The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek (Preston Sturges, 1944)
Of all the comedies from writer-director Preston Sturges, The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek might be one of the most appreciated. Maybe for its irreverent satire or the sheer fun this movie is all about. But the thing that hooked me was figuring how the censors of the Hays Code were waking up pregnant one morning never knew what happened to them just like its lead character Trudy (Betty Hutton). They did not knew what happened but they sure let one big rock fall into the middle of the creek.
It is often said that black and white films were more « artsy » and that they truly represented the craft that is Cinema. However, the right handling of the coloured medium can easily surpass the best use of the smoothest B&W. A wider color palette, a much easier graduation of colors and light can easily support this argument. In the case of Meet Me in St. Louis, the superb use of bright colors in the costumes and the sets added to Vincente Minnelli’s sumptuous mise en scène can’t be wrong.
Set in 1903, the year before the World Fair of 1904 held in St. Louis, the Smith family has four girls and one boy. Rose (Lucille Bremer), Esther (Judy Garland), Agnes, and Tootie (Margaret O'Brien) and Lon Jr. as the only boy. The story revolves around the family but more specifically around Esther, 17 years old who has a crush to the guy next door: John Truett (Tom Drake). Everything is picture perfect in the Smith house: the family is tight together and Mr. Smith (Leon Ames) a business is wealthy. Until, he accepts a higher position in his company and a transfer to New York City. For the elder girls this is catastrophic because their main interests are the nice men of St. Louis.
The story is told with the passing of the seasons like the chapters of a novel retelling the story of a family reminding me of Little Women at some point. But here, the drama isn’t really as dramatic as the Leo McCarey film. Let’s also keep in mind that this Garland/Minnelli vehicle is a Musical after all. Both were renowned for their mastery of the genre. This is right after the shooting of Meet Me in St. Louis that they got together and had baby Liza Minnelli.
Since we are into the Musical genre let’s have a look at the numbers. They doesn’t seem too forced to fit into the story and at some points they are parts of the action. The “cutest” moment is the duo of Esther and her younger sister Tootie during the birthday party of their brother Lon. Seeing Garland singing and dancing with the child reminds that she started singing on a stage at the age of two years old and that her life always have been around show business. The songs sung by Garland are classics of the genre and are never too long into the pace of every scene. It shows a great mastery in the craft of dosing the numbers and the story. Garland’s contralto voice is perfect and even she is the shortest person on the set, at 4’11” she is the biggest star.
Musicals never were love at first sight for me, but the more I discover the classics and the more I watch them the more I grow to like them. They luscious colors, the superb sets and costumes and the beautiful ladies are many reasons why I enjoyed Meet Me in St. Louis so much. It also feels like a well crafted literary adaptation nicely translated on the big screen. And the tunes just stick into your head I am still humming it as I write those lines: Meet me in St. Louis Louie!
Of the many great directors, Howard Hawks is one of the most respected alongside John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock. His career has been punctuated of highs and lows. His highs are so great that his films are undying classics. Navigating between the genres, the Westerns (Red River, Rio Bravo, El Dorado, Rio Lobo), the screwball comedy (His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby), Film Noir (The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not), Historical melodrama (The Land of the Pharaohs), Adventure (Hatari!) he always did what he wanted to do. Never a technical director, he is a storyteller and a great dialogue writer. His line, “You know how to whistle Steve? Just put your lips together and blow!” said by Lauren Bacall in To Have and to Have Not might be the sexiest line ever said on film. There’s also the presence of Bacall but we’ll get back on that later. Hawks is considered by many as the greatest director of all time; the French New Wave praised his films even Hatari!, that is underrated by lots of critics, François Truffaut saw the work of Hawks and compared the story of the film to the making of an actual movie. Nowadays, a guy named Quentin Tarantino is obsessed by Hawks and he gives a test to all his potential girlfriends: to watch Rio Bravo. If the girl doesn’t like the film she’s not girlfriend material! As of today’s standards it’s difficult to make a comparison of The Grey Fox with an actual director. First, Hawks was an artist and his films were made with big budgets, always over schedule. He was the highest paid director of his time because his films made good money. He had artistic freedom and he was also the producer of his films. It is almost impossible to think that something like this would be possible in a world where the few directors that are making interesting films in major studios have so much difficulties keeping their director’s cut. Well, just call me a nostalgic or a stubborn classic movie lover I will gladly wear those labels if it is to watch Howard Hawks pictures all day!
To Have and Have Not represents everything about Classic Cinema that we cherish; a beautiful leading actress, a great legend, subtext dialogues, laughs, and an intrigue. Or like another guy used to say; a girl and a gun, Jean-Luc Godard you’ve recognized him here.
The beautiful leading lady is Lauren Bacall, Marie or nicknamed Slim like Hawks’ wife at the time. An almost skinny lady with a deep voice and sexy facial expressions. At only nineteen years old, her screen test was the famous line aforementioned in this review. When Hawks saw her he decided to make her part bigger and use the love story between Bacall and Humphrey Bogart(they met on the set of To Have and Have Not) to add more scenes involving both of them. The chemistry of the two actors is passionate and makes the viewer almost like a voyeur that stares at one of the greatest love stories of Hollywood. The pairing of those two lovers has never been equalled and on screen it is reflected so blissfully that you feel jealous of Bogie.
In 1944, Bogart’s legend was made and his presence in The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca could have made him an unforgettable star. To Have and Have Not changed his life because he met Bacall the woman he’ll marry and stay with until his death. Also because he achieves a level of performance that I think is the greatest of his entire career. Way much better than The African Queen that got him his only Oscar. His scenes with Walter Brennan are pure Hawksian Cinema, the two professionals united together and working as a team to attain their goal, the constant jokes about each other, the tradition of the Hawksian camaraderie where the two characters think they protect the other, the trade of money, bottles, cigarettes, matches, etc. They are all symbols of friendship in Hawks’ universe. Someone might notice that Slim(Bacall) and Steve(Bogart) trade many bottles, matches, and cigarettes. This is because in Hawks’ world, the leading female should be one of the boys and not just the hero’s love interest. She jokes with them and she is involved in the story. To Have and to Have Not is not just a director’s film, this is an ensemble film with great performances, a great script by William Faulkner based on Ernest Hemingway's novel, the whole directed by Howard Hawks. On Hemingway's story, the author bet to Hawks that he couldn't be able to adapt his novel on the silver screen. Hawks, took almost the entire story out to make his own adaptation of Hemingway into a script and luckily it makes one great film. This is the sign of a director in full control of his story and narratives.As a classic film enthusiast I am more than ecstatic towards To Have and Have Not, it is one of the greatest films of the 1940’s. A must see.
Lifeboat (Alfred Hitchcock, 1944) In Hitchcock's oeuvre, Lifeboat is a deviation from his own style which was more like the "Eisenstein technique" of editing multiple points of view. He generally did not go with the long take (exception here and Rope especially). With his many success Hitchcock decided to impose to himself a restraint in the telling of his stories: location. The set is only the Lifeboat from the first to the last moment of the film. Like he did in Rope and Rear Window . The set and story of Lifeboat gives the opportunity to recreate a little society where everyone has a role. The abilities of everyone are solicited and their strength are used to maintain the boat tight. The story reminds William Golding's novel The Lord of the Flies where child boys are lost on a desert island and must instore an order to stay alive. There are few directors that could have handled the right "mise-en-shot" to make work a daring project like Lifeboat. The tension is kept with the directing but also because the narrative of Hitchcock. To let us know that the enemy on board has more than just political opinions. The german soldier they help has greater skills than any man or woman on the lifeboat. He is superior with his strength and skills but the castaway allies are superior in number... Often underrated and mostly overlooked in all Hitchcock's exceptional oeuvre Lifeboat is worth than just a look, for his ans it's a must see! A review by Michaël Parent
