The Ruling Class (1972)

Following the death of Ralph Gurney, the 13th Earl of Gurney (Harry Andrews), Jack Gurney (Peter O'Toole) becomes the 14th Earl of Gurney. However, Jack is quite insane. Claiming to be Jesus Christ, he shocks his family with talk of returning to the world to bring it love and charity. He finds solice sleeping upright on a cross when faced with unpalatable facts such as his true identity. His uncle, Sir Charles (William Mervyn) is set on getting him committed and decides to marry him off to his mistress, Grace (Carolyn Seymour), in hopes of producing an heir who will take on the title. However, his plan fails when Jack’s psychiatrist Dr. Herder (Michael Bryant) is persuaded by Lady Clair (Coral Browne), who hates her husband, to cure Jack. Further, Grace has completely fallen in love with Jack and Sir Charles own son Dinsdale (James Villiers) is his ally.


Herder spends nine months trying to cure Jack and it isn’t unitl the night Grace goes into labor with their first child that Herder makes a break through. He introduces Jack to "The Electric Messiah" (Nigel Green) another patient who believes he is Christ. He uses his “electroshock” to jolt Gurney out of his delusions, showing him that the two men could not both be God and so he must really be the 14th Earl of Gurney. The plan works and Jack eventually does claim himself to be Jack.

Unfortunately he now thinks he is Jack the Ripper. Becoming the very opposite of his Jesus Christ character, Jack is now a violent psychopath with a fanatical hatred of women. He murders Lady Claire when she tries to seduce him and frames the Communist family butler, Tucker (Arthur Lowe), for the murder. He will eventually murder Grace for expressing her love for him. He also plans to take his place in the House of Lords, reestablish the death penalty, and bring Britain back to it’s former glory. Ironically, this side of Jack is more accepted in his class of people and they embrace this side of him.

I love Peter O’Toole. I mean seriously, has he ever been in anything terrible, and if so, was he terrible in it? I think not. The man is an amazing talent and it’s a shame that he was nominated eight times (thus far) and never received an Oscar for a singular performance. I remember the beginning of his speech when he did receive the Honorary Academy Award for his body of work in 2003…”Always a bridesmaid, never a bride…” Apparently he balked at the idea of accepting this honor. He wrote the Academy that he wanted more time to “win the lovely bugger outright”. But is children convince him that it was the highest honor one could receive in his field and so he accepted it.

O’Toole was especially wonderful in The Ruling Class because we get to see two opposing sides of him. Thus the film is lighthearted and funny for the first half, dark and sadistic for the second half, all due to O’Toole’s splendid form of acting. I could listen to the man talk all day and The Ruling Class offers up some hilarious and daring soliliquies. Oh, and the film breaks into spontaneous song and dance at the most unexpected moments. O’Toole sings and dances- it’s fantastic!



Oscar trivia:

Peter O’Toole has been nominated eight times for Best Actor for his roles in Lawrence of Arabia, Becket, The Lion in Winter, Goodbye Mr. Chips (Must see this!), The Ruling Class, The Stunt Man, My Favorite Year (Hilarious!), Venus.

Flamingo Road (1949)

 

Lane Bellamy (Joan Crawford), a former carnival dancer gets romantically involved with a small town sheriff Fielding Carlisle (Zachary Scott). Just when things were getting serious Fielding breaks up with Lane, informing her he will be marrying someone with more social rank. In truth, Fielding is quite a weakling, allowing himself to come under the thumb of the town’s political boss, Titus (Sydney Greenstreet) who disapproves of Fielding’s choice in Lane.

Despite Titus trying to drive her out of town, Lane remains, meets and marries Dan Reynolds (David Bryan), a man with just as much money and power as Titus. They move on to the infamous Flamingo Road, where all the town’s elite live. Though Lane tries to live a normal life, her marriage is soon marked by scandal when Fielding, now an alcoholic and well aware of Titus’ evil plans, visits Lane at her home and kills himself.

Lane discovers she truly loves Dan when she finds that Titus now threatens not only her but her husband. She decides to take matters into her own hands and take care of Titus herself.

Flamingo Road is a fast-paced, intriguing story despite being a bit predictable. Joan Crawford always plays the victim well but she plays at vengeance even better. It’s delicious to see Titus, played very skillfully by Greenstreet, get his comeuppance.

Love this poster!

Tonight on TCM!

FREDRIC MARCH TUESDAY!!!

Design for Living is on tonight! Catch it if you can!

Conflict (1945)

Conflict is a tense thriller that finds Humphrey Bogart playing Richard Mason, a man who has fallen for his wife Kathryn’s (Rose Hobart) younger sister Evelyn (Alexis Smith). After a car accident breaks his leg, Mason uses his injury to develop a plot to kill his wife. However, performing the perfect crime isn’t so easy, and in Mason’s case it’s downright mind bending. Thinking the deed done Mason cooperates with the police to “find” his wife while he develops a closer relationship with Evelyn. Unfortunately, Kathryn keeps popping up everywhere. When some of her jewelry appears or when Mason smells her perfume or worse yet, he receives an addressed envelope to him with her handwriting, he begins to doubt that he really did kill her. He starts to depend on the police and a family friend Dr. Hamilton (Sydney Greenstreet), a doctor involved with psychoanalysis, to set the record straight and more importantly prove to Mason that he is not losing his mind.



I would rather not spoil the ending for anyone who has not seen this film. Suffice it to say that there is no such thing as the perfect crime and even the most minute slip up can be one’s downfall. That’s essentially the moral of this movie and it’s brilliantly done. As a viewer, I was in doubt the entire time as to whether the crime had been committed or whether Mason was insane.
Ironically, Bogart did not want to do this film and after a little research, I could see why he may have had issues playing the role. No longer put in the category of supporting role with the successes of High Sierra (1941), The Maltese Falcon (1941), and Casablanca (1942) it was highly unusual for a studio to put their rising star into a role that portrayed him as a mentally disturbed killer with many weaknesses rather than his now more familiar role as the in-control tough guy with a heart. That being said, I really thought the movie was cleverly done and feel that Conflict is one of the more overlooked vehicles of Bogart’s career. I highly recommend this thriller which is also one of the first movies to have a plot depend mostly on the ideas and techniques of psychoanalysis.

Side note:

Producers pressed Bogart into doing Conflict by threatening to keep him out of his longed-for next picture, Passage to Marseille (1944), until he completed this one. Ironically, two years after Conflict, Bogart was once again a disturbed man plotting to kill his wife for the love of Alexis Smith in The Two Mrs. Carrolls (1947).

Tonight on TCM!

Broadway Bill (1934) An heiress and her brother-in-law defy her father by going into horse racing. Cast: Warner Baxter, Myrna Loy, Walter Connolly, Helen Vinson Dir: Frank Capra

Screen Gems: Casablanca (1942)

It took some time but I have now finally seen Casablanca. I don't think any introduction or synopsis of one the most enduring classics needs to be put down here so, I'll just give you my thoughts on the film.

Casablanca had all the makings of a wonderful film, starting with an A-list cast, an exotic and dangerous setting, justifiable melodrama, witty dialogue, and sentimental heroism. All in all a very sophisticated and entertaining propaganda film that exploits American values like freedom, liberty and opportunity. Ironically, the script wasn’t even finished before production began and no one knew how the film would end. I especially enjoyed it because it had a great balance of melodrama and humor. I also enjoyed it because you could never get a good feel on the people in Casablanca, were they sincere or looking out for themselves? Rains turns out to be a pleasant surprise.
Casablanca features Bergman at her best. I have seen her in few films and have not truly appreciated her talent until now. She is able to transcend both screen and time with her struggle between Rick and Victor. Not to mention the wonderful lighting that highlighted her weeping eyes to her advantage. As for Bogart, this is a film that gave him a little more range, at least for me who has only seen him as the tough as nails character he always plays. Rains and Greenstreet elevate Casablanca to a new level with their wit and European charm, and it was refreshing to see Dooley Wilson on a somewhat level playing field with the other cast members, being portrayed as the witty and sensible entertainer.
Overall, I really did enjoy this film, I wasn’t bored for a minute of it and until the end I was rooting for Rick.












Side note:
While preparing to film a movie entitled A Night in Casablanca, the Marx brothers received a letter from Warner Bros. threatening legal action if they did not change the film’s title. Deeming the title to similar to the 1942 version of Casablanca. Never one to back down from a fight, Groucho Marx dispatched the following letter to the studio’s legal department:

Dear Warner Brothers,
Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.
As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.
Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.
This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold Diggers of 1931.”
This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this dog-in-the-Wanger attitude. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.
I have a hunch that his attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. This bar sinister probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.

Sincerely,
Groucho Marx

Unamused, Warner Brothers requested that the Marx Brothers at least outline the premise of their film which Groucho did. Needing more clarification to Groucho's hilarious explanation, Groucho sent another even more confusing one. Warner Brothers did not reply and A Night in Casablanca was released in 1946.


Dear Warners:

There isn’t much I can tell you about the story. In it I play a Doctor of Divinity who ministers to the natives and, as a sideline, hawks can openers and pea jackets to the savages along the gold Coast of Africa.
When I first meet Chico, he is working in a saloon, selling sponges to barflies who are unable to carry their liquor. Harpo is an Arabian caddie who lives in a small Grecian urn on the outskirts of the city.

Sincerely,
Groucho Marx



Dear Brothers:

Since I last wrote you, I regret to say there have been some changes in the plot of our new picture, “A Night in Casablanca.” In the new version I play Bordello, the sweetheart of Humphrey Bogart. Harpo and Chico are itinerant rug peddlers who are weary of laying rugs and enter a monastery just for a lark. This is a good joke on them, as there hasn’t been a lark in the place for fifteen years.

Sincerely,
Groucho Marx


Thanks to:
Dr. Macro for the wonderful screen stills.
Chilling Effects for the first Warners letter.
All Movie Talk for the subsequent Warners letters.



Tonight on TCM!
The Far Horizons (1955) Romanticized version of Lewis and Clarks voyage of discovery through the American West.Cast: Fred MacMurray, Charlton Heston, Donna Reed, Barbara Hale Dir: Rudolph Maté