Tag Archives: John Gielgud

O Youth and Beauty! — ‘A Place in the Sun’

Italian poster. I like it better than the American version.

Italian poster. I like it better than the American version.

I first saw George Stevens’ “A Place in the Sun” (Paramount, 1951) when I was a teenager and fell crazy in love with the picture and almost everything about it. Except for Sophia Loren, I’d never seen a woman so extraordinarily beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. I fell in love with her house up on Loon Lake, the Vickers and the Eastman mansions in town, the cocktail dances, the clothes, the big convertibles. But most of all, I fell hard for Montgomery Clift — it was a mad boyhood crush like I never felt before or since. I was completely besotted with him: I loved his gorgeous face, his haircut, his fantastic glen plaid jacket, his smile, his sadness — I loved everything about him except that strangely ugly voice. But much as I loved Monty and Elizabeth and “A Place in the Sun,” it was years — decades, in fact — before I was willing to put myself through it again. It was too damned devastating.

Montgomery Clift: Hello, Gorgeous . . .

Montgomery Clift: Hello, Gorgeous . . .

The picture, as you probably know, is based on “An American Tragedy,” but I’m not sure “A Place in the Sun” can properly be considered a tragedy. But since it’s supposed to be a tragedy, I’m assuming that, whether or not you’ve seen it, you know how it ends, and that’s how I’m going to approach the subject. But if you haven’t seen it, and you don’t want to know in advance how it turns out, please don’t read the rest of this until after you’ve seen the picture.

As for its being a tragedy — well, possibly it is, but I rather think it fails to qualify on one major and several minor counts. (I will pass over the latter.) To be sure, the Fates are lined up against the protagonist/hero George Eastman (Montgomery Clift), which is an essential feature of tragedy, and his downfall comes in consequence of a distinctly tragic form of error, known as hamartia (Greek:  ἁμαρτία). Over the past several centuries, the meaning of hamartia has been twisted into what many of us learnt in public school to call a “tragic flaw.” (Interestingly, in the King James version of the New Testament, ἁμαρτία is translated, with a fair degree of inaccuracy, as “sin.”) The original meaning of hamartia is neither “tragic flaw” nor “sin,” but simply “missing the target” or “wide of the mark.” It is something that’s neither bad nor wrong, per se, but can, under specific circumstances, lead to disastrous consequences — say, for example, you’re told to take a left turn where a right one is what’s wanted, and this error leads you directly and irrevocably over the edge of a cliff.  In this case, no tragic flaw or sin is indicated, but only a misdirection that sends you to your doom.

Monty and Elizabeth: When they were seen together at the studio, their incredible beauty often provoked laughter.

Monty and Elizabeth Taylor: When they were seen together at the studio, their incredible beauty often provoked laughter.

In the movie version of Dreiser’s novel, what sends the boy to his doom is his failure to swim in the right direction quickly enough to prevent an unfortunate girl (who capsized his boat) from drowning. He didn’t drown her, but he must pay for it. (God knows what Stevens would have done with the Hero of Chappaquiddick.) The predicament has the tragic essence, but its resolution fails to fulfill tragedy’s fundamental obligation to its shaken audience: catharsis. In “A Place in the Sun” there is no catharsis (κάθαρσις, in Greek), only a miscarriage of justice, the ruin of several lives and two young people dead: one by water, the other by fire, at the State’s decree and with a dominie mumbling prayers over him. Somebody owes me my goddamned κάθαρσις. . . ! Taken as a whole, “A Place in the Sun” is a ravishing, romantic, glamorous bummer.

Taylor was never called ‘Liz’ by her friends: she was ‘Elizabeth.’ She called him ‘Monty’; he called her ‘Bessie Mae.’ She loved the name.

Pauline Kael put it this way:

The conclusion of the film in which the hero (and presumably the audience) is supposed to be convinced that a man should pay with his life for a murder he didn’t commit — but wanted to commit — is bizarre. “Who doesn’t desire his father’s death?” asked Ivan Karamazov. Stevens and company would send us all up for it.

As usual, Kael sums it up brilliantly.

The last shot is of beautiful Monty Clift, with his gorgeous hair cut en brosse, on his way to the chamber where Old Sparky soon will burn his blood to ash and all his dreams to powder. And superimposed over this is the image of him in happier times with Elizabeth Taylor; they are kissing passionately, dreamily . . . What did Stevens have in mind? The crossing of the macabre with the semi-erotic strikes me as having distinctly necrophiliac overtones. At any rate, we can tell that George Eastman will fry with a boner.

Monty and Elizabeth: Love and death.

Clift wanted Betsy Blair in the Shelley Winters part. He was probably right. Winters had to fight to get the part (take a look at her interview below), but I think she fell into the same sort of trap Mary Tyler Moore, who was known for playing comic characters, fell into when she landed her first “serious” role in “Ordinary People.” Moore played the woman as a near-monster without the faintest tinge of humor — the actress’ anxiety about not being taken seriously led her to give a performance that’s so humorless it can’t be taken seriously. Winters was still a bombshell/sex symbol when she played poor, doomed Alice Tripp, and she saw the role as an opportunity to prove that she was A Serious Actress — not just a B-picture sex kitten. After this picture, she certainly became a heavyweight.

It’s a charming story, but it goes to the heart of what’s wrong with her in the role: she too earnestly seeks to be unattractive. Unprepossessing people don’t have to work at being unattractive — if they’re ambitious enough to want to love and be loved, they have to work to make themselves as desirable as possible. But Winters, wanting to get away from cheesecake, made sure the world knew she meant business: she played Alice Tripp as the Eternal Frump. Clift complained to a friend, “She played her tragedy from the minute you see her on screen. She is downbeat, blubbery, irritating.” Unfortunately, in Hollywood, this is exactly the sort of thing that’s called “brave” instead of what it is: a lousy, career-advancing, dumb-ass acting choice. It’s all about livening-up a stagnating career, not about giving a performance that best serves the story. And indeed, Winters was nominated for an Oscar for her “brave” performance, after which she was offered a much wider range of roles than the sultry glamour girls she’d previously been typecast as: now she played a wide variety of harpies, turbulent drunks, castrating Jewish mothers, brawling slatterns, bellicose barflies, matrons, termagants and tarts who couldn’t keep their stockings up, their skirts down or their wigs on straight.  But no more glamour girls. Excelsior!

Clift remonstrated with Stevens about Winters’ performance, but was overruled. Stevens told Clift he was “too sentimental.” Sentimental? What’s sentimental about wanting Alice Tripp to have a few qualities that George Eastman could possibly find attractive? As it is, he must choose between Angela Vickers (Elizabeth Taylor), a wealthy, sexy, glamorous, charming, educated, beautiful debutante and a snivelling, querulous, self-pitying factory girl with no education, conversation or interests other than her own miseries. Decisions, decisions . . . ! I imagine Betsy Blair in the part — sweet and homely, doing her best to be pleasant, pretty and interesting . . . and failing. That’s not sentimentality: it’s heartbreaking — and it adds complexity, ambiguity and drama to the story. One should feel as sorry for the girl as for the boy who got her in trouble. As it is, Shelley Winters (with George Stevens’ careful guidance) plays the first part of many in which audiences wait for her to get what’s coming to her.

Shelley Winters: 'Or maybe ya wish I was dead, is that it?' -- You got that right, sister.

Shelley Winters: ‘Or maybe ya wish I was dead, is that it?’ — You got that right, sister.

After I’d seen the picture a few more times, I became aware that it wasn’t George Eastman’s sad fate that I found so punishing — the horror of his predicament is not cathartic, but I find its remorselessness invigorating (like Hurstwood’s in “Sister Carrie”) — no, it’s the juxtaposition of the most glamorous love scenes ever put on film and the carping, sniffling dreariness of Shelley Winters: the way Stevens has conceived her character, she’s one of the Eumenides from “The Oresteia” dressed in a flea market blouse and a Republican cloth coat. Stevens described it to the American Film Institute this way:

The thing that interested me most about Place was the relationship of opposing images . . . Shelley Winters busting at the seams with sloppy melted ice cream . . . as against Elizabeth Taylor in a white gown with blue ribbons floating down from the sky . . . Automatically there’s an imbalance of images which creates drama.

Imbalance, yes; but drama? Not the way I look at it. Stevens seems to hold with Glinda the Good Witch’s observation that “Only bad witches are ugly.” It’s not enough that Alice Tripp is penniless and not as beautiful as Angela Vickers: Stevens makes her repulsive — a prim, soul-destroying scold. Yet when she dies, he wants us to blame gorgeous, ambitious George Eastman for having desired someone less excruciating and maddening . . . No, I don’t think it works as drama or as a fable with a moral. The picture isn’t critical of class and wealth in America (as I believe the novel is — though it’s been a long time since I read it), but rather a stern warning against the dangers of being poor and ugly (they get knocked up, make a mess of their ice cream and drown in ice cold lakes) and a grimmer warning against trying to jump across class lines (they go to the electric chair). It’s not the class system that’s at fault: it’s the lovesick fat girls and the handsome gate crashers.

Fortunately, with DVDs, it’s easy to skip all the stuff I don’t like and disapprove of and soak up all the parts that I find wonderful. It’s doubtful that anyone ever photographed the beginning of a love affair with more exquisite dreamy romanticism than George Stevens. In “A Place in the Sun,” Stevens makes the act of falling desperately in love look the way it feels. Here’s George and Angela’s first conversation. George has been invited to his rich uncle’s house for a party. Feeling awkward and out of place, he retreats to the game room to be alone. Then Angela floats in . . .

“Wow! . . . Hello . . . !” she says by way of introducing herself. They don’t meet cute: they meet stupendous. Did any love affair ever begin more promisingly? Unsurprisingly, the gown she wears in that scene caused a sensation in the 1950s; copies and patterns based on it sold for years afterwards. Edith Head won the Oscar for Best Costume Design, Black-and-White for that year.

I stopped the clip at the point where George and Angela are interrupted by George’s Uncle Charles (Herbert Heyes), who has just given George a promotion at the factory. Uncle Charles tells George to call his mother (i.e., Charles’ sister) to give her the good news. Then the old man, who has no use for his pious Middle West sister, beats a hasty retreat back to the party. The scene continues . . .

That’s Anne Revere as George’s mother; she won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Taylor’s mother in “National Velvet” (Metro, 1944). “A Place in the Sun” was the last picture she made before being blacklisted. Twenty years passed before she made another picture.

A few weeks pass, then Angela calls George out of the blue and invites him to a dance at her parents’ palatial home.

The disapproving gentleman is Shepperd Strudwick as Angela’s father; Frieda Inescort is Angela’s mother. Inescort made a career playing tart-tongued snobs and high society bitches. I’ve never understood their reaction when they see their daughter with the nephew of the richest man in town: the young man is an Eastman and he looks like Monty Clift . . . What’s their objection to him? If he’s not good enough for them, what are the rest of us up to? (John Simon once wrote of Strudwick in a late-career Broadway performance: “Shepperd Strudwick is respectable but dull.” That observation fits his entire career.) Here’s the famous scene that follows the parental opprobrium. To my knowledge, it’s the most ravishingly romantic scene in any picture. Franz Waxman’s score does a lot of the heavy lifting, but it’s also beautifully costumed, staged, acted and photographed.

Taylor, who was only seventeen at the time, fought with Stevens over the script in this scene, which he rewrote the night before he shot it. When he handed her the new pages, she glanced at them and demanded, “Forgive me, but what hell is this?” According to Stevens, “Elizabeth dissolved when she had to say, ‘Tell Mama.’ She thought it was outrageous she had to say that — she was jumping into a sophistication beyond her time.” But Stevens was adamant. As Patricia Bosworth described it in her excellent biography, “Montgomery Clift”: “He wanted to create a mood that was at once primitive and basic, ‘a kind of preordained meeting.’ ” I’d say he succeeded admirably.

“A Place in the Sun” was the beginning of a long and beautiful friendship between Taylor and Clift. For the rest of her life, she claimed that he taught her to act. A few years before she died, she recorded a seven minute appreciation of Clift’s career for TCM’s Star of the Month series. Most of those TCM Star of the Month shorts range between very good and wonderful, but if I had to choose, I’d say the one she did for Monty was the best of them all (with John Gielgud’s for Claude Rains in a very close second place). Alas, neither of those shorts is available anywhere that I can find. TCM’s website has Paul Newman’s appreciation of Elizabeth Taylor, but it’s merely workmanlike. At the end of Taylor’s appreciation of Clift, she says, in a voice choked with tears, “I miss Montgomery Clift. I miss talking with him and laughing with him  . . . He was so talented!  . . . and such a tragic figure! Oh, I loved him . . . !” She stops a bit short, composes herself and finishes with: “He was the best friend I ever had . . . and I think he’d say the same about me.” Often, when TCM shows a Clift picture — “From Here to Eternity” or “Raintree County,” for example — they run that video. I never liked Elizabeth Taylor more than I liked her in that little clip.

‘Murder on the Orient Express’

Original poster.

Original poster.

“Murder on the Orient Express” (Paramount/EMI, 1974) begins with a great, crashing cadenza from orchestra and grand piano, which resolves into the haunting main theme. The orchestration is so lush and lavish it’s actually funny: the composer, Richard Rodney Bennett, is letting you know from the first chord that he will not be kidding around. It’s an ideal opening to this superb adaptation of the famous Agatha Christie novel. The picture is all about style, glamour and intelligent silliness; the music captures this perfectly, and sets the tone for what is to come. The score is one of the very best ever to be composed for a picture. Early in the pre-production process, a serious effort was made to hire the legendary Bernard Herrmann to write the score, but talks broke down when he could not be dissuaded from his initial assessment of the sort of music the story called for: “It is . . . a train of DEATH!Sidney Lumet told him, no, he wanted something more elegant, sophisticated, romantic. But Herrmann remained obdurate: “It is . . . a train . . . of DEATH!” Herrmann hated Richard Rodney Bennett’s score — he may be the only one who did.

The screen adaptation is quite a lot better than the original novel. Over the years, I’ve read a lot of Agatha Christie novels, and I’m bound to say I cannot account for her immense popularity. I don’t mean to suggest she’s terrible, of course: at her best, she’s ingenious, and her two most famous detectives, Hercule Poirot (whom she grew to dislike intensely) and Jane Marple (whom she liked very much) have enough peculiarities to make them interesting. But the rest of her characters seem nearly interchangeable, and often the solutions aren’t worth the trouble it took to arrive at them. The novel that made her famous, “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” strikes me as the best of a fairly feeble lot, while “Murder on the Orient Express” is one of the least satisfactory. Except for Poirot, there’s very little in the way of characterization, and she doesn’t come close to conveying the luxury and glamour of first class travel aboard the Orient Express. The novel’s structure is unusually clumsy: halfway through, there’s an account of a seemingly unrelated kidnapping (based on the Lindbergh case), which interferes with the story’s natural momentum — and the story is told in stilted, unnatural dialogue. The motion picture corrects the structural weakness: rather than stick the kidnapping, which precedes the main action of the story by five years, in the middle, screenwriter Paul Dehn opens the picture with it. It’s a tour de force — one of the best openings I’ve  ever seen. It’s just under three and a half minutes, and I find it irresistible:

http://youtu.be/-peF3lX2r1Y

What is irresistible about it? Well, most importantly, it’s this: no matter how often I see it, leaves me asking the question, “What happens next?” In this case, the answer is: next we meet Hercule Poirot, who has just finished a case in Istanbul and is heading to England on the Orient Express. This sequence, too, is a tour de force. Director Sidney Lumet and his cast had exactly one night to shoot the entire ten minute sequence in a French train station; the set-ups were so complex that there wasn’t time to do a single runthrough — the actors and all the extras had to hit their marks correctly on the first take; the light technicians and cameramen had to execute their jobs perfectly without rehearsal and without a chance to do retakes. The result is one of the most celebrated movie sequences from the 1970s. This was in the days before autofocus, so when the camera travelled, the operator had to keep everything in focus manually — it’s incredibly difficult to do, even when one has plenty of rehearsal. I remember when I saw this picture in its first run — at the Cinerama in Seattle — after the long, backward tracking shot that runs the length of the train, when the camera closes in on the locomotive and the headlight suddenly turns on, there was a great wave of spontaneous applause. We all knew we were seeing something remarkable. At the time, I couldn’t have identified what, exactly, made the sequence so special, but it was extraordinary — unmistakably so. Here’s the sequence in its entirety. (If you want to skip ahead, the tracking shot begins at 7:25.)

http://youtu.be/eLIefG4QQzM

The other great improvement is in the vividness of the characters. It’s tempting to believe that the all star cast is responsible for making the characters so much more interesting and eccentric than those in the novel, but this isn’t entirely true. The cast is wonderful — especially Albert Finney, whose long summation at the end is a masterclass in the art of dominating a scene. But the actors had a lot of help from the screenwriter. To put it bluntly, Paul Dehn’s dialogue is far superior to Agatha Christie’s. He kept most of her plot and very little of her dialogue. She always got the job done, but she rarely wrote memorably funny lines. Dehn’s script is full of sparkling dialogue. Here are a few examples of passages from the book followed by Dehn’s adaptations of them.

First, here’s an early scene on the train. The man who will be murdered, Samuel Ratchett, tries unsuccessfully to persuade Poirot to act as his bodyguard:

“I regret, Monsieur,” [Poirot] said at length. “I cannot oblige you.”
The other looked at him shrewdly.
“Name your figure, then,” [Ratchett] said.
Poirot shook his head.
“You do not understand, Monsieur. I have been very fortunate in my profession. I have made enough money to satisfy both my needs and my caprices. I take now only such cases as — interest me.”
“You’ve got a pretty good nerve,” said Ratchett. “Will twenty thousand dollars tempt you?”
“It will not.”
“If you’re holding out for more, you won’t get it. I know what a thing’s worth to me.”
“I also — M. Ratchett.”
“What’s wrong with my proposition?”
Poirot rose.
“If you will forgive me for being personal — I do not like your face, M. Ratchett,” he said.

“I have made enough money to satisfy both my needs and my caprices” is the best line in this exchange, and it’s the only one that made it into Dehn’s screenplay. As you’ll see, the exchange is brisker and has far more personality in it.

Albert Finney’s performance is brilliant, but Paul Dehn has also given him better, tighter dialogue to work with.

Here are a few short passages from Christie’s chapter entitled “The Evidence of the Valet”:

[Poirot asked,] “Do you remember reading in the paper of the Armstrong kidnapping case?”
A little colour came into the man’s cheeks.
“Yes, indeed, sir. A little baby girl, wasn’t it? A very shocking affair.”
“Did you know that your employer, M. Ratchett, was the principal instigator in that affair?”
“No, indeed, sir.” The valet’s tone held positive warmth and feeling for the first time. “I can hardly believe it, sir.”

* * *

“Is there anyone in [your compartment] with you?”
“Yes, sir. A big Italian fellow.”
“Does he speak English?”
“Well, a kind of English, sir.” The valet’s tone was deprecating. “He’s been in America — Chicago — I understand.”
“Do you and he talk together much?”
“No, sir. I prefer to read.”
“And what, may I ask, are you reading?” he inquired.
“At present, sir, I am reading Love’s Captive, by Mrs Arabella Richardson.”

Here’s the scene in the picture:
http://youtu.be/IhS80UygPFA

Now here are two examples of Dehn’s dialogue that isn’t based on anything in the novel, but provides welcome and much-needed light-heartedness in a script that is essentially (and necessarily) an unbroken stream of exposition. The first is Poirot’s interview of a secretary named Miss Debenham (Vanessa Redgrave). In the novel, Miss Debenham’s only telling characteristic is her British unflappability, but Christie merely informs us of this quality; Miss Debenham’s dialogue doesn’t manifest it. Dehn solves the problem nicely and Redgrave takes it further: she makes the woman a smiling sphinx, and her response demonstrates that Miss Debenham listens carefully to what is said to her and wastes no time in supplying a maddening answer — and in as few words as possible.

Mrs Hubbard, a garrulous American millionairess with a noisy opinion about everybody and everything, is played to perfection by Lauren Bacall. Bacall had a great knack for this sort of part: she had authority and style, and never bothered about being likeable. Nor did she ever lay it on too thick — a consummate pro. It’s wonderful to see her float through a crowd of crouching, chattering beggars as if they didn’t exist.

http://youtu.be/QV_-qHp6hsk

Finally, one more moment with John Gielgud. Nothing remotely like this passage is in the book. I include it because there are few things funnier than hearing John Gielgud say the words “spotted dick.”