Thursday, July 12, 2012

"Pre"Feminists, Strange Sights, and Big Ties!

Finally, we had some rain to break this heatwave we’ve been suffering. We decided to watch a classic from the ‘50s and one more old, scary movie.  It was…..interesting???

Movie 1:  Crime of Passion (1956, with Barbara Stanwyck, Raymond Burr, Sterling Hayden)
                                                                          
Kathy called this the movie for “pre” feminists—Women who were feminists but didn’t know it yet.
Fairly simple plot—career woman who shuns all things “typically feminine and domestic” falls for a detective and gives it all up to be the “little woman”.  We see her start out infatuated with the idea of catering to her new husband’s every whim with no other purpose or pleasure in life than to darn his socks and cook his ham and eggs.  However—this ambitious, power-hungry modern woman is not satisfied for long with the life of domestic “bliss”.  She uses schemes, machinations, and games (including a well-planned car accident) to maneuver her unambitious husband up the chain of command at the precinct and herself into a higher class of society.  As is the case with those hunting power like a lion hunts a poor gazelle in the savannah, the story ends badly.  And who bears the brunt of it all—the poor, oblivious, long-suffering husband who was content with his life as it was and didn’t see the need to seek out glory and control.
Notes:  1. I was at times confused about the timing of certain plot points.  I don’t know if that was on purpose to illustrate the “whirlwind romance” between Barbara Stanwyck and Sterling Hayden, or if it was just poor editing.  2.  Kathy loved this movie because it was “just like a soap opera”.  As she is the only one of the three of us that doesn’t watch Young and the Restless, I would be tempted to say this movie was a bit tame for a soap opera…. Although….for 1956, I would say this would be right out of a soap opera.  Definitely had the drama for one.  3. For the time this movie was released, it was interesting to note they had a couple women in roles typically dominated by males:  Barbara was a newspaper columnist/reporter; Barbara and Sterling Hayden’s characters were married by a female justice of the peace.  4.  Barbara Stanwyck  was 49 when this movie released…. She looked like she was going on 70.  The June Cleaver hairdo just did not do anything to help her.  5.  In the beginning of the movie, there were a number of times where we just could not understand the dialogue.  If closed captioning had been available, we would’ve used it.
Things we loved:  1.  “The Hip Shot”.  I won’t explain it because it’ll give plot points away…but if you watch this, you’ll know it immediately.  2.  Raymond Burr—he was young and gorgeous in this movie.
The line we loved to hate:  Your job is to be home cooking your husband’s dinner so it’s ready when he gets home from work.   Said by the police captain to Barbara Stanwyck at beginning of movie when she attempted to use a murder case as fodder for a newspaper story.    WHATEVER!!!
Ratings:  Jason  3.5; Kathy 3; Me…2.5

Movie 2: The Sentinel (1977, with Chris Sarandon, Cristina Raines, Ava Gardner)
                                                                         
Okay… I’m not even sure how to start out this particular review.  I’m very hindered in what I can say about this movie because I’ll need to censor my comments due to the adult nature of this film.  (I try to keep my blog PG.)  What I can say about it is BIZARRE.  WEIRD.  FREAKY.
The basic plot premise is a young, pretty fashion model moves into an incredibly cool, yet surprisingly cheap (Red Flag #1), Brooklyn Heights apartment after the death of her father.  As she settles into the apartment, strange things begin to happen (Red Flag #2), and she begins to suffer from unexplainable physical ailments (Red Flag #3).  There is the ever popular (for horror/scary movies) use of the secretive and mysterious inner workings of the Catholic Church as a backdrop for the plot (Red Flag #4).
I don’t want to really state the plot points in case anyone decides to watch it.  Honestly, if you tell anything, it will ruin it.  I will say this… you all remember the movie FREAKS I reviewed a couple weeks back?  We think they somehow merged that movie with this one….
Notes if you choose to watch:  1. Do NOT watch this with children.  I’m serious.  There is a lot of nudity and a lot of lewd and/or perverse scenes (“perverse” depending on your view of certain sexual activities).  Here’s a hint…. This movie was rated R in 1977.  It included scenes/acts that rated R movies don’t show NOW.   2.  I, myself, found that the movie didn’t really explain what was happening all that well, especially in the first half, and a lot of the time we were all just sitting there going “What The ____???”  I think a lot of the oddest scenes were thrown in for sheer shock value.   We were confused on more than one occasion.
Odds & Ends:  1.  Ava Gardner must have REALLY needed a paycheck.  She was beautiful (even older) and was good in her role, but boy she must have needed money to do this movie.  2. This movie offers glimpses of a lot of famous actors at the very onset of their careers:  Jerry Orbach, Jeff Goldblum, Christopher Walken, Beverly D’Angelo (her role is WAY different from Ellen Griswold, folks!).  3. There were some great appearances by Eli Wallach, Arthur Kennedy, Burgess Meredith, Jose’ Ferrer, John Carradine, and Martin Balsam….again, we think these folks really needed to pay the rent.
Favorite Line:  As Ava Gardner (playing a real estate agent) is showing the model the apartment, she says “I find that New Yorkers have no sense for anything but sex and money.”
Things We Loved:  Eli Wallach’s tie!  It was golden yellow.  It had paisleys (or some other similar print).  It was HUGE!!  ‘70s fashion at its worst.  And we loved it.  Why on earth designers thought it would be good to have a tie so wide it would cover a man’s whole midsection, we’ll never know.  But it was awesome.
See!! Awesome tie!

Ratings:  Jason: 3; Kathy:  2.5;  Me…2( mainly because I kept getting confused in the beginning.)
Disclaimer:  View this movie at your own "risk".  But if you do... I just want it to be known that it was KATHY that picked this one out.  (Although, to be fair, she had no idea just exactly what she'd picked out.)
We now have over 200 blog views!  I'm totally excited because this is just for fun, and I'm not really promoting it at all.  Thanks for reading!!!  Keep coming back!

3 comments:

  1. I've never seen Crimes of Passion, but from your review it sounds like a "cautionary" tale for women to avoid ambition. "It only hurts your man in the end." ;-) I think there was a type of genre in that "pre" feminist era that was geared toward these types of movies, but I can't remember what they're called. Good review nonetheless. I'm not at all curious about the Sentinel now. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see where you get that. It did feel that way. That her ambition only brought her grief and misery. On the other hand, you could see how miserable she was with just being a "housewife". The age-old debate continues...career vs. family-- better separate or better together...

      I really didn't wanna get this deep on a Friday... but there you go. :-)

      Delete
    2. Sorry, didn't mean to get too deep. :-) I'll have to watch the movie then. Interesting this was a major plot point in 1956.

      Delete