Hello, Young (and Old) Lovers of Cinema, Wherever You Are

It is hard to say anything original about this masterpiece of the Hollywood Studio system. But, here goes.

It begins, and ends, with the spectacular Score and Book from Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein. Although I am sure much has been said over the years that casts this inimitable pair in a more realistic light, I still find little fault in nearly anything they did. And that is coming from a Progressive Liberal who thinks "Oklahoma!", despite the complete absence of Native Americans is, still, a masterpiece.

I had the good fortune to see a smaller scale but still wonderful stage version of “The King and I” in New York several years ago. Again, the music and lyrics really drive the piece, so it matters little whether it is on a small, or large stage: the musical still, well, sings is the best way I can put it. And, against the breathtaking canvas of CinemaScope this film version is one for the ages.

It continues with the two leads who are perhaps two of the best that could have ever been chosen: Academy Award-winner Yul Brynner and the splendid Deborah Kerr. Brynner was really a giant of the silver screen, although unfortunately he didn’t appear in as many films as we might have wanted to him to. If he had only ever done King, with his commanding presence tempered by a heart of gold, that would have been enough. And Englishwoman Kerr did so many great American films with a perfectly straight American accent it is a relief to hear her speak and sing with her English accent and diction. It, as the saying goes, classes the joint up a bit. Am I right?

Much has probably been written about whether “The King and I” is a culturally sensitive depiction of 19th Century “Siam” (today known as Cambodia) or whether it celebrates or fails to take account of the destructive power of British Imperialism. That is perhaps not important in a basic Amazon film review. Nonetheless, the film-makers tried to get much right about the Siam of the 1800s, from the brief location photography in the opening to the exquisite set piece of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” set to classic Cambodian- style, Kabuki-esque theater. The latter, alone, is worth the price of admission. And of course the costumes. Oh, man, the costumes!

One final comment. If you love great music, then admire the late, great Arthur Newman’s masterful adaptation of the musical’s timeless score – listed as “orchestrations” in the credits but really much, much more than that. It won Newman – one of the titans of Hollywood film scoring – one of his several Academy Awards. The astonishing opening melody sends shivers up my spine, it is so good.

Watched on Amazon Prime Video. The print and transfer seemed to be of very high quality.

Dark, indeed

Although this "ripped from the headlines" story has a decided anti-big business bent to it, it is nonetheless a gripping, slow-burn thriller about one man's campaign to see justice done.

Mark Ruffalo is superb as a big city lawyer who takes on a small town class action lawsuit against Dow Chemical - jeopardizing his job, his marriage and even potentially his life. Supporting cast includes Tim Robbins and Anne Hathaway, but Ruffalo's restrained performance is the main event, here.

Reminds me of another finely etched role about a David fighting a Goliath, Michael Mann's excellent "The Insider" with Russell Crowe. Or, the similarly solid "A Civil Action" with John Travolta, and, of course the nearly peerless "Erin Brokovich" which won Julia Roberts her one and only Academy Award.

Hollywood loves it its David or Davida vs. Goliath stories, don't it?

Sheer Cinematic Genius

It would not be a complete exaggeration to say that "Great Expectations" is a nearly perfect film. There are of course many other films that deserve this rating that are its equal, if not its superior. Anything by Truffaut or many things by Bergman. Hitchcock's Vertigo comes to my mind. But David Lean's 1946 masterpiece just has way too much going for it not to be considered one of the truly great works of the British film industry. It starts with Lean who, like Stanley Kubrick hardly ever made a film that one could just call "good". His body of work was of so consistently a high caliber that his loving adaptation of his countryman’s finest novel is like a small, beautiful miniature (Wes Anderson much?) to the later grand Epics like Lawrence of Arabia that cemented his reputation.

It continues with the source material. Like Michael Crichton, or maybe Ernest Hemingway, Charles Dickens wrote novels that are either easy to adapt into film, or so well loved that great directors and screen writers work hard to get them right. Dickens’ own body of work is so vast, and impressive that it is easy to say that Great Expectations is merely one of three or four true masterpieces – Nicholas Nickleby, any one? Bleak House, my pet? – that the great pop culture author produced.

That is not to say Dickens is easy to adapt. His characters are some of the most vividly imagined, his dialogue and description some of the richest ever put to paper. Don’t get me started on plotting, as Dickens can drive even his loyal readers mad with his positively…Dickensian (yes, I went there) story lines. Small wonder Lean himself, along with four others penned the screenplay. And what a screenplay it is, condensing Dickens medium-length novel into a relatively crisp 118 minute running time. I don’t believe all the couple of dozen main characters from the novel made the cut, but the main ones, and the primary story lines survive.

And, what a story it is.

Young Orphan “Pip” is raised in the 19th century by the saintly Joe Gargery – deftly and tear-jerkingly played by Bernard Miles – when he encounters an escaped convict out on the moors. A kind gesture from Pip would seem to go unnoticed. I won’t spoil the Big Reveal for you and say that, fast forward a few years, and one heartbreak, and Pip is living with his good friend in London when a Benefactor blesses him with a fortune. Plots and fates intertwine until the grand Denouement. That is all the needs to be said because you really need to see how it all plays out so skillfully in Dickens’ plotting.

The film won the Best Oscar for Art Direction (now called Production Design, I think) and Cinematography. Both are of course superb. Look at the detail in just one set piece, the nearly Biblical destruction of Miss Havisham’s Great Hall about 1/3 of the way through the film. I was amazed at how dust was flying from the table and furniture. Dust which had to be put in place to resemble dust that would have gathered for decades.

But what it really boils down to is the Cast, and the acting. As would be expected from the Brits – especially during this era – every single actor and actress is superb. From a young Alec Guiness as Pip’s young adult pal Herbert Pocket and the legendary John Mills as an “adult” Pip, to a youthful Jean Simmons as the devilish Estella and of course Martita Hunt in the scene-chewing role as Miss Havisham. I could go on and on, but I need not, because this constellation of characters is ably played by a galaxy of fine British A and B players.

The end result is, as I have said, sheer cinematic magic. And, by the way, the print and transfer on Amazon Prime are both superb. So, no reason not to rent, or buy (as I did) this treasure. It is a worthy addition to any true film lover’s library.