Girl Week 2019: Marked Woman, a guest post by Joel

R.I.P. Lauren Bacall

September 16, 1924 - August 12, 2014

Many of us are still reeling from the untimely passing of Robin Williams. However, another Hollywood legend has also left us. Lauren Bacall passed away yesterday at the age of 89.

Her death provides an interesting contrast with that of Williams. Since she was 89 and hasn't been in the public spotlight for many years, her passing is something we more readily accept. It's not something we feel the need to make a big fuss over. That's not to diminish who she was, just that the way she left us feels more organic. It's part of the natural order of things.

As for me, personally, I must say I'm woefully disconnected to Bacall. I recognize her status as one of the true starlets of her era, but somehow she's escaped me. To this point, at least. Looking over her filmography, I'm pretty sure the only thing I've seen her in is Key Largo opposite Humphrey Bogart. I love the movie, and love her in it, but just haven't gotten around to seeing any more of her work. Still, just knowing she's gone creates a bit of an empty spot.

The Ten Biggest Stars of Classical Hollywood

Hitchcock's World is a blog I've only recently discovered and enjoy visiting. John is passionate about movies, and about blogging which makes it a great place to hang out. He decided to start a blogging relay of his own and whaddyaknow? He picked me to be the first recipient of the baton. Aside from questioning his judgement (or is that judgment?) in partners for this race, I'm honored to have been chosen to start it off.

What is it about?

It's all about "The Ten Biggest Stars of Classical Hollywood." Rather than give my own spiel on what the rules are, I'll give you his:

What I have done is create a list of some of the biggest stars from the time period, complete with a case for why they belong on the list. I will pick another blogger to take over, and then he or she will select one option to remove. They will make a case for why that person doesn't fit before offering a replacement, also with a case for why they are a better choice. That blogger will then choose another person to take over, and the process repeats. As a tip you might want to make sure that whoever you choose to take over is someone you can contact, so that you can notify them they've been selected in order to keep the relay going. 

Keep in mind, since we're discussing Hollywood, the actors you swap in and out should have had at least a few roles in mainstream Hollywood productions released between 1930 and 1960. They don't have to be American, just as long as they fit that criteria.

Easy enough so let's get this started.

The list

Ingrid Bergman

Humphrey Bogart

Cary Grant

Henry Fonda

Katherine Hepburn

Peter Lorre

Marilyn Monroe

Gregory Peck

John Wayne

Orson Welles

Scratched off:

Peter Lorre

As John noted in his original list, Lorre became the go-to-guy for villains and sidekicks. He is certainly one of the greatest character actors the world of movies has ever seen. However, he often wasn't one of the biggest stars in his own films. While it is true that us movie buffs know all about him, he's the kind of actor most people know they've seen "somewhere" before, but may not be able to pinpoint where. They certainly don't know his name. Is he an essential actor? Most definitely. Is he one of Classical Hollywood's biggest stars? No.

Penciled in:

James Cagney

For starters, Cagney is credited by many as giving birth to modern acting. None other than Orson Welles called him "maybe the greatest actor to ever appear in front of a camera." In Hollywood's transition from silent films to talkies, he was a giant cog, giving some of the first powerhouse performances of the sound era. His list of iconic roles is as long as my arm. As an added personal bonus for me, what he accomplishes in The Public Enemy and White Heat still blows me away. Any list of the era's finest must include Mr. Cagney.


Since we're talking Classical Hollywood, there is only one thing for me to do. That's passing the baton to Josh of The Cinematic Spectacle.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Directed by John Huston.
1948. Not Rated, 126 minutes.
Cast:
Humphrey Bogart
Walter Huston
Tim Holt
Bruce Bennett
Barton MacLane
Alfonso Bedoya

Fred C. Dobbs (Bogart) is an American living in Mexico in 1925. He’s homeless and jobless, making his way through life begging for handouts from any of his countrymen who happen to find themselves in his path. His standard line is “Say buddy, will you stake a fellow American to a meal?” Finally, he bumps into a guy who won’t give him any money, but offers him a job. He and Curtin (Holt), his buddy who is of the same social class, go to work. However, getting paid for their labor proves to be much more difficult than it should. Eventually, they manage to literally wrestle their earnings away, an absolutely fantastic fight scene by the way. With this money, they decide to go prospecting for gold, taking Howard (Huston) along. He’s the old man from the shelter who seems to know a thing or two about it.

Howard is our wise, old sage and something of a narrator. His mouth is moving a mile a minute and is constantly imparting his knowledge of gold digging and warning us of what’s to come. He tells us without blatantly doing so. Still, in “history repeats itself” sort of way, the things he says he’s seen often reoccur.

Someone once told me she didn’t like westerns. Hopefully, I’m not being disrespectful by saying she is of the age to have grown up when they were more popular. Her dad used to watch them all the time, so she’s had plenty of exposure. Her logic is that everything looks dirty, especially the men. She said that they look like they stink. This disgusts her. I don’t know if she’s ever seen The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or not. If so, it probably turned her stomach. I swear I could smell Bogart and his buddies through the screen. In Bogie’s case, this aids his performance. His sweat glazed face, scraggly beard and tattered clothing complement the crazed look in his eye perfectly. I’ve often said that he’s an overrated actor. Most of his performances are stiff, mechanical even. He drolly delivers his lines while standing still, except for the hand raising a cigarette to his lips. I still feel that way. However, he’s truly mesmerizing in this movie. His character’s descent into madness is completely well played. The way he portrays it, and understanding where he came from, it’s easy to believe that the precious gem clouds his vision a little more each day.

The ending is a bit curious. We know precisely how it turns out for Dobbs and Howard. We’re less certain about what lies ahead for Curtin. His story remains to be written. In that way, he is like us. After experiencing TToSM, we know we’ve been enriched, as he was. However in his case, neither he nor we can decide if it was a success. As we move forward and experience other things, we can revisit it and see how we feel at that moment.

MY SCORE: 10/10

Bullets or Ballots

Directed by William Keighley.
1936. Not Rated, 82 minutes.
Cast:
Edward G. Robinson
Humphrey Bogart
Joan Blandell
Barton MacLane

Once Cpt. McLaren (Joe King) takes over the police department, he fires Johnny Blake (Robinson), one of the most successful and feared officers on the force. The local mob boss, Al Kruger (MacLane) seizes the opportunity and recruits Blake to join his gang. Based on the story of real-life cop Johnny Broderick. Most famous for his roles as a gangster, Robinson switches sides of the law in one of Hollywood's earliest tales of an undercover cop who may have gotten in too deep (movie buffs will see what I did there). As is usually the case with Robinson, it's a virtuoso performance. In this case, he exudes the arrogance necessary to move up the criminal ladder. To help matters out, the cast also includes a particularly angry Bogart for Robinson to go back and forth with. The story does a nice job of putting our hero in compromising positions for him to figure out. Best of all, the ending is a courageous one, particularly for the era. It leaves us a little unsure how we're supposed to feel. The entire film is a blueprint for the many movies of its kind to follow.

MY SCORE: 10/10

The Caine Mutiny

Directed by Edward Dmytryk.
1954. Not Rated, 125 minutes.
Cast:
Humphrey Bogart
Fred MacMurray
Van Johnson
Robert Francis
Jose Ferrer
Lee Marvin
May Wynn
E. G. Marshall
Tom Tully
Warner Anderson

When Captain Queeg (Bogart) takes over the USS Caine during WWII, he finds his inherited crew mirrors his dilapidated ship, completely slack and barely, if at all, worthy of the United States Navy. However, it soon becomes apparent to them that their new captain may have spent a few too many days at sea. The question is do they muster enough evidence and gumption to relieve him of his duty before he gets them killed, without approval from further up the chain of command. If they do, what will the consequences be?

Those are intriguing questions and the movie tackles each as it transforms from a doomed-at-sea epic to a courtroom drama. Both portions are outstanding and keep you on the edge of your seat. The situations that arise aboard the Caine really capture the essence of a crew constantly walking on eggshells. In court, it’s a real question of whether these men who did what seems to be the right thing will become victim to the law.

There is one portion of the movie that doesn’t work for me. The romance between young Ensign Keith and his gal at home, May Wynn (herself) feels flat. It hints at an almost Oedipal relationship between he and his mother but never really becomes anything substantial. It feels shoved in so the movie doesn’t completely alienate female viewers. Yes, I realize the movie is based on a novel which included this part of the story, as well. However, if it were all left on the cutting room floor it wouldn’t change the movie one iota.

That said, TCM is still a true American classic. It achieves such status mostly on the back of one Humphrey Bogart. I’m one of those blasphemers who really isn’t impressed by Bogart. To me, he’s wildly overrated. Granted, he’s been in some great movies but I’ve never felt they were great because of him. In my eyes, he wasn’t the best thing about any of them. His acting largely seems to consist of holding the cigarette he’s smoking in one hand while having the other hand in his pocket and delivering his lines in something barely more than a monotone manner with a blank stare on his face. That is not the case, here. As the unstable captain, he’s simply dynamite. He commands the screen and is truly mesmerizing. For my money, it’s one of his best performances and worthy of the Best Actor nom he received.

If you’re a film buff, this is a must-see. It deserves its spot as one of the great cinematic achievements.