Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘George Cukor’

A Rather Convoluted Lack Of Justice

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“David Copperfield”  (1935) — movie review
[Apologies (in advance) to any post readers who may find this review excessively long / detailed.  Although, the movie itself isn’t unusually long, the multiple story lines are each important to the plot and therefore make an adequate review long and convoluted, too.  Because I’ve never read the novel, this review had to be “supplemented” by reading other reviews – and particularly Wikipedia (for novel and film).  I did try to “incorporate” and not plagiarize.  LoL.  I’ll try to get back to shorter and more reader friendly reviews going forward.]
Today’s second review is for the classic film adaptation “David Copperfield”, directed by George Cukor and starring Freddie Bartholomew as young David, gentle, observant, and trying to survive a childhood full of loss and cruelty;  Frank Lawton as the adult David, earnest and hopeful as he tries to build a life of his own;  W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber, the eternally optimistic debtor whose charm somehow outweighs his irresponsibility;  Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, sharp‑tongued, fiercely protective, and the first adult to truly stand up for David;  Basil Rathbone as Mr. Murdstone, the cold, domineering stepfather who tries to crush David’s spirit in his early years;  Maureen O’Sullivan as Dora, the sweet but fragile young woman David marries;  Madge Evans as Agnes Wickfield, David’s steady childhood friend and moral compass who quietly becomes the real partner of his adult life;  and Roland Young as Uriah Heep, the oily, “’umble” clerk whose false modesty hides a calculating ambition.  The film follows David from childhood hardship to adult self‑discovery, weaving together Charles Dickens’ humor, heartbreak, and social criticism.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I’ve never read the Dickens’ source novel nor seen any of the other versions.  This film was a major production for its time and it received three Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Film Editing, and Best Assistant Director. It’s historically significant as one of the earliest large‑scale Dickens adaptations that tried to capture both the sweep of the novel and the emotional beats of the characters.  It’s also remembered for W. C. Fields’ performance as Micawber, which many critics still consider one of the best Dickens character portrayals ever put on screen.  The film came out during the Great Depression, and audiences responded strongly to its themes of perseverance, kindness, and the hope that life can get better if you keep going.
Plot:  The story begins with David’s birth and early childhood, where he lives happily with his widowed mother until she marries Mr. Murdstone.  Murdstone and his equally harsh sister quickly take over the household, imposing strict discipline and emotional cruelty.  [Side note:  in old England, a widow retained use of real property after a husband’s death, but she didn’t “own” it.  If she remarried, the “ownership” of the property passed to the new husband.  In this case, to the cruel and abusive Mr. Murdstone and not to the bloodline heir:  David.]  After David fights back, he’s sent away to a boarding school and later to work in a London bottling factory — a grim, lonely existence.  Eventually he runs away to find his Aunt Betsey Trotwood, who takes him in and gives him a real home.  From there, the film follows David into adulthood:  his friendships with the ever‑optimistic Mr. Micawber and the loyal Traddles;  his deepening bond with Agnes Wickfield, who quietly supports him through setbacks and bad choices;  his infatuation and marriage to Dora, which turns out to be more fragile than he wants to admit;  his growing awareness of Uriah Heep’s scheming;  and his eventual discovery of love, purpose, and stability.  The story builds toward the exposure of Heep’s fraud, the collapse of several illusions in David’s life, and his gradual realization of who he is and what (and who) he truly wants.  It’s a long journey (both funny and sad), but always grounded in the idea that character is shaped by hardship and the people who help you through it.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  classic MGM craftsmanship;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “David Copperfield” is a strong adaptation without the novel’s length.  The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film balances humor and hardship in a way that feels more honest than sentimental.  It’s not perfect — some sections feel rushed, others linger — but overall it’s a well‑crafted, engaging film that still works almost ninety years later.  The story’s themes of resilience, kindness, and personal growth come through clearly.
Acting:  Freddie Bartholomew is excellent as young David — expressive, vulnerable, and believable in every scene.  Frank Lawton, as the adult David, is solid if a bit understated, but he carries the later sections well enough.  W. C. Fields is the standout:  his Micawber is warm, funny, and surprisingly restrained (for Fields), and he steals every scene he’s in.  Edna May Oliver is terrific as Aunt Betsey — sharp, commanding, and unexpectedly tender.  Basil Rathbone makes Murdstone genuinely intimidating, and Roland Young gives Uriah Heep the perfect mix of false humility and quiet menace.  Maureen O’Sullivan’s Dora is sweet and appealing, which makes her limitations feel sad rather than annoying.  Madge Evans brings a calm, steady presence to Agnes, and even though the film doesn’t give her much time.  You still feel why she is the person David should have been leaning on all along.  The supporting cast is large, but most of them make their characters feel distinct and memorable.
Filming / FX:  This is classic 1930s MGM — polished sets, careful lighting, and a sense of scale that makes the world feel full and realistic.  The black‑and‑white cinematography is clean and expressive, especially in the darker childhood scenes.  The London sequences look convincingly grimy, and Aunt Betsey’s home feels warm and safe by contrast.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the production design does most of the heavy lifting.  The crowd scenes, the courtroom, and the various interiors all feel like part of a coherent world.  The editing is smooth, and the film has that “studio prestige” look that MGM specialized in during the era.
Problems:  A few.  The film compresses a very long novel, so some characters and subplots feel rushed or simplified.  The transitions between childhood and adulthood are abrupt. Dora’s story line, in particular, feels underdeveloped — she’s sweet, but the emotional impact of her arc is muted compared to the book.  Agnes, while present and important, could have used more screen time to fully sell the shift from “friend” to “true partner” for viewers who don’t know the novel (like me – LoL).  The tone occasionally swings too quickly between humor and tragedy.  And, like many adaptations of its time, the film softens some of Dickens’ harsher social criticism.  None of these issues ruin the movie, but they keep it from being a fully complete version of the novel.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s warm, engaging, and surprisingly moving.  The performances (especially Fields, Oliver, and the two Davids) give the story real heart, and the film’s mix of humor and hardship feels true to Dickens.  I appreciated the craftsmanship, the pacing, and the way the film captures the idea that life is shaped by the people who help you along the way.  The Micawber scenes are genuinely fun, and the quieter moments with Agnes and Aunt Betsey give the film emotional weight.  It’s not a movie I’d watch every year, but it’s one I’m glad I’ve finally seen.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “David Copperfield” is a well‑acted, historically significant adaptation of one of Dickens’ greatest novels.  Its Best Picture nomination makes sense, and its influence on later Dickens films is clear.  If you enjoy classic Hollywood, literary adaptations, or stories about resilience and personal growth, this one is well worth your time.  It’s not perfect, but it’s heartfelt, memorable, crafted with care, and it does a respectable job of bringing David, Dora, Agnes, and the rest of Dickens’ world to the screen.
.
Click here (10 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

It Was All A Dream

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Gaslight” (1944) — movie review
Today’s review is for the psychological thriller “Gaslight”, directed by George Cukor and starring Ingrid Bergman as Paula Alquist, a young woman trying to build her life while slowly being made to doubt her own sanity;  Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton, her charming but increasingly controlling husband whose motives grow darker as the story unfolds;  Joseph Cotten as Brian Cameron, the Scotland Yard inspector who begins to suspect something is very wrong in the Alquist household;  and Angela Lansbury (in her film debut) as Nancy, the flirtatious, sharp-tongued maid whose presence adds tension to the already strained marriage.  The cast plays everything straight, letting the suspense build slowly as Paula’s world closes in around her.
Background:  This is my first viewing of “Gaslight”, although I’ve known the term “gaslighting” for years (as most people do now).  The movie is based on the 1938 play “Gas Light” and was previously adapted into a 1940 British film.  This 1944 version was the major Hollywood production and the one that became the classic.  It received seven Academy Award nominations and won two:  Best Actress for Ingrid Bergman and Best Art Direction.  Historically, the film is significant not only for Bergman’s performance but also for popularizing the concept of psychological manipulation that would later enter everyday language as “gaslighting.”  It’s considered one of the key psychological thrillers of the 1940s and remains a reference point for stories about coercive control.
Plot:  Paula Alquist, still traumatized by the unsolved murder of her famous opera-singer aunt, meets and marries Gregory Anton after a whirlwind romance.  They move into her aunt’s old London townhouse, where Paula hopes to start fresh.  But almost immediately, strange things begin happening:  footsteps in the attic, missing items, dimming gaslights, and Gregory’s constant suggestions that Paula is forgetful, unstable, or imagining things.  As Gregory isolates her from friends and the outside world, Paula becomes increasingly unsure of her own mind.  Meanwhile, Scotland Yard inspector Brian Cameron takes an interest in the case after recognizing Paula’s connection to her aunt’s murder.  The story builds toward the revelation of Gregory’s true motives and Paula’s struggle to reclaim her sanity and her life.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  atmospheric and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good? Yes. “Gaslight” is a tight, well-crafted psychological thriller that still works today.  The tension builds slowly but steadily, and the film does a good job showing how manipulation can happen in small, believable steps.  The story is simple, but the emotional stakes feel real.  The final act delivers a satisfying payoff without losing the tone of the earlier scenes.
Acting:  Bergman is terrific:  vulnerable, confused, and slowly unraveling, but never weak.  Her performance sells the entire movie, and her Oscar win makes sense.  Boyer is smooth and unsettling as Gregory, playing the role with just enough charm to make the manipulation believable.  Cotten brings a steady, reassuring presence as Cameron, and Angela Lansbury is memorable in her film debut — sharp, sly, and already showing the screen presence she’d have for decades. The ensemble fits the story well.
Filming / FX:  The film uses its sets and lighting to great effect.  The townhouse feels claustrophobic, with shadows, narrow hallways, and dimming gaslights adding to Paula’s sense of isolation.  The cinematography is clean and deliberate, emphasizing small details (a missing brooch, a flickering light, a creaking ceiling) that build tension without any modern “FX.”  The attic scenes are particularly effective.  The film relies on atmosphere rather than spectacle, and it works.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing in the middle can feel slow, especially as Paula’s doubts repeat in slightly different forms.  Gregory’s villainy becomes a bit obvious earlier than the film seems to think it does, which reduces some of the suspense.  And the resolution, while satisfying, wraps things up neatly in a way that feels very “Hollywood 1940s.”  None of these issues ruin the film, but they keep it from being a perfect thriller.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s tense, well-acted, and emotionally engaging.  Bergman’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the slow build of psychological pressure is still effective.  The film feels like a product of its time, but in a good way — atmospheric, character-driven, and focused on emotional stakes rather than big twists.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation. “Gaslight” is a classic psychological thriller with an Oscar-winning performance, a historically significant theme, and a well-constructed sense of tension.  It’s not flashy, but it’s smart, well-acted, and still relevant.  If you enjoy character-driven suspense or want to see the film that gave us the term “gaslighting,” this one is definitely worth your time.  A very solid classic.
.
Click here (30 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Frankly My Dear, I Don’t Give A Damn

Posted in Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 12, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Gone With The Wind”  (1939) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical romance “Gone With The Wind” (1939), directed by Victor Fleming (with uncredited contributions by George Cukor and Sam Wood).  The film stars Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara — the indomitable, manipulative, and endlessly compelling Southern belle whose willpower outlasts empires;  Clark Gable as Rhett Butler — the rakish blockade runner whose charm masks a bruised idealism;  Olivia de Havilland as Melanie Hamilton — the moral center of the story, all grace and quiet strength;  and Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes — the gentleman dreamer forever caught between honor and desire.  Rounding out the ensemble are Hattie McDaniel as Mammy (whose performance earned her the first Academy Award ever won by an African American actor), Butterfly McQueen as Prissy, and Thomas Mitchell as Gerald O’Hara.  With its Technicolor grandeur, iconic score by Max Steiner, and monumental production scale, the film remains one of the most famous — and controversial — epics in cinema history.
Background:  I came to “Gone With The Wind” with a very mixed attitude.  This was a film which I had avoided for much of my life.  The film (DVD) was a combined gift (with “Citizen Kane“) from my daughter who I fell into a conversation with about famous movies I’d never seen.  She watched “GWTW” in one of her high school history or social studies classes.  I’d never watched it for a number of reasons – the two main reasons were I wasn’t much interested in films “before my time”, particularly pre-1900 settings, and I’d heard it was a “Southern” viewpoint of the Civil War.  Although born in Missouri, I was raised almost exclusively in San Francisco, California and I considered (was taught) “Southerners” to be traitors to the Constitution and to the country.  Needless to say, I was not predisposed to entertain a positive “Southern” representation of either slavery or of the “Lost Cause”.  Anyway, I watched (sat through) the film years ago and was not particularly impressed – but I was looking at it through different eyes…
Released in 1939, which is sometimes cited as Hollywood’s greatest single year, “Gone With The Wind” was a colossal production for Selznick International Pictures.  Adapted from Margaret Mitchell’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel, the film cost nearly $4 million — astronomical for its time — and became one of the highest-grossing films in history when adjusted for inflation.  At the 12th Academy Awards, it won eight competitive Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director (Fleming), Best Actress (Leigh), Best Supporting Actress (McDaniel), Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Color), Best Art Direction, and Best Editing, plus two honorary awards.  Its historical significance is undeniable:  it marked a turning point in Technicolor film-making, set new standards for epic storytelling, and remains a cultural touchstone — albeit one whose romanticized depiction of the (racist) antebellum South continues to spark debate.
Plot:  Set against the backdrop of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, the film follows Scarlett O’Hara, the headstrong daughter of a wealthy plantation owner.  Obsessed with Ashley Wilkes — who marries the gentle Melanie Hamilton — Scarlett’s jealousy and ambition drive her into a series of marriages, manipulations, and desperate survival strategies.  As war ravages the South, Scarlett claws her way through starvation, loss, and ruin, determined to preserve her family’s plantation, Tara.  Meanwhile, Rhett Butler enters her life as both foil and partner, matching her wit for wit and flaw for flaw.  Their tempestuous relationship becomes the film’s emotional core, culminating in heartbreak, disillusionment, and the famous final line that has echoed through cinematic history.  The narrative spans years, weaving personal drama with national catastrophe, and ultimately leaves Scarlett alone — but unbroken.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  visually stunning;  several;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Gone With The Wind” is a monumental achievement in classical Hollywood film-making.  It balances intimate character drama with sweeping historical spectacle, and despite its length (nearly four hours), the narrative rarely drags.  The film’s emotional beats — love, loss, pride, survival — still resonate.  Yet it is also a film that must be viewed with historical awareness:  its overly romanticized portrayal of the Old South and its depiction of enslaved characters reflect the prejudices of its era (the 1860s AND the 1930s).  As cinema, it is extraordinary;   as history, it is complicated.
Acting:  Vivien Leigh delivers one of the most iconic performances in film history.  Her Scarlett is fierce, flawed, magnetic, and utterly alive — a character who dominates every frame.  Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler is equally compelling, blending swagger with vulnerability.  Their chemistry is electric, even when the characters are at their most destructive.  Olivia de Havilland brings warmth and dignity to Melanie, grounding the film’s moral axis. Leslie Howard, though miscast by his own admission, still conveys Ashley’s gentility and inner conflict.  Hattie McDaniel’s Mammy is a standout — sharp, commanding, and emotionally rich — and her Oscar win remains a landmark moment in Hollywood history.
Filming / FX:  The film is visually breathtaking.  Shot in three-strip Technicolor, it remains one of the most beautiful color films ever made.  The burning of Atlanta sequence is legendary — a massive practical set piece that still impresses.  The production design captures both the opulence of plantation life and the devastation of war.  Max Steiner’s score is lush and unforgettable, particularly the “Tara’s Theme” motif.  The editing and pacing are remarkably controlled for such a sprawling narrative.  While some matte paintings and rear-projection shots show their age, the overall craftsmanship is astonishing for 1939.
Problems:  Several.  The film’s portrayal of slavery and the antebellum South is deeply sanitized, perpetuating Lost Cause mythology and minimizing the brutality of the institution.  The enslaved characters are written within the stereotypes of the era, which can be uncomfortable or offensive to modern viewers.  The romanticization of plantation life is historically inaccurate and ideologically fraught.  Additionally, the film’s length may challenge contemporary audiences, and some melodramatic elements feel dated.  Still, these issues are part of the film’s legacy and must be acknowledged when evaluating its place in cinematic history.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  As with many epics, “Gone With The Wind” demands reflection.  Its emotional arcs, performances, and visual splendor remain powerful.  The film is both a product of its time (late 1930s) and a towering achievement of classical Hollywood.  Watching it today requires a dual lens — appreciating its artistry while recognizing its historical blind spots (mainly the overt racism of slavery).  But as a cinematic experience, it remains compelling, immersive, and memorable.
Final Recommendation:  Very High to MUST See recommendation — with context.  “Gone With The Wind” is essential viewing for anyone interested in film history, epic storytelling, or the evolution of Hollywood craftsmanship.  Its eight Academy Awards, groundbreaking Technicolor cinematography, and iconic performances secure its place among the most influential films ever made.  At the same time, its overly romanticized depiction of the Old South demands critical engagement / comment.  Approach it as both art and artifact — a masterpiece of film-making and a reminder of the narratives America once embraced.  It is well worth your viewing time.
.
Click here (12 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

She Was Yar

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Philadelphia Story”  (1940) – movie review
Today’s review is for the sophisticated romantic comedy “The Philadelphia Story” (1940), directed by George Cukor and starring Katharine Hepburn as Tracy Lord (a wealthy Philadelphia socialite whose upcoming wedding is complicated by the return of her ex-husband), Cary Grant as C.K. Dexter Haven (the charming ex determined to win her back), James Stewart as Macaulay “Mike” Connor (a cynical reporter who unexpectedly falls for Tracy), and Ruth Hussey as Elizabeth Imbrie (Connor’s sharp and loyal photographer colleague).  Supporting roles include John Howard as Tracy’s fiancé George Kittredge and Roland Young as Uncle Willie.
Background:  Hepburn is one of my all-time favorite actors.  Stewart and Grant are both waaayyy up there, too.  LoL.  So, this was an easy choice to make for viewing a rom-com.  Based on Philip Barry’s 1939 Broadway play, written specifically for Hepburn, the film was produced by MGM and released in late 1940.  Hepburn had been labeled “box office poison” after several commercial failures.  This role revitalized her career.  The film was both a critical and commercial success, earning over $3 million at the box office against a modest budget.  It won two Academy Awards:  Best Actor (James Stewart) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Donald Ogden Stewart), and was nominated for Best Picture.  Today, it is considered a landmark in the romantic comedy genre and preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry for its cultural significance.
Plot:  Set among Philadelphia’s upper class, the story follows Tracy Lord on the eve of her second marriage.  Her ex-husband Dexter Haven arrives with a tabloid reporter and photographer, ostensibly to cover the society wedding but secretly to prevent scandal.  As the weekend unfolds, Tracy confronts her own perfectionism, her strained family relationships, and her conflicting feelings for Dexter and Mike.  The film builds toward a wedding day full of revelations, where Tracy must choose not only between men but between ideals of love, humility, and authenticity.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  superb;  elegant and restrained;  minor pacing issues;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a witty, layered comedy of manners that balances screwball humor with genuine introspection.  It asks what marriage is for—status, perfection, or companionship—and whether love can survive pride.  The screenplay sparkles with repartee, while the thematic undercurrent explores class, vulnerability, and second chances.
Acting:  Katharine Hepburn delivers one of her defining performances, portraying Tracy as both imperious and fragile.  Cary Grant’s Dexter is suave yet wounded, a perfect foil.  James Stewart, in an Oscar-winning turn, brings warmth and humor to Mike, especially in his drunken late-night scene with Hepburn.  Ruth Hussey adds intelligence and subtlety as Liz, grounding the ensemble.  The chemistry among the leads is electric, and the ensemble elevates the film’s emotional stakes.
Filming / FX:  Joseph Ruttenberg’s cinematography frames Philadelphia’s elite world with elegance — manicured estates, polished interiors, and carefully staged gatherings.  George Cukor’s direction emphasizes dialogue and character interplay over spectacle, allowing the performances to breathe.  Franz Waxman’s score underscores the film’s shifts between comedy and romance.  There are no flashy effects, but the restraint is deliberate, highlighting wit and character rather than visual excess.
Problems:  Minor.  The pacing in the early acts can feel slow, as exposition builds toward the central conflicts.  Some supporting characters, particularly George Kittredge, are included for show not substance.  The film’s class critique is gentle, never fully interrogating privilege.  Yet these are quibbles in a film that prioritizes character and dialogue.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a reminder of how comedy can illuminate human flaws with affection rather than cruelty.  Watching Tracy’s transformation — from goddess-like perfection to a woman who admits her humanity — is both moving and entertaining.  The interplay of Hepburn, Grant, and Stewart is timeless, and the film’s final reconciliation feels earned.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a classic romantic comedy that revitalized Hepburn’s career, showcased Stewart’s versatility, and cemented Cukor’s reputation for ensemble direction.  It won two Academy Awards, remains preserved in the National Film Registry, and continues to resonate for its wit, performances, and thematic depth.  Rated “Approved” under the Production Code, it is suitable for all audiences.  Watch it for the laughs, and for the reminder that love requires humility — and that second chances can be sweeter than first ones.
.
Click here (20 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started