Performance of the Month: Deborah Kerr in “The Innocents” (1961)

Henry James’ “The Turn of the Screw” is one of the classics of ghost story literature, and when director Jack Clayton filmed his version, titled “The Innocents” in 1961, he created one of the classic ghost story films, due in no small part to the incredible performance by acclaimed British actress Deborah Kerr.

It can be argued that every aspect of filmmaking was working in just the right way for the production of this film, for I cannot find a fault with it.  From Clayton’s direction to Freddie Francis’ cinematography, to the screenplay by Truman Capote, and the dazzling work by child actors Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin, and the haunting musical theme that runs through the film, and yet I’ve always felt that the uncertainty of Kerr’s Miss Giddens is what makes the film truly remarkable.

Kerr was a bit long in the tooth for the role, at least as conceived by James, but it is the very fact that Miss Giddens is a spinster in early middle-age that makes her more susceptible to the supernatural goings on at the spooky old country manor where she’s been employed to care for young Miles and Flora, the niece and nephew of a disinterested London uncle.  Discovering the truth about the sadomasochistic relationship between previous governess Miss Jessel and gamekeeper Peter Quint, both of whom have died prior to the story beginning fuels her repressed longings, which she has previously submerged in religious fervor, as the daughter of a country parson.

With only the friendly, well-meaning cook (Megs Jenkins) as an ally, Miss Giddens begins to believe that the spirits of Jessel and Quint are coming back through the bodies of young Flora and Miles, who, to put it mildly, are most unusual children.  The question of whether Giddens is losing her mind or genuine hauntings are occurring seem rather plainly stated by Clayton.  He shows us the evil, leering face of Quint peering in through a window, and a gorgeously melancholy shot of the ghostly Miss Jessel dressed in black, standing at the edge of a marsh during a rainstorm.  But no one else seems to see these visions, only Miss Giddens.

Her fervor to save the children from these demons becomes an obsession with the woman, and Kerr plays her going off the deep end slowly and steadily.  Perhaps most obviously in her relationship with Miles, who speaks in an odd rhythm and says things like “my dear” to the governess, more like a suitor than a child.  And there is a very disturbing scene of an embrace between the two that is genuinely uncomfortable to watch.

Through it all though, Miss Giddens never loses her conviction, and Kerr never falters in her performance.  How she neglected to even earn an Oscar nomination for this amazing performance baffles me, even though 1961 was a fairly strong year for lead actresses.  I’ve seen all five of the nominated performances, and I’d rank Kerr (and the also un-nominated Shirley MacLaine from “The Children’s Hour” and perhaps even the non-nominated Claudia McNeill from “A Raisin in the Sun” as more worthy of nomination than either Piper Laurie in “The Hustler” or Geraldine Page in “Summer and Smoke”.  It’s one of Oscar’s embarrassments that Kerr went home empty handed on six different occasions, though they did manage to give her one of those lifetime achievement (aka Oops, we forgot about you) awards a few years back.  In fact, the lack of any nominations for this very worthy film just goes to show what a snobby attitude the Academy had towards the entire horror genre, a prejudice which has pretty much continued to the present day with only a few minor exceptions.

Oscar Rewind: Best Supporting Actor nominees of 1938

Over the past couple of days, I've watched the five films that were nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category for the 1938 Oscars.  Rather than record individual posts about each film, I've decided to make it a single blog entry and hope to continue to blog in this style in the future, focusing on the specific nomination that was earned, and discuss the merits of each.  At the end, I will offer my rankings of the five nominees, and also discuss some worthy non-nominees. 

And the nominees were:

WALTER BRENNAN AS PETER GOODWIN IN KENTUCKY
“Kentucky” was a 20^th Century Fox picture that starred Loretta Young caught up in a love story complicated by a family feud that dated back to the Civil War days. The feud is shown as a prologue, before the action of the picture moves to the present day (1938). As her crotchety Uncle Peter, Walter Brennan gives more of a cartoon caricature rather than an actual performance; it’s like an elderly, real-life version of Looney Tunes’ “Yosemite Sam”. Peter, who was a small boy in the prologue, carries on with the feud, and rather than being an entertaining old coot, he’s really an annoying old cuss. He talks louder than everyone else in the movie; he hollers and growls and gives a really over the top performance that wasn’t really worthy of a nomination. Of the three Oscars he received during his career, this is the one that was the least deserved.

JOHN GARFIELD AS MICKEY BORDEN IN FOUR DAUGHTERS
“Four Daughters” was a Warner Brothers release that was at heart a fancy soap opera about the troubled love lives of the title characters, all members of a musical family, the Lemps. there is a kindly widowed father, his elderly sister (all crusty on the outside, but gooey on the inside), and the four daughters of the title: Ann, Emma, Kay, and Thea. The picture is pretty slow going until the arrival of cynical, hard-living musical prodigy Mickey Borden, played by Garfield. Mickey may have talent, but he’s determined to waste it on reckless living, which includes upsetting the plans of recently engaged Ann. Their marriage is troubled from the start, but as Garfield’s character goes downhill, his acting becomes even better. He gives a fresh performance, that adds energy to what is for the most part, a pretty picture-book of a movie.

GENE LOCKHART AS REGIS IN ALGIERS
“Agiers” concerned the lives of a group of con artists and thieves who turn on each other with speed and no loyalty to anyone except themselves. Regis, played by Gene Lockhart, is envious of the fame and success of his companion Pepe Le Moko (Charles Boyer), and hatches a plan with the police to catch the notorious Pepe by luring him out of the impenetrable Casbah. Regis is a professional weasel and stool pigeon, and thinks he has the upper hand, but Pepe traps the rat in his own game and employs a slow torture to make Regis completely aware of just how much trouble he’s in. Lockhart gives a good performance in what is a fairly interesting supporting role, but there’s really nothing special here that other actors couldn’t have done just as well.

ROBERT MORLEY AS KING LOUIS XVI IN MARIE ANTOINETTE
“Marie Antoinette” was a grand MGM spectacle of the famed French Queen and her various scandals. Though the film was built around (and showcases very well) the talents of leading lady Norma Shearer, Robert Morley is a standout in the role of Dauphin (and later King Louis XVI). Morley plays him as a backward, somewhat slow-witted man child more interested in tinkering with clocks than with either being married or occupying a throne. Morley has some wonderful scenes: his introduction to Marie, where he tries to remember a hopelessly memorized greeting, then later standing up to his father (the King) when the plans for his marriage to be annulled and for Marie to be sent back to Austria, and a well-played scene with his young son the night before his execution.  The moon-faced Morley was a gifted character actor, and he succeeds in making Louis a complex character, as opposed to a caricature.

BASIL RATHBONE AS KING LOUIS XI IN IF I WERE KING
As French poet turned political activist Francois Villon, Ronald Colman is dashing and suave as he helps the starving peasants of Paris by stealing from the storehouses of King Louis XI (Rathbone).  If this sounds slightly Robin Hood-esque, it's probably intentional.  And the reason Colman rather than Errol Flynn played the part of Francois was because Flynn was already playing Robin Hood in Warner Brothers 1938 classic version of the famous legend.  Rathbone's nomination was earned for a quirky, eccentric performance as the king.  He cackles so much he seems to be auditioning to play the Wicked Witch in "The Wizard of Oz", and his inspired luncay makes up for Colman's noble gallantry.  And though the king may indeed be crazy, he's no fool, as he makes Francois Grand Constable after he helps reveal a traitor in the court.  But Louis plans to set up Francois and make him pay for his own crimes against the crown. 

Sadly Overlooked:

Lew Ayers gave a splendidly witty performance as Katharine Hepburn's perpetually tipsy brother Ned in Columbia's 1938 production of "Holiday".  He holds his own with these acting pros, and his scenes are a delight to watch. 

My Ranking:

Of the five official Academy nominees, my choice for the winner would be Robert Morley for "Marie Antoinette".  Morley gave a complex, sympathetic performance in the film and showed his range as an actor in a variety of scenes.  In second place, I'd choose Basil Rathbone for "If I Were King".  It's a hammy performance, yes, but it's so out-there that you can't help but notice and be entertained by it.  John Garfield in "Four Daughters" comes in third, and would probably have been rated higher if the film itself weren't so sappy.   Original winner Brennan is my fourth choice, and as I said earlier, the award was not deserved for a performance like this.  His acting was just as overdone as Rathbone's was, but to me Brennan's work distracted me from the movie; it was just too much.  In fifth place I'll leave Gene Lockhart, who was good in his part in "Algiers" but in the end, nothing very special or especially memorable.  Had he been nominated at all, I'd have ranked Ayers in second place behind Morley, who really deseved to be an Oscar winner for this role.

Not So Nasty Girls: “Bridesmaids” (2011)

The idea of “Bridesmaids” intrigued me a lot: a raunchy, “Hangover” style comedy but with women as the lead characters. Ultimately though, the movie hedged its bet and relied on some overused and uninspired chick flick clichés that couldn’t even be saved by the comic talents of Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy.

Wiig is Annie, and has, for several years now, been the shining star of Saturday Night Live, and McCarthy (as Megan) seemingly burst out of nowhere onto the sitcom “Mike & Molly” (stealing Amy Poehler’s Emmy in the process), and these two are the comic highlights of the picture, which also include such familiar faces as Maya Rudolph (another SNL alumni, currently doing an only occasionally funny Oprah impression in the only occasionally funny sitcom “Up All Night”) as Lillian, the bride to be, Ellie Kemper (The cute as a button receptionist, Erin, from the quickly declining “The Office”) as sweet newlywed Becca, Rose Byrne (the young attorney from “Damages”) as Helen, the perfectly sweet bitch, and the late Jill Clayburgh in one of her final roles as Annie’s common-sense mom. A face I didn’t recognize, but which made a big impression anyway was Wendi McLendon-Covey as the salty Rita. Rita gets some of the film’s best, dirtiest lines, but there is way too little of her in the film.

When Lillian announces her engagementto longtime boyfriend Dougie, she asks longtime best friend Annie to be her maid of honor. Annie is a pretty pathetic character though: her business failed, her roommates are an odd English man and his even odder sister, and the closest thing to a relationship she has is with a guy she sleeps with but who won’t let her spend the night. The wedding is something that Annie can completely throw herself into, despite the machinations of Helen, the rich wife of Dougie’s boss, who is trying to worm herself into best friend position over Annie. Dougie’s sister Megan is a firecracker of a gal, built like a fireplug, and her willingness to take on extreme physical, slapstick style comedy marks her as an heiress to the Lucille Ball school for comediennes. The only character traits left over for the other two bridesmaids are sweetness (Becca) and saltiness (Rita), so that is pretty much the only development their characters get.

Annie’s attempts fail miserably almost from the beginning, when a bridesmaids luncheon turns into a smorgasbord of food poisoning in a chic bridal shop, and the totally appropriate shower she plans for Lillian is immediately thwarted by Helen’s more grandiose ideas, and so the ladies take off for Vegas. Annie ends up sitting in coach by herself, and her attempts to get to Lillian and friends in first class show what a brilliant comic Wiig is. She gives such pathos and lunacy to a single line of dialogue “Help me, I’m poor”, that it made me laugh myself into tears.

Unfortunately, the Vegas part of the story ends quickly (thanks to Annie), and this is where we delve into familiar chick flick territory: there are incidents involving Annie’s completely worthless ‘boyfriend’, a quirky cop that has a crush on her, misunderstandings and hurt feelings between old friends Annie and Lillian, and finally a beautiful wedding that has everything including a cameo by the ultimate early 90’s pop divas, Wilson Phillips. “Bridesmaids” was funny, but never as funny as I wanted it to be. Wiig gave it a valiant effort, but her talents as a performer were outdone by her shortcomings as a writer.

It’s All in Your Mind: “Let’s Scare Jessica to Death” (1971)

This is one of the movies that I fondly remember from my childhood, so it must’ve shown up on the weekend CBS Late Movie or some such program during the late 1970’s or early 1980’s, and the title isn’t really appropriate, and makes the picture seem like it’ll be about something that it’s definitely not. Memories of the film have remained with me all these years as a near perfect example of how atmosphere and mood can elevate a rather mediocre film into something special. Certain images from this film remained seared into my head even though there was probably a twenty year or more lapse between viewings, and, happily, it still has the power to unnerve and unsettle me. It’s one of the lesser known scary pictures of the era, even though horror master Stephen King paid homage to it in his scholarly study of the genre, “Danse Macabre”.

Jessica (Zohra Lampert) has just been released from an institution following a breakdown (the details of which are never fully explained, which adds to the mystery of the film). She is an attractive young brunette, probably in her mid to late 20’s, who’s moving with her husband Duncan and good friend Woody out of the stressful city into an old house in the country (just the perfect place to recover from mental problems, right?). The trio are looked on as weirdos by the equally weird locals, because they drive around in an old hearse, and Jessica has the peculiar hobby of making rubbings of old tombstones. While doing this early in the film, she appears to see a young girl standing in the cemetery, but due to her recent state, she questions whether the girl is real or not.

A great deal of Jessica’s dialogue are voice-over narration in the film, and combined with the slightly off-balance way Lampert plays the role, we are never quite sure if Jessica has truly recovered from her breakdown, or if she is really the victim of a supernatural occurrence. Arriving at the house, the group discover a bewitching young redhead named Emily, played by Mariclare Costello. Costello later played the recurring role of Rosemary Hunter, the schoolteacher in the early seasons of “The Waltons”, but due to her strong presence here, I never completely believed her as the kindly teacher. Emily intrigues the others so much they invite the squatter to remain with them in the house. There is the inevitable séance, where Jessica calls upon all the souls of all the people who have lived in the house, and an aged photo in the attic shows a young girl in a white dress who is a dead ringer (pun intended) for Emily.

The only townsperson who is even remotely friendly to the newcomers runs an antique shop, and the mystery girl from the cemetery does turn out to be real, but unfortunately neither of them comes to a very successful end. Emily’s influence seems to extend beyond the friends and into the entire community, which sets up some intensely creepy sequences later on in the film. None is more disturbing than when Jessica sees (or imagines) her rising out of a lake in the antique white dress (an image that stayed with me since childhood), but the final sequence, with Jessica alone in a rowboat at dawn, with people standing on the shore watching her comes close. It’s not so much horror as it is a feeling of unease; that creepy feeling that you saw something move just out of the corner of your eye or heard your name called in an empty room. That final sequence always leaves me tense and uneasy, and I come away from this picture exactly as Jessica does, wondering about the fine lines between imagination and reality; sanity and insanity.

Please Pass the Hand Sanitizer: “Contagion” (2011)

I’d seen “Contagion” a month or so ago, but neglected writing about it because it seemed to me at the time little more than a smartened-up version of one of those 1970’s all-star disaster extravaganzas, where the movie poster was covered with a row of little boxes containing the faces of the cast members, many of whom had either earned Oscars or nominations for earlier, better performances.

And the roster here is like an Academy Award fantasy team: Matt Damon (Oscar for Good Will Hunting’s Screenplay, and two acting nominations), Laurence Fishburne (Acting nomination), Gwyneth Paltrow (Oscar for Shakespeare in Love), Marion Cotillard (Oscar for La Vie En Rose), Kate Winslet (Oscar for The Reader and a half dozen other nominations), Jude Law (Two acting nominations), Elliot Gould (Acting monination), John Hawkes (Acting nomination). When you add multi-Emmy winner Bryan Cranston and Tony winner Jennifer Ehle (who gives the film’s best performance), you’ve got enough gold statues to sink the Titanic (sorry, Kate Winslet).

The more I think about it now, though, I admire the tight direction of Steven Soderbergh, who proved in his dynamic “Traffic” in 2000 that he is a master at handling multiple plot lines and a large cast of characters (much like my movie god, the late Robert Altman). This time around though, Soderbergh and the screenplay put a few too many balls into the air, and a couple of them get lost in the shuffle.

In a nutshell, a scary worldwide epidemic begins thanks to that obnoxious Gwyneth Paltrow, who luckily for me, expires about ten minutes into the film. Her husband Matt Damon, in a completely believable performance expresses a multitude of emotional reactions to the full effect of the crisis on his and his family’s life. Damon was a handsome young man, and granted he’s aging and put on a little weight, but these things seem to be making him a better actor: he’s forced to rely on his talents and abilities rather than just his looks, and in fact may be a true character actor in the making.

Among the other big money names are: Fishburne as a CDC big shot, albeit one with world weary wisdom and a kind heart, who gets into trouble for spilling info to family members to keep them safe, in other words, the typical Morgan Freeman role. Cotillard is a brilliant actress who earned well deserved praise for her work in “Nine” and “Inception”, but here she is completely wasted as a specialist with the WHO that gets kidnapped in a third world country (this is one of the story strands that gets dropped every so often, and when it is picked back up, we ask ourself “now who is this woman again?”) Winslet has what used to be the Jodie Foster role, a dedicated young research scientist who puts her job above everything else. She’s good in the role, but she’s too good to be appearing in what is basically an extended cameo appearance in this movie. Law has an interesting character, an internet muckraker and conspiracy theorist, yet he too is never developed fully as a person and thus becomes one of the plot strands that we lose interest in. Gould has a very small role as a research scientist, barely worthy of a mention, and Hawkes is good (as always) as a janitor who desperately seeks Fishburne’s help.

Acting honors in the film though belong to Jennifer Ehle, whose portrays the most believable character in the picture, even though she does take a very unprofessional step to try and stop the epidemic as an earnest young researcher. Ehle resembles a young Bonnie Bedelia, and their acting is similar as well: unobtrusive, serving the story, and creating a character or grounded reality among all the craziness going on around them. She gets more screen time and dialogue than several of the bigger stars, and handles her role nicely. Overall, it’s a rather smart, enjoyable little popcorn movie, although it does make you think about just how many times you do touch your own face every day. It might be a good idea to stock up on some more Purell.

What Fresh Hell is This?: “Paranormal Activity 3” (2011)

I had the pleasure of attending one of the first showings of “Paranormal Activity 3” in the Spartanburg area on Thursday night with a nearly full theater (the later midnight show had apparently sold out shortly before 10pm). And to say that PA3 is a thrill a minute is a bit of an overstatement, however I will freely admit that I jumped out of my seat more during this movie than any other in recent memory. Directors Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost notch up the tension, occasionally leveling it out with some much needed humor, and then piling on the suspense in a way that makes me smile with ghoulish approval. However, for those looking for answers to unsolved questions from Part 2, there will surely be disappointments. Several of the plot threads brought up in that picture are not resolved or even dealt with in this installment, and in fact, one of the new explanations for the activity seems added purely to provide another sequel come next October.

The by now familiar faces of troubled sisters Katie and Kristi are only seen during the first few moments of the film, which is itself a prequel of sorts to the prequel that was Part 2; it’s not quite as confusing as it sounds. The flashbacks begin when a box of old videotapes is discovered that were made by the girls’ mother (Julie)’s boyfriend (Dennis) back in 1988, and were among the possessions of their late grandmother, Lois. As a child of the 80’s, I was happy to see the familiar static starts of video, and that ever present time stamp, and despite the beautiful digital projection in the theater, the film itself has the appropriate grainy, aged quality. Other 80’s artifacts, like a mischievous Teddy Ruxpin doll were less welcome sights.

Although we have been led to believe from the first film that the mysterious activity started around the girls when they were young children and held a séance; and from the second that a decades-old pact with a demon may be responsible for the disturbances, Part 3 deliberately introduces a couple of new theories: one revolving around Kristi’s imaginary friend Toby, and the other involving Julie’s coolly disapproving mother, the aforementioned Grandmother Lois. Kristi’s devotion to Toby, and her insistence that he is real starts cute, but becomes more disturbing as the film goes on. The intensity of her relationship with Toby begins to threaten anyone else who gets close to Kristi: the house’s other residents, as well as visitors like a creeped-out babysitter, and Dennis’ goofy assistant.

Imagery from the earlier films is repeated, including invisible hands grabbing and pulling people, strange trance-like incidents where someone stands staring at a sleeping body for hours at a time, and some kitchen mishaps so spooky that it would make Paula Deen drop her butter. Also from the earlier films is the recurring idea that if you are a male character in one of these movies, things are not going to end well for you. This may be the recurring theme of the films that bothers me the most.

To say that the ending is a cop-out doesn’t feel quite right to me, as I had assumed that the filmmakers would conclude the series as a trilogy, but apparently the franchise is making so much cash for Paramount Pictures that they are unwilling to see the story resolve itself. Even so, I did feel a bit cheated that there wasn’t resolution of the conflict at the end of Part 2, and that the ‘demon deal’ plotline was dropped in this picture. And, even though the story seems to be now headed in a different direction, the thrills, chills, spooks, and jumps come just as honestly as they always have, and “Paranormal Activity 3” guarantees an uneasy sleep for the audience, perhaps even moreso than the first two films did.

Revisiting a "lost" classic: "The Letter" (1929)



Jeanne Eagels as murderous Leslie Crosbie in the original 1929 version of "The Letter"

If people today are at all familiar with a film titled "The Letter", they are more often than not thinking of the 1940 melodrama that starred Bette Davis as the wife of a Rubber Plantation manager who is put on trial for the murder of her former lover.  However, the Warner Archives Collection recently released for the first time on DVD the original 1929 version of "The Letter" which starred Jeanne Eagles in an Oscar nominated performance. 

Having seen the 1940 Davis version several times, I was already familiar with the plot and characters, yet found that despite my familiarity with the story, my interest was held, mainly due to the jittery, nervous performance of Eagels.  The film itself lasts barely an hour, and was obviously made during the transition from silent to sound pictures, as evidenced by the passages of silence and the lack of a music score (which is one of the most memorable things about the 1940 version). 

The basic plot is the same, however there are scenes in the 1929 version that didn't make it into the 1940 revamp.  Whereas the Davis version begins with the shooting of Geoffrey Hammond by Leslie Crosbie, in the Eagels version we are introduced to Leslie and her husband Robert (Reginald Owen) in their bungalow at the rubber plantation he owns.  And the intrigue about a letter that Leslie sent to Hammond on the night he was murdered is dealt with quickly, as we see Leslie write the letter and send it off with a servant after her husband goes into Singapore on business.

Another change is that in the latter version, Hammond has a Eurasian wife (played skillfully and practically silently by the wicked looking Gale Sondergaard).  In the first version, a Chinese woman who is his mistress lives with him, and she is seen intercepting the letter after Hammond leaves to meet Leslie on the ill-fated night.  When Hammond visits Leslie, she is interested in rekindling their romance, but he rejects her, causing the killing.  When on trial however, Leslie will claim that Hammond tried to attack her and that she shot him in self-defense.  In the 1929 version we see that this is not the case; in the 1940 version, we are asked to believe it without being shown the true events that occured in the Crosbie's bungalow between Leslie and Hammond.

Much of the drama in the latter version concerns a crisis of conscience on the part of Leslie's lawyer over buying the letter from Hammond's widow in order to save Leslie from a guilty verdict.  There is no such crisis in the original version, as the details of the letter are made quite plain, and Leslie goes to pay for it, spitting insults and vitriol at Hammond's mistress. 

Though the earlier film ends after Leslie's acquital, and her brutal confession to her husband about Hammond's death, by the time the film was remade in 1940, the Production Code demanded that Leslie Crosbie be punished for her act of violence, and so I was a bit disappointed that the 1929 version failed to include the suspenseful, moodily bleak epilogue where Leslie recieves her comeuppance at the hands of Mrs. Hammond in a moonlit courtyard. 

Herbert Marshall, who plays Geoff Hammond in the 1929 version, graduated to the role of Robert Crosbie by the time the remake was filmed in 1940, and I think he handles the latter role better than the earlier one.  Also, O.P. Heggie as the attorney, Joyce, doesn't make nearly the impression that James Stephenson did in the same role in the later film.  Alas, however, the success of the film ultimately depends on the portrayal of Leslie.  Now, I've always considered Bette Davis' performance in "The Letter" to be one of her stronger, less-mannered characterizations, and one that carries the film as a whole.  Taking nothing away from Davis, however, I have to admit that in 1929, Jeanne Eagels was amazing as Leslie Crosbie.  Granted, the actress had a notorious drug habit that would kill her soon after the picture was released (and before she got her Oscar nomination for it), but Eagels' Leslie is all edgy nerves and much more of a loose cannon than cool-headed Davis is in her performance.  It is regreftul that less than a handful of Eagels' film performances survive today, but it is a blessing that "The Letter" has been restored by Warner Archives so that the work of this amazing actress can be enjoyed now, over eight decades since the picture was filmed.

A pair of 50’s rarities: “The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe” (1954) and “The Blue Veil” (1951)

Daniel O'Herlihy in his Oscar nominated performance from "The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe" (1954)

I have no idea whatever possessed me to pair these two films together, except that I watched them back-to-back recently, and, unbeknownst to me, actor Dan O’Herlihy who starred in the first picture, has a small supporting role in the second. That seems to be the only connection between the two films, besides the fact that they each earned acting Oscar nominations, and are little-known at all today. The first is a beautifully filmed, full-color adventure film, based on a literary classic and stylishly directed by Luis Bunuel; the second is a standard issue blacn and white melodrama; a tearjerker or weepie, if you will, about the life of a devoted nursemaid.

Daniel O’Herlihy plays the title role in ‘Crusoe’, and as such, the majority of the film relies on his ability to keep the audience interested in what is an already overly familiar story. Having most of the dialogue in the first half of the film delivered as voice-over narration doesn’t help much, however. Also, having never read the original story, I cannot say how little or how much the screenplay differs from it, but I can tell you that the scenery is very pretty to look at, and O’Herlihy (who got a Best Actor nomination) is quite competent in the role, but somehow seems to lack the heroic spark that might bring about more enthusiasm on the part of the viewer. If Bunuel had waited a few more years, Richard Harris or Peter O’Toole might’ve been ideal in the part.

Robinson Crusoe is traveling on a ship in search of slaves when he is washed ashore on a deserted island after a storm. The rest of the crew has disappeared, but he is able to salvage some supplies from the wreckage of the ship before it sinks. He acclimates fairly easily to life on the island, building a shelter, finding food, and making the best of the proverbial bad situation. By the time Crusoe rescues a tribesman from his fellow cannibals, though, I was more than ready to see another actor on the screen, and the story turns to Crusoe’s growing relationship with the man he names “Friday”. His attempts to civilize the native are complicated by his own mistrust of Friday, knowing that he comes from a tribe of savages. It’s an interesting comment on human nature, that after spending so much time alone on the island, Crusoe is desperate for human companionship, and yet when he finds one, is mistrustful of him, and makes himself ‘Master’ to Friday. Only gradually does the relationship between the two begin to resemble actual friendship.

The film ends as Crusoe and Friday assist some stranded sailors who were put off their ship during a mutiny, and the pair are finally going to be heading back to civilization. I’d have been more interested in what happened next, and the degree of difficulty both Crusoe and Friday found dealing with society after their time on the island. Since that is never revealed however, the story remains, for me at least, only half-told.

Lobby card from Jane Wyman's 1951 Ocar-nominated performance in "The Blue Veil"

Jane Wyman had won the 1948 Best Actress Oscar for her role as a deaf-mute farmgirl, rape victim, accused murderess in “Johnny Belinda”, and was nominated again for 1951’s “The Blue Veil”, where she was supported by a host of well-known or at least well-regarded performers, but make no mistake, this is her show all the way. ‘Veil’ wastes no time at all in grabbing for audience sympathy, as Wyman is introduced as Louise “Lulu” Mason, a World War I era widow whose newborn baby has just died. Naturally, this means that an employment agency is going to suggest that she take a job as a nursemaid.

She begins her new career working for Fredric Begley (Charles Laughton), whose own wife died during childbirth, and though Louise says she will only take the job temporarily, she stays long enough for Begley to decide he wants to marry her. Laughton was one of the screen’s great over-actors (he won Best Actor in 1933 as Henry VIII), yet he underplays very nicely, and is quite touching in the scene where Louise turns down his proposal. Instead, Begley decides to marry his secretary Alicia (Vivian Vance), who quickly decides it’s time for Louise to find another job. It is an absolute treat for a pop culture freak like myself to see Vance (beloved tv sidekick Ethel Mertz from “I Love Lucy”) in this movie, dressed to the nines and playing a sweetly nasty role.

Louise moves on to the rich Palfrey family, where she finds a chance at love with a tutor, Gerald Kean (Richard Carlson) who wants to whisk her off to Syria, though they become concerned with doubts about rushing into a marriage; doubts that were planted in the tutor’s mind by snooty Mrs. Palfrey (Agnes Moorehead, in one of her patented rich-bitch roles). Then it’s off to young Stephanie (Natalie Wood), daughter of career-obsessed actress Annie Rawlins (Joan Blondell) When Louise sees that Stephanie is becoming too attached her, she voluntarily leaves, explaining to Annie that she must become a more active part of her daughter’s life before it is too late. Blondell earned a Supporting Actress nomination for this role, which to me is not all that impressive and doesn’t have much impact on the film as a whole. I suspect she got the nod because of her long career and recognition as a top-notch character actress.

As World War II begins, Louise is working for a young couple who go to Europe to become involved in the war effort, leaving their baby with her to raise in the States; of course, she ends up keeping the child for eight years. When the remarried mother and her new husband arrive to take the child, Louise panics and takes off with the boy, then finds herself before a judge charged with kidnapping. The judge returns the child to his mother, and Louise, now, in advancing age, is unable to find another job as a nanny. To be close to children, she becomes a cleaning woman in an elementary school. Her fading eyesight happens to bring her back into contact with one of her charges, now grown and an optometrist. When he arranges a reunion with her ‘children’, and the offer of a job as nursemaid to his own children, there is a music-swelling, tear-filled happy ending for all.

I was first introduced to Wyman’s acting with the 80’s television series “Falcon Crest”, so was used to her older, steely presence, and sometimes not as responsive to her earlier, more sympathetic film roles, but in “The Blue Veil” she is perfectly cast as the loving nursemaid. She represses her own early tragedies and becomes a truly inspirational caregiver to the families she works for. Some of the sweetness of the story is tempered by the salty performance of Cyril Cusack as Louise’s lifelong confidant, Frank Hutchins, a cranky toy store owner. The film just avoids being sappy, though it is a sweet film, and I think Wyman certainly deserved the Oscar nomination she received for her performance.