advise & consent (1962)

advise and consent is very complex in its evaluation and exploration of american politics. as such the film feels incredibly authentic, and very honest an interpretation of what happens behind the scenes of national government. for its time the film manages to not only feel very fresh and bold, but almost nostalgic at the same time. bold in the sense that it is tackling incredibly controversial subject matter for 1962, but nostalgic in the slow pace and black and white photography that is used to convey the story.

at its core the film is an exploration into the corruption of an honest man, in the shape of robert leffingwell. the honest man gradually becomes corrupt as he climbs the political chain, the scene in the commitee where he 'breaks' the witness is heartbreaking in its display of how far a man can fall. the character of brigham anderson appears to be an attempt to rectify the narratives stance, by giving a second chance for someone to speak out and be honest. his subsequent death is genuinely distressing and the emotional peak of the picture.

strangely, at least based on what we are to expect of a film, charles laughton is the star of advise and consent. his character is discussed intently by every existing character, and at great length several minutes before his first appearance in the picture. his seab cooley is a terrifying and perfectly crafted example of character acting. henry fonda, as the young politician at the center of the controversies is great in a role that is surprisingly subdued. i guess such a comment is clearly the result of a film with such a large ensemble cast.

the moment with the president sat between the portrait of abraham lincoln and the portrait of george washington speaks volumes. not only is it a reminder of just how well otto preminger can shoot a film (the use of the widescreen pallett is inspired, and serves to remind us just how visual this rather muted picture is), but it also serves as a witty nod to the rose-tinted politics of the past. each of the characters within the film seems to be standing up for what they believe to be right, be it the upholding of the rules of congress or the defense against such dubious political figures as seab cooley, yet by doing so they are contradicting everything they claim to be just.

the night of the hunter (1955)

french film bible, cahiers du cinema recently named charles laughton's sole directorial effort as the second greatest film of all time, which in anyone's eyes is quite the achievement, but in the mind of someone whom regards the french magazines opinion very highly its even more of an endorsement. having not seen the night of the hunter for around five years, it was with the poll that im conducting at the moment (see the 400 blows) in mind that i revisited it.

has there ever been a more chilling villain in all of cinema than robert mitchum's 'preacher'? this is the performance that defines mitchum's career for this viewer, and it is a portrayal that affected me many years before having actually seen the film. you see, i have fond memories from my childhood, of seeing a photograph of robert mitchum, hands adorned with love/hate, leaning against a white picket fence and smiling affably into the camera. it would later transpire that this photograph was a (rather oddly chosen) promotion still from the night of the hunter, although at the time i genuinely didnt have a clue where it was from, and in a similiar vain i dont actually remember where it was that i saw the photo. it was from this brief tease that i searched out the night of the hunter on VHS. i must have been around 15.

having finally discovered the film that had lingered in my mind for so long i wasnt disappointed, although i will admit that some of the films deeper subtext did go over my head at the time. it wasnt until this most recent viewing that i was fully able to comprehend the entire scope of the picture. understanding the logistics of the silent film and german expressionism helped a great deal too, in providing further enjoyment, as i feel that laughton's film owes as much to murnau or lang as it does to the contemporary cinema of the mid-1950's. the stark blacks of the starkly star-decorated skies add a depth quite unusual for typical hollywood fare of the time, and while the general concept is dealt with in a fairly laconic manner, the horror on display is rather heavy and forebearing. the controversial nature of the representation of the 'preacher' in the film may have drawn protest too, although i sincerely doubt his actual credentials. in spite of all of this, the fact that the film is one of cinema history's all-time great failures is still beyond me, with the repurcusions felt by the films director one of the biggest crimes of the incident.

charles laughton's reluctance to work on the other side of the camera is one of the great injustice's of the cinema, the enticing question of "what if...?" has rarely been more apt.

jamaica inn (1939)

while the opening scenes of the film impressed and charles laughton's performance was the usual combination of bombast and emotional believability, the rest of this early example of hitchcock's british period failed to work for this viewer. the storming of a capsized ship could have come straight from a silent film, so well constructed was the section in a visual sense, but soon after i found myself in a uniue situation thus far associated with hitchcock; i was struck down with boredom. the "twist" is seen coming from a mile away, with its revelation coming so early on that i actually thought the third act was in full swing. disappointing to say the least, the premise really hooked me, yet the execution failed terribly.