Tom Jeffords was a real person who did become close friends with Cochise and much of the plot based on that friendship seems accurate or at least based on real events. (However, not surprisingly, the romance was entirely made up. Jeffords never married an Indian woman.)

One final note: It was wonderful but strange to see a Technicolor Western, especially one filmed around Tucson. However, it almost seemed wrong to see this story in color, as Westerns just seem like they should be black and white.

Iconic shot:

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Why it's here:
Technically, it's not. I had no intention of including this film. I watched because, how could I not after all the film experiences of the last few months? I knew it to be far too dark and unsettling for our family, and my husband wasn't interested in it, so I watched alone. Fortuitously, I discovered it on Netflix just as our family got to the end of the 1940s, so I watched it right in date order.  But I was so blown away by this film that I couldn't help describing it in detail to my kids. What happened next surprised me: my younger son was dying to see the film. What happened then surprised me even more: he LOVED it.

Specs:
Almost 2 hours, black and white. Not a silent film, but dealing with themes of the silent era.
Available on dvd and on Netflix.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am feeling proud right now. Justifiably proud I think. For I doubt there are many 10 year olds who could watch and love Sunset Boulevard with a real appreciation for what that film is trying to say. To really get it and also to love it, is amazing for a modern kid. And there is no way, my son would have done so a few months ago, before this festival. He gets the deep sadness; the elated iconic status; the fast loss of the silent era and the quick way the movies changed, like a tornado blasting out old things and leaving destroyed lives in their wake. He was moved to see Buster Keaton in the short cameo as a washed up relic. He appreciated the contrasting acting styles from the overblown and slightly crazy performance of Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond, to the 1950s cool William Holden. We had seen and been to the places in LA where the 1920s movie star mansions were -- he understood about the level of fame they had attained.

The film is fantastic. Part black comedy, part film noir, part disfunctional romance, the movie is not really scary, but its definitely freaky. It is sad and depressing and shows Hollywood at its worst. It is also brilliantly filmed and acted. Swanson as Norma Desmond gives a performance so visceral and real it hardly seems possible she's acting.

One of the best lines ever spoken in any movie ever:
"You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."

And I love it when Norma speaks of the golden age of silents:
"There was a time in this business when they had the eyes of the whole world. But that wasn't good enough for them. Oh no. They had to have the ears of the whole world too. So they opened their big mouths and out came talk talk talk!"

While watching herself onscreen in one of her star roles:
"Still wonderful isn't it. And no dialog. We didn't need dialog; we had faces."

I love that line so much, because she's right. As a fan of silent film, I see exactly what she meant and I really feel that loss.

Iconic shot:

Adam's Rib (1949)

Why it's here:
I was drawn to the Hepburn/Tracy pairing, knowing of their famous on- and off-screen chemistry and thought this one, with it's law drama and courtroom humor, might make a good choice.

Specs:
Over an hour and a half; black and white. We watched on a dvd from the library

Our family's average rating:
6.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Although both Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are great actors and this was probably a very relevant and witty film in its own time, it felt more than a bit dated to us.

Curious that Adam's Rib was our lowest rated film since The Lady Eve and I'm wondering if Adam and Eve just aren't where its at for us. . . . I'll be interested to see how All About Eve plays for us next week. . . .

I spent a fair amount of time wondering if I'd made a mistake introducing this material to my kid. The film starts with an attempted murder where a jilted wife follows her husband to another woman's apartment. The themes of adultery and spousal abuse are heavy and, by modern standards, pretty unsettling, though clearly meant to be light-hearted and played for comedy at the time. The film explores the ideas of how spouses mistreat one another and drive each other away. The plot twist comes from Tracy playing the prosecutor who is attempting to convict the murderous jilted wife while the prosecutor's wife, Hepburn, plays the private practice defense attorney who takes on the job of defending said murderous jilted wife.

The underlying marital problems of our defendant/victim couple are mirrored (or maybe prism-ed)  through the lawyers' own marriage as the case gets further along.

These are fairly adult and unpleasant themes dealing with the worst sides of a marriage; though, very loving and caring sides to marriage are shown as well. The film is very sexist by today's standards (though it plays as if meant to be a feminist message). All in all, though an interesting film and clearly well-acted, it is probably not best suited to family viewing.

Iconic shot:

The Noose Hangs High (1948)

Why it's here:
We'd seen the "Who's on First Routine" and found it hilarious. Why not try a whole movie with the comedy talents of Abbott and Costello.

Specs:
1 hour, 15 min; black and white. We watched this one on Netflix

Our family's average rating:
7.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The comedy of Abbott and Costello is extremely well-suited to modern, smart-alecky kids. My boys loved this. The humor is found both in fast-talking, smart dialog and also physical and visual  pratfalls and hijinks. As such, it hits on all cylinders for kids.  One of the funnier bits involves Abbott's character repeatedly putting on and taking off his pants. Another funny moment comes as Costello pulls a gag on a gangster thug by betting him that he, Costello, "isn't here" -- and actually managing to win the bet. You gotta see that.

The movie is simple of plot, but really delightful in that simplicity. It doesn't try to hard to be something it isn't -- it just showcases how funny these guy's are.

Considering some of the big-budget spectacles we've seen lately, this one just seemed basic and true and reminded me of the silent-era comedies we love, where the ability of a film to win you over was basically a function of the pure comic talent and not of film-making spectacle. It felt really good to watch a movie like this in 1948.

Iconic shot:

Easter Parade (1948)

Why it's here:
I guess, to see Judy Garland and Fred Astair. Seemed like an odd pairing

Specs:
An hour and 45 minutes; COLOR with a capital "C" -- I guess with all caps.
Supposedly set in 1912 :)

Our family's average rating:
6.88

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This serves as an extraordinary exposition of Technicolor. Half the point of making this film must have been to showcase "color" -- deep lush velvet and silk fabric drapes in every color, enormous bouquets of flowers, gowns with sequins and fringe, all overdone in the most saturated tones imaginable.

Even at age 50, Fred Astair moves like a dream on a cloud. He must be the most graceful man to have ever danced. As we watched his dance scenes with Judy Garland - who is a lovely dancer, but primarily a singer, we could see the difference with his top-notch dancing skills. He moved with total fluidity. On the other hand, Judy sang with complete power, skill, style and talent. Fred couldn't hold a candle to her pipes. The movie benefits, oddly enough, by allowing each to shine in their own way and help showcase the other's complementary talent.

The supporting roles were enjoyable as well. Peter Lawford and Ann Miller play the alternate love interests and, up until the end, my younger son and I were sure that Judy would end up with Peter, and Fred with Ann. Jules Munshin, an actor I'd never heard of, gives a wonderfully funny performance as a waiter. His description of how he makes the salad was comic genius.

Rounding out the film were awesome Irving Berlin songs, which are now resonating in our heads,  some incredibly elaborate sets, a very cool special (dance) effect where Astair moves in slow motion relative to the background dancers filmed at normal time. This movie had to have had a big budget and, all in all, was very enjoyable - though we would have enjoyed it a fair bit more had it been about 15 minutes shorter. I think it's rating must have dipped at least a 1/2 point by lasting just that bit too long!

It irked me to no end that the picture was set in 1912 when almost nothing about the film (other than an occasional car or telephone) looked anything like it belonged in 1912. Not the hairstyles, nor the clothes, nor the furnishings, the music, dance styles or the male/female relationships gave any impression of 1912. In fact, though the picture was released in 1948 I thought it had a very 1950s look and sound.

Iconic shot:

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

Why it's here:
Someone recommended this to my husband. Problem is, he doesn't remember who : ) So we know somebody thought it worth seeing and put it on the list.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours; black and white.

Our family's average rating:
7.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film has a bit of a slow start as we explore Grant's feeling hemmed-in in his New York apartment. Grant, a big time Madison Ave. ad man (a dozen years before Mad Men is set) is frustrated with his urban life and convinced that moving out into the country will address what ails him, his wife (lovely Myrna Loy) and their two daughters. They set about building the house that will be an escape from it all. Unfortunately, every financial deal he undertakes blows up in his face. It's the makings of a "city slick meets country stubborn" tale and it ends up being a pretty good one.

The film is different than other Cary Grant films we've seen in that its a bit slower, sweeter and domestic. It is great to experience Grant as the straight man while Melvin Douglas, who I had not really seen before, hams it up as the hilarious wise-cracking lawyer/best friend. Loy, too, is a joy in the film and the performances of these three lift the film out of what might otherwise have been just mildly amusing, into something worth spending the time with.

The kids really got a kick out of the construction scenes -- especially seeing the steam shovel that looked just like Marianne (from Mike Mulligan) digging the basement, carpenters using hand saws and hammers, the awesome guy who dug the well, the odd little closet upstairs that people kept getting locked inside, and on and on.

In terms of a history/learning moment, it depicts the earliest migration of the upper class out of cities and into larger tracts of land in the suburbs in search of that little slice of paradise and is interesting for that reason as well. All of this adds up to an excellent film for family viewing, though not necessarily amazing cinema.

Iconic shot:

Hamlet (1948)

Why it's here:
Our dip into Shakespeare. I really wanted the boys to see Laurence Olivier, widely regarded as the best actor of a generation, in this influential role.

Specs:
2 1/2 hours, black and white. We watched on a dvd from the library.

Our family's average rating:
7.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I wasnt' sure how the boys would take to full lenth Hamlet. They'd experienced some Shakespeare including having acted vignettes from his comedies, so we weren't totally unfamiliar with Shakespeare, but this was to be a big step into that world...  this was Hamlet -- not modernized, abridged or simplified; so I wondered.

Unnecessarily. In fact they loved it. No, they didn't understand every bit. I had to narrate a bit of the action and explain things here and there, but this didn't affect their abilty to appreciate the wonderful, clean rendition of the classic play. There is nothing distracting here to take you away from the underlying brilliance of the story. Just Shakespeare and excellent acting.

I loved this comment from a contemporary review in the New York Times, praising the just-released film:

[By being presented in the format of film rather than on the stage, Olivier's] Hamlet makes the play more evident by bringing it closer to you. The subtle reactions of the characters, the movements of their faces and forms, which can be so dramatically expressive and which are more or less remote on the stage, are here made emotionally incisive by their normal proximity. Coupled with beautiful acting and inspired interpretations all the way, this visual closeness to the drama offers insights that are brilliant and rare.

What a great point! It makes sense to capitalize on the natural closeness of film to really introduce your kids to Shakespeare, rather than going to see stage productions.  We talked about Olivier's performance as Hamlet and why it was so universally praised. We are not actors ourselves and we don't speak the "jargon" that makes talking about his talent easy, but we found him compelling. He just was this character. Totally believable. He conveyed such earnest, intense, intellect with the role. Incredible.

Iconic shot:

Life with Father (1947)

Why it's here:
We needed more William Powell. This one had the added bonus of Liz Taylor just a couple of years after National Velvet.

Specs:
2 hours; color. We could only find it on VHS tape from our library.
Set in Victorian England.

Our family's average rating:
7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
William Powell is the highlight of the film and is awesomely funny throughout. He had us in stiches with his out-of-touch, pompous dad, terrorizing the servants, criticizing his wife's relatives, ordering about his children, and generally blustering about. Best of all were his interactions with his wife (Irene Dunn) who somehow always came away with what she wanted. We couldn't quite tell if she was extra intelligent or extra ditzty, but either way, she managed to get the best of dad most of the time.

This film probably lasted about 20 minuteslonger than the plot required, but we didn't mind because of William Powell - I think we'd have happily watched him for another hour.

A side note is that the quality of the tape we watched was quite poor. The day after suffering through the weak color and staticky picture, we were flipping channels and saw that it was being broadcast on TMC! If you can catch it on dvd, or on television broadcast you might enjoy it more, but in any case, enjoy!

Iconic shot: