Observations and reviews of various things, from films to hobby items.
These reviews are not the be-all and end-all of anything, they are just opinions and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion... so here's mine!
It is common for a person's hobby to cross paths with another hobby. I personally enjoy finding those paths!
For instance, in the 1990s I started to collect stamps. Well, being a car-gal, I, of course, had to add some automobile-related stamps to my albums. Then railroad-related ones, and so on.
Conversely, when I got into railroad history and models, "autoracks" became interesting! These are railcars used to transport new cars to distribution points. In the past, they were open to the elements... and graffiti. Today, they are totally enclosed by perforated metal panels. But photos of cool old cars, fresh from the factory, riding the rails is yet another "hobby path cross".
As far as the celebrities I like, only some were well known "car guys". I'm not a huge Steve McQueen fan, but the fact he owned a genuine Jaguar XKSS sits very well with me. I like James Garner in "Rockford Files", so of course had to watch his film "Grand Prix" (1966). I was surprised to read that it was this movie that got him into racing. I just assumed he was a gear-head when he made it! Other than the racing, it is as boring as McQueen's "Le Mans" (1971). There is also a film he made about his racing team called "The Racing Scene" (1969).
This brings me to a newspaper blurb relating to comedian Charley Chase that has piqued my curiosity.
I knew he had made a short called "Young Oldfield" in 1924, which did indeed have the famous racer in it. The website "The First Super Speedway" has a beautiful behind-the-scenes photo of Chase with Oldfield, though the page doesn't actually mention him!
I also knew from searching online newspaper archives that Chase had been pulled over at least once for drunk driving. In 1927 his "roadster collided with a taxicab". He then fled the scene but was caught by police who witnessed the incident four blocks away. He asserted he was not drunk, but plead guilty to prevent having to go to court. He was given a 50-day suspended sentence.
But then I ran into a mention of Chase participating in an auto race at Ascot. The other men involved were Hoot Gibson, Earle Fox, and Dave Butler, all actors. There were to be six other events that day as well.
Chase was to drive "Eddie Hearne's Duesenberg". Now, in 1987 I first learned what a Duesenberg was. And today they are still my favorite classic American make. So that means I HAVE to find more info about this race!
But I haven't been able to find a follow up article about the race. I found out that Eddie Hearne (1887-1955) was an early race car driver. I was hoping his connection to Duesenberg would make it easy to find info on this celebrity race, but so far I've come up with nothing.
Below is all I know:
WHEN: Sunday April 11, 1926
WHERE: Legion Ascot Speedway (1924-1936) El Sereno, Los Angeles, California
WHO: Charley Chase, Hoot Gibson, Earle Fox, Dave Butler
CARS: Eddie Hearne Duesenberg, Miller Special, 2 others
If ANYONE can direct me to a website etc that has more info on this special race, please let me know!
Way back in 2021, Wandering Planet Toys announced a Kickstarter campaign to get backing for 4" retro style action figures of Number Six, aka "The Prisoner". Their plan was to offer a handful of different versions, some with accessories.
I personally found out about the figures a bit too late to officially score the special "Arrival" figures, offered to the first backers. But a couple of emails later, I was given a way to order two of them, along with a nice t-shirt.
Just in case, I pre-ordered one of the other versions from Big Bad Toys, as did my boyfriend as a present. We then waited.
Fast forward 2022 and I started reading about the figures getting out into collector/fan hands. So I tried to find my BBT preorder info, and came up empty handed. Turned out I either never actually placed that pre-order, or the order got lost. That left me with the figure my boyfriend pe-ordered for me.
Then, in late December 2022, what arrived in the mail but two "Arrival" figures and a shirt! They didn't forget me! Then, late January 2023 brought the "Beach Escape" figure my boyfriend had pre-ordered for me!
Now, I haven't bought an action figure since I was a kid, and I didn't buy those... Mom did. I collect lots of stuff, BUT not action figures. So when I suddenly owned 3, I needed to do something to keep them in nice condition and dust free. After searching online forever, I couldn't find a source for single clear plastic protective cases.
Then I accidently learned about a store called The Toy Vault in a Massachusetts mall that looked like a great place to ask about cases... they sell EVERYTHING from Funko Pop figures to vintage Star Wars play sets. I took a drive to see what I could find, and not only did I score 3 ProTech cases (the clerk was very helpful), but a nice 1/64 AMC Javelin AMX for one of my OTHER collections. So what about the actual figures? Well, they are not intended to be exact, fully operable copies of Mr. Patrick McGoohan himself. Instead they are reminiscent of the 1970s action figure styles. That means non-articulated arms and legs. It also means little holes on the bottom of the feet (for planting on playsets) and also in the hands (to hold accessories).
They do look a little like McGoohan. The hair is too light, but parted on the correct side and in the correct style, if a little "full". The eyes are a tad too close together, and should be mesmerizing-electric-blue, not that there's much room to apply any paint! People can argue if Number Six's actual jacket was black or dark brown, but 99% of people think it was black, so the figure's is also black. The "Arrival" version is simply the same figure painted all black.
If you are a Prisoner fan, you should try to get at least one of these figures. You'll have to find one on Ebay or at a collectibles show, though, as they are sold out at Big Bad Toys. That means one thing: MARKUP. The market will decide the actual value of these figures in time, but don't get ripped off. As badly as I wanted one, they are, after all, only bits of plastic.
In April 2020 I posted a review of the 1957 Rank film
"High Tide at Noon". I admitted that it wasn't totally my type
of movie, and only watched it for Patrick McGoohan, who played the character of
Simon Breck.
Now, many female McGoohan fans absolutely LOVE him in this
film, if not for his bad-boy character, then for his youthful
looks.
It is also one of the very few times he kissed a woman
on-screen (though I still argue we don't see any lip contact... but I
digress...). In fact, there is speculation that Simon actually rapes the
main character, Joanna MacKenzie, played by Betta St. John. In
the interviews released on the DVD "In My Mind", McGoohan even states
he "practically rapes" the girl in the film.
The first scene it could have happened during is when Joanna
meets Simon in the old abandoned house. At first she lets him kiss her,
then things get more "serious" and she suddenly changes her
mind. Joanna runs away and Simon watches her go.
The other time it could have happened is when Simon visits
the same house, now fixed up and Joanna's home, after her husband Alec has
died. Simon thinks he again has a chance to "win" Joanna, who
hates him and tries to get him to go away. Things start to get heated,
when the scene just plain ends.
Next, we see Joanna run to her parent's house and Nils heads to the
Breck household to settle things. Simon implies he isn't looking for
trouble with Nils, who goes for him anyway. They make for the docks, get
into their fishing boats, and Simon disappears into the night. Nils
shouts out to him that he'll kill him if he ever returns to the island.
So, what happened at Joanna's house after we, the audience,
left? Did Simon indeed rape her, like so many viewers think?
I decided to find out once and for all. How?
Easy. Look at the original book.
"High Tide at Noon" was written in 1944 by Elisabeth Ogilvie and
actually based on the island of Criehaven/Ragged Island, Maine, where her family vacationed.
I readily admit I can't STAND reading non-fiction, so
reading the entire story would be a chore. Instead, I logged onto
Archive.org and borrowed the book. I did a search for "Simon"
to narrow the pages down a bit. What I discovered was a bit surprising!
Firstly, in the film, Joanna's family name
is MacKenzie . In the book, it is Bennett. Simon Breck's
family name isn't Breck in the book, it is Bird. His physical description
is very similar to that of McGoohan himself at the time, other than the
"smoky gray eyes":
"He had a thin,
tanned face and flat cheeks slanting to a lean chin... his red hair was like
copper with the sun on it, and he was slight and narrow hipped in his snug
dungarees".
The scene where Simon and Joanna speak for the first time by
his boat is almost exactly like the book. More time has passed since they
last spoke in the book than in the film, though.Simon also implies that he prefers girls who
haven’t been around the block a few times.
The scene where Joanna meets Simon at the abandoned house is
also mostly the same, BUT with some important exceptions, one being Simon's
touching her breast to see if her heart is also racing. That would be a
no-no on 1957 movie screens. In the film, he instead says "so's yours... I bet...".
But one big difference is how Simon reacts to Joanna
suddenly wanting him to stop making love to her. He had been rather nice to
her up to that point, just like in the film. Simon says "you gotta learn some time", and she runs away. But in the book, he starts to
get mad. He gives her 5 minutes to think about it and basically implies
she better give in to him. She doesn't, and runs away. In the
movie, he almost seems to find it all humorous. In the book, he's mad as
Hell. She lead him on by being coy by his boat, agreed to meet him that
night, allowed him to hold and kiss her, and then suddenly "pulls the salt
water business" on him:
"I'll give you
five minutes to get the hell over it, and then you'll listen to reason. I don't
let anybody fool with me, lady. Sooner or later, they pay up".
In the film, we get the impression Joanna hates Simon just
for the passes he has made to her. Anything he or his family may have
done to the MacKenzies seems secondary. Simon is a sort of pest, not
much else.
But in the book, it is far more complicated and
intense. Joanna's family basically owns the island, and the Birds are
looked down upon as "trash". It is part of the reason Simon
takes her physical rejection of him to the point of utter hatred. She has
become "uppity", as he says in the film. Did she lead him on
then reject him because she thinks she is better than anyone from the Breck
(Bird) family?
Simon gets his hands (and lips) on her way more in the book,
even after she spurns him. And she hates it more as well. He is
nastier, dirtier, meaner.
The scene at the dance, which ends in a melee, is almost
exactly like the book.
But the next one, in the now fixed up house, after Alec's
death, is far more "meaty" in the book. The fact he has Alec's
IOU for her house is more important.Also more important is the Breck family's tampering of other fishermen's
gear, and Simon's interactions with Nils.
In the film, Simon is run off the island for good by Nils
just after the scene with Joanna at the house. He hasn't even had a chance to find out about Alec's IOU. In the book, time passes before Simon leaves the
island, and he isn't exactly chased by Nils, though Nils is indeed waiting at
the Bird house to "settle" things with him. In time, the family does indeed pay Alec's debt to Simon (via a lawyer).
There are other differences between the book and film, such
as Joanna having a baby after Alec dies. I didn't look much at sections
not dealing with the Simon character. So curious viewers of the film will
have to read those themselves.
But now we know... Simon did NOT rape Joanna in either the
film or book "High Tide at Noon".
... UNLESS that is exactly WHY the last scene in Joanna's
house ends the way it does, and WHY Nils runs Simon off the island right
away.
Sticking to the book would have made the film even longer, and
given McGoohan, a young newcomer to the Big Screen, a far meatier and more
important role. In hindsight, a real missed opportunity. We all know he could play mean, nasty, and angry. All the kissing and pawing may have been an issue but he managed to get through it all during those Rank years. And the fact the character Joanna had the same name as his real life wife, Joan... well... every little bit helps!
In the end, it all comes down to the old argument: THE BOOK or THE MOVIE!
I have always loved this image of comedian Charley Chase.
Not sure why exactly, but I do. So when I saw an original print for sale for a
relatively sane price, I HAD to get it.
I scanned and started cleaning up various imperfections
in/on the 90+ year old print. I then started wondering what he was reading.
Since I now had a nice print, I tried to scan the book alone and see what could
be seen.
The page seems to have separate, listed entries, like in a
reference book. There are no paragraphs. It doesn't appear to be a Bible (I
don't think Chase was a very religious person). So was Chase
"reading" a reference book? A
book of motion picture information? Biographies
of actors, directors, etc? Did the
photographer just grab any book he had on hand to use as a prop?
DOES IT REALLY MATTER??
Nope... but these are the things that grab my attention...
Ever since The Prisoner first aired on television in 1967… FIFTY FOUR YEARS AGO… people have been arguing whether or not the main character, Number Six, was actually John Drake, aka Danger Man and/or the Secret Agent.
Personally, I lean toward the opinion YES, Six is Drake… UNLESS the two characters were simply just that similar to Patrick McGoohan himself.
I am not into long, drawn out arguments on ANY topic, especially ones where there are only a handful of people who could ever settle things. There may not even be that many, since we no longer have McGoohan to ask. Does his wife Joan know? Probably, but I bet she won’t tell, either. Maybe some day his daughters will spill the beans.
I am rather new to the Prisoner world, and recently fell into the what-does-it-all-mean trap when I began to wonder why a massive copy of a painting depicting a sea battle was so prominently featured in the Prisoner episode “The Chimes of Big Ben”.
Six and Nadia have escaped the Village and are in an office Six "knows very well" in London, apparently that of Fotheringay, played by Richard Wattis, who was one of John Drake’s bosses in the first incarnation of Danger Man (... so why does Fotheringay leave Six alone with the colonel if it is his office and he is senior enough to know of Six's reappearance?). There are quite a few ship-related items on the shelves. Largest is a big print of a sea battle. You can’t help but see the thing!
Now, Sir Francis Drake was an English explorer, sea captain, privateer, naval officer, and politician. So was that artwork of a Drake sea battle? Hence a hint to Six being Drake?
Using various online reverse-search tools, I discovered that the original painting was painted in 1799 by Philip de Loutherbourg. It is called “The Battle of Camperdown” and does not depict Francis Drake, but a battle between Admiral Adam Duncan and Dutch ships. The painting measures 5x7 feet.
A black & white engraved print was made by James Fittler in 1801. It is this print that is depicted behind Number Six.
And so my theory that all of the office’s nautical doo-dads were a hat tip to “Drake” seems to be “blown out of the water”. Still… the prop people put an awful lot of ships and things on that set…
No doubt, Prisoner fans have already beat this dead horse senseless after FIVE DECADES…
Now.......... what's the deal with THIS painting??
This film is well-known as the one that triggered a comeback for both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. It has been called "camp", and even a horror flick. But I just watched it for the second time and have decided to type up my two-cents here.
I first saw Baby Jane many years ago on TV. Enough time had passed for me to watch it again with fresh eyes.
I had heard things about Davis and Crawford not getting along back in the day. I wasn't around then, but we all know big stars, especially female ones, had (have?) a tendency to be "difficult" in so many ways. The word "catty" comes to mind... I did a little looking around the 'net to see what I could see about their "feud". I came to the conclusion neither of them were angels, and left it at that.
As for the film, the most obvious thing I noticed was how awful both women looked. Now, I never thought Bette Davis was very pretty, but Joan Crawford was in her heyday. Davis, as "Baby" Jane Hudson, looks just like what she is playing, a caricature of a young girl who is really middle aged. Thick makeup and curls in her hair, even a child-like dress at one point, drive home what is bubbling around in her mind. Crawford, as sister Blanche Hudson, looks just plain naturally older. Wheelchair-bound, yet prim. As the film progresses, she becomes more and more haggard looking, worn out, and yet strong enough to survive her sister's torture. The makeup for both women is spot-on, though at first some people may think Davis' is clown-like. If you think that, you don't understand her character. (more on that later)
Another thing I noticed was that many of the supporting actors had also appeared in the TV series Perry Mason. Davis herself had filled in for one 1963 episode when star Raymond Burr was ill. Victor Buono, Wesley Addy, and Bert Freed were all on Perry Mason more than once. Even Maidie Norman appeared in one episode!
Being a car gal, I was happy to see a Duesenberg, my favorite classic make. A quick peek over at the IMCDb website taught me the car was a 1931 Duesenberg Model J 'Disappearing Top' Convertible Coupe by Murphy. The car still exists, and was auctioned off by RM for $3,520,000 in 2015. The other car featured in the film is a 1947 Lincoln Continental convertible.
Bette Davis did an excellent job playing Baby Jane. She would go on to play another nut-case in 1965's Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte, and a nanny who may (or may not) be evil in The Nanny, also from 1965. One can't help but think Davis realized her younger, svelte self of the days of box-office earning characters were long gone. Anyone who saw her on the silver screen of the 1930s would have ever expected to see her play a character like Baby Jane. But played it she did, and very well.
Her loosing an Academy Award to Anne Bancroft for her role in The Miracle Worker, and then Crawford accepting the Oscar on Bancroft's behalf, is Hollywood lore. Comments on sites like You Tube declare Davis as their personal winner of the award that year, though personally I feel Bancroft deserved her win.
Crawford played her character equally as well. I haven't seen many of her film appearances, Mildred Pierce being the most memorable. Interestingly, my search for period articles about Charley Chase turned up photos of Crawford, aka: Lucille LeSueur, that really surprised me. I had no idea she was considered such a fashion plate, was a dancer, and in SILENT films! She was even in a Lon Chany film that I had seen, The Unknown (1927).
Her portrayal of tormented Blanche is harrowing. The exact opposite of her past glamour roles, she makes you fear when she is afraid, hungry when she is being starved, hopeful when she has hope. And when we learn the truth about the "accident" that crippled her, do we really feel any different about her sister Jane? She also did a good job portraying the difficulty and pain involved with moving around without the use of legs.
Victor Buono is his usual slimy-yet-slightly-innocent self as Edwin Flagg. He looks even larger than usual next to Davis and Marjorie Bennett, who plays his mother. Buono would later appear in Davis' Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte (1964).
Maidie Norman played maid Elvira, and she made her a caring, but smart and strong woman. I felt bad to see her bumped off!
I wasn't very impressed with Anna Lee as Mrs. Bates, or Bette Davis' daughter B. D. Merrill as Liza Bates.
I honestly don't see this as a horror movie. That is silly. There is one murder done with a hammer that we hardly even see. No blood, not even an on-screen impact. The cruel treatment of Blanche isn't "horror". Again, there's no blood-letting. There ARE some brutal kicks, but is that "horror"? Certainly not to the 21st Century viewer.
And "camp"? It all depends on how you see the Baby Jane character. If you see her as a middle aged sicko who thinks she is still a child star, with 3 inches of horrible makeup and a desire to resurrect her old vaudeville act, then sure, I can see that opinion being possible.
But what about Sunset Boulevard? In that story middle aged silent film legend Gloria Swanson also played a woman who thought she was still a star. Her character, Norma Desmond, could also be classified as bonkers, she also tries to look young, and also tries to resurrect her previous successes. But (so far) I have never heard that film referred to as "camp".
When you look at the Baby Jane character in a more realistic way, more like Norma Desmond, she is no longer campy, she is almost worthy of your pity. Norma Desmond was more in control of her lie, and not nearly as cruel to those she needed to help her. In comparison, Baby Jane seems too far gone, though we seem to be expected to think she and Victor Buono's Edwin have become more than "friends".
And that's my two-cents. Oh, and yes, my favorite line is "... but you ARE, Blanche... you ARE in that chair!". Classic...
This film doesn’t really require a synopsis, since the story of the actual “escape from Alcatraz” prison is well known, though the actual facts pertaining to the fate of the three escapees will probably never be known.
If you do NOT know the story behind the escape, basically all you need to know is three inmates chipped away at the old, crumbling cement around the air vents in their cells and got into the maintenance areas above the cell block. They then made papier-mâché heads, complete with hair from the barber shop, to put in their beds at night, when they were outside their cells working on supplies like rubber rafts and life rackets made from rain coats stolen from the prison. The big night came and the three men left their cells through the cell vents, went up air vents to the roof of the cell block, then down to the rocky shore and into San Francisco Bay. They were never seen again, dead or alive, (officially, anyway) and the prison was closed within the year.
The film has four men in on the escape, with one (Butts) lagging behind the others with his chipping and so on. He ends up with cold feet the night of the escape, then when he finally leaves his cell, he can’t get up to the roof vent by himself. This character appears to be based on Allen West.
I have seen Alcatraz MANY times through the years. I recently watched it yet again, with slightly older eyes, and never realized how little dialogue it has. Which helps explain why I always liked it, despite not being a big Eastwood fan. I AM a fan of more subtle films, where little needs to be done to express things like emotion or reactions. This film barely even has a sound track! What it does have almost reminds me of the quieter scenes of “2001 Space Odyssey”.
There are some interesting shots, but the movie usually doesn’t dwell too long on one shot or scene, unless it contains a needed plot-point or information. Time goes by for the inmates, but viewers may not catch that fact.
I don’t like ultra-violent movies, and when I was a kid was scared of the finger-chopping scene. Now I realize the film is gritty without needing to be too violent, is anti-prison without being preachy, and deals with race but doesn't pander. It also doesn’t feel like the facts have been tossed out the window, like with “Bird Man of Alcatraz”, where supposedly the main character was no where near as pleasant as in the film.
Eastwood does a great job as Frank Morris. Quiet and brilliant, always thinking, yet perfectly able to take care of himself in a fight. His female fans will like the shots of him after arriving at the prison, and in the shower. I like the fact he did so many of his own stunts as well.
Larry Hankin as Butts is perfect as well, a bit dopy but likable. Though the Anglin Brothers seemed slightly miscast. Comments in IMDb state Fred Ward and Jack Thibeau were cast due to their physical abilities, which they did seem to have, especially during the escape. The Doc and Litmus characters are well cast, though I am still on the shelf about Paul Benjamin as English. The English character has plenty of "status", yet he doesn't act like a tough guy, so how exactly did he achieve such status? Through his number of years on “the rock”? He is also a quiet and seemingly smart inmate, in charge of the library. But is his “racism” toward whites real? Is Morris an exception of sorts?
Oh, and the character of Wolf is disturbing but nothing like we would see if the film were made today.
Other than English and Morris, the character with the most dialogue is the real bad guy, The Warden, played by Patrick McGoohan. He almost seems to not be wearing much makeup in this one. He is very plain, very subdued, yet very cold and business-like. He has a caged parakeet and a small fish aquarium in his office, which make him seem almost human until you think of those pets as more jailed inmates for him to control. He shows no feelings whatsoever for his inmates (though he does seem rather pleasant when he asks Morris about his accordion). One wonders if the wheels are always turning in his head, just like in Morris’s.
McGoohan did long, word-heavy scenes well (like when he meets Morris in his office) but also scenes which require little dialogue at all (like the ending). Though the warden shows very little emotion on his face, a tiny change of the eyes can tell a lot.
As a side note, I was wondering why McGoohan actually seemed short in this film. Usually he had to look down on his fellow actors, so I had to look up Clint Eastwood’s height. Eastwood is supposed to be about 6’ 4”, which explains things, as McGoohan was (by his own admission in a “Danger Man” episode) 6’ 2 ½”.
One also has to wonder if Eastwood got along with McGoohan, given the Irish-Englishman’s tendency to be difficult to work with due to his desire for perfection (and alcohol at this time).
IN CLOSING: If you don't need lots of useless violence and dialogue, even soundtrack music, this is a movie you may like. It almost feels like a “modern” silent film. Or at least minimalist. If you MUST have lots of yammering and explosions and padding, you may not enjoy it. But it looks good, has good acting, and as a plus is based on fact.
Morris has arrived by boat to "The Rock"...
... and gets processed...
Morris getting his first look at Wolf... and Litmus is about to acquire his pasta
Meeting the warden...
... who spells out what life at Alcatraz is like
Doc meets Morris while painting outside
English... top of the hill...
Wolf goes after Morris... they both end up in solitary
Butts meets "Al Capone", aka: Litmus
The warden inspects Doc's paintings and makes a discovery... He seems to like it, but has Doc's painting privileges revoked
Doc requests a hatchet so he can "work on a table"...
The warden confronts Morris about the "accident" in the shop
The Anglin brothers arrive
Soldering, prison-style
Chipping away at the corroded Alcatraz cement
The chrysanthemum is "against regulations, Morris... you know it..."
"... you any good?" There's plenty of time to learn accordion in prison...
English stops Wolf from attacking Morris again
Above the cells, planning the escape
They're out! Preparing the rafts and life vests
The escape is discovered!
The warden ponders a chrysanthemum found on Angel Island the next day... "they drowned" he concludes... but did they?
Wealthy playboy Rod Hamilton (Attenborough) plans an elaborate first-wedding anniversary for pianist Rex and ex-singer Delia (Harris & Stevens). The setting is a modified 2-story warehouse, complete with bandstand for a group of professional musicians who will provide music for the event.
Drummer Johnny Cousin (McGoohan) arrives with his own drum kit and immediately goes upstairs and makes a private phone call to booking agent Lou Berger (Bernard Braden). He tells him that he can get Delia to come out of retirement and join his own new band. The promoter informs Johnny that without Delia, he’s not interested.
The problem is, Delia retired when she married, and promised to stay that way. While she has been rehearsing a song in a new style just for Rex, she has no actual intentions of going back on the road. But the promoter doesn’t know that, so Johnny tells him to come over and see her perform that night.
Delia chats with Johnny about her joining his new band, but she tells him flat out she is not going back on the road, with his, or any, band. He even tells her it has nothing to do with finally getting his own band, he just wants her. She tells him in no uncertain terms never to "talk to me like this again, EVER".
Johnny has been working on putting together his 12-man band for a year, and is in debt "up to the neck". He hopes to get more financial backing from Rod, who has bought Delia an expensive anniversary gift. But Rod isn't forthcoming with the agreed upon "25 grand".
Johnny is now so obsessed with getting his own band together that he spends the evening pitting friend against friend, lover against lover, hoping to eventually tear Delia away from Rex by proving her unfaithful. She would then be “available” to sing with his band.
What follows is a maze of lies and underhanded tactics, but the basic plan is to make it appear that Rex’s manager Cass (Michell) is having an affair with Delia. He eventually does this by putting ideas in people’s minds, then splicing together a tape recording of Cass talking to his girlfriend with one with him and Delia. Johnny plays this fake conversation to Rex who goes into a rage, attacking Cass and Delia, to the shock of all of the guests and musicians.
When Rex states to everyone that Johnny played him a tape recording proving that Delia is unfaithful, it is Johnny’s own wife Emily (Blair) who tells the whole crowd he is a liar, always has been.
Rex chases Johnny upstairs and out onto a balcony. He is ready to beat him into a pile of pudding when Delia stops him, and Rex leaves. Delia goes after him...
The guests and musicians also leave. Eventually, only Johnny, Emily, and Rod are left in the warehouse. As Rod shuts off lights upstairs and prepares to leave, Emily tries to console Johnny, who is sitting at his drum kit. His impeccable demeanor is gone. He instead is hunched over, disheveled, sweating profusely. He tells his wife to go on with her life without him, but she tells him she won’t because she loves him. This seems to shock Johnny, but he then goes into a rage, states he doesn't want to be loved, and loves no one, not even himself.
Johnny begins to furiously bang on his drums as Emily leaves. Rod then descends the stairs and walks right by him like he isn’t even there, exiting the darkened building, leaving Johnny alone with his demons.
“All Night Long” has been released on Region 2/PAL DVD & Blu-ray by Network (UK). It was also released on Region 1 DVD as part of Criterion’s “Basil Dearden’s London Underground” DVD set (2010). Turner Classic Movies occasionally plays the film as well.
Rod inspects the special banner commemorating Rex and Delia's first anniversary
Delia and Rex, the happy couple, arrive at the surprise party
Johnny tries to get Delia to join his new band... and gets turned down flatly
Part of Johnny's plan, get Cass to fall off the weed-wagon and sow the seeds of hate
Stoned & drunk Cass rips into agent Lou Berger, the very man who Johnny is trying to get to promote his new band
A stern talking-to from Rex...
Johnny takes his turn at the drums, eyes scanning the room, mind scheming even as he plays...
Delia sings her first tune for Rex, the guests, and fellow musicians
Johnny works on his "damning evidence" against Cass & Delia
Preparing to play the tape to Rex, Delia's gold cigarette case in his pocket...
Rex reacts to the fake tape... he has Cass and Delia in his cross-hairs now...
Rex tries to strangle his wife as Cass and Rod try to get through the locked door
Emily tells the crowd that Johnny is, and always has been, "a terrible, terrible liar" who never told the truth in his life
Benny tells Cass to tell Rex it was she he was speaking to when the tape machine was recording
Johnny starts to realize the jig is up...
"You fixed the tape... why did you do that?"
Johnny saved from becoming a puddle of tuxedo by Delia, who snaps Rex back into reality
Delia runs to Rex outside...
Emily ready to leave with her husband, but Johnny tells her to "walk out on me, like all the others did..."
Johnny reacts to Emily telling him she loves him...
... but he then looses his temper, ranting about love... he doesn't want to be loved... he loves no one, "I don't even love Johnny".
He tells his wife to go find someone else to love as he starts manically drumming... she leaves...
Rod heads downstairs as Johnny beats his drums... and walks right by him toward the exit...
This film is loosely based on Shakespeare’s Othello. And I readily admit I know next to nothing about Shakespeare (other than do NOT mention Macbeth by name to an actor!). I had to (try to) read some of his works in school, but I never could understand any of it, thanks to ye ole English. Period reviews of the film explained that Othello is Rex, Desdemona is Delia, Iago is Johnny, and Cassio is Cass. Additionally, one reviewer felt Roderigo was Rod, Emilia was Emily.
Those same period reviews also mention somewhat “square” moments when the actors use jazzy, “hip” talk. Thankfully, there’s actually very little of that. Most of the “hipness” is in the scenes where Johnny and Cass are smoking marijuana. There’s also very little, if any, reference to the fact that Rex and Delia are an interracial couple. I personally like that, as I can’t stand preachy films unless they fairly show both sides of an issue. But for 1962, it must have raised a few eyebrows. Being based on Othello probably helped, unless the viewer was like me and had no idea what Othello was all about, so couldn’t make the connection! Not mentioned in period reviews is the fact that Cass’ relationship with girlfriend Benny is also interracial, as the actress María Velasco was Mexican.
Of note, this good looking, well edited film actually falls flat on its face during the above-mentioned pot smoking scenes. There are some abrupt edits, which make me wonder if censors were at work, the scene wasn’t believable enough, or perhaps even the actors weren’t comfortable with the scene. McGoohan was often called a prude for his Catholic morals, but he also drank and smoked a lot. If he ever went on record about the use of drugs, I’d like to know his feelings on the subject (or WOULD I??). Regardless, those bits are the only real technically-bad things I can think of.
Well, there is one other: The actors’ pretending to make music. With so many real jazz musicians on screen, I was worried how the actors would look trying to play instruments. Harris isn’t very believable at all on the piano. Michell is a bit better with his sax. Stevens’ mouthing of her two songs is ok at times, too dramatic at others, too emotionless elsewhere. Not being familiar with her, I looked her up and she did indeed sing during her career, though I haven’t confirmed who did the singing on the film’s soundtrack.
But, mercifully, McGoohan did a lot of preparation for his drumming scenes with real drummer Allan Ganley, whom you hear on the soundtrack. As a result, other than a few seconds here and there where the soundtrack is slightly out of sync with the film, McGoohan's drumming looks very credible. Considering his top-billing and abundance of on-screen time, it is a testament to his desire for perfection that McGoohan spent so much extra effort (reportedly on his own time at home) just to make sure his drumming would look credible. He even scored a photo on the cover of the film’s soundtrack album, and reportedly kept “Johnny Cousin’s” drum kit.
As far as the cast goes, first and foremost, I’m not used to seeing so little of Richard Attenborough in a film! Especially having seen The Great Escape a gazillion times! But he plays the part of the fair, amiable playboy well, and he looks nice in his tux, though he switches into a “square” sweater almost immediately! He drives a yummy Bentley convertible (top up, in the London rain).
Marti Stevens reminded me a little of Marlene Dietrich (oddly enough, while reading a little about her, I found out the two women were indeed friends!). Her overall performance is good, and she looks the part, though “torch singers” were often a bit rougher around the edges.
I felt Keith Michell was alternately slightly too wooden and slightly too “method” as Cass, though he never goes too far overboard into the realm of overacting. All in all, he’s OK as the pawn in Johnny’s game. (And María Velasco plays Cass’ girlfriend perfectly.)
Paul Harris as Rex seemed better in the first half of the film than in the second. He fits as a happily married jazz pianist celebrating his first wedding anniversary. But once the doubt, brooding, and anger begin, his performance tends to also get rather wooden. Harris seems to have gone the “understated route”. That, no doubt, suits many tastes. Perhaps I am being too harsh. But he just isn’t facially expressive enough to convey what he is thinking. That is, until the very end, when it becomes very obvious indeed.
Betsy Blair plays Johnny’s wife just right. She is slightly ditzy and rather innocent, perhaps in denial as well. She loves her husband even though her marriage to Johnny when they were young was not the happy event it should have been. And he doesn't seem to treat her very well at times. But she proves to be loyal to him, right up to the end.
Last, but far from least, is Patrick McGoohan’s performance as Johnny Cousins.
One peek at this blog and it becomes blatantly obvious I am a fan of his, and this film seems to be a favorite of other fans as well (female ones, anyway). Filmed between the original half-hour Danger Man series and the later hour-long revival, he is handsome and classy in his tuxedo, smoking too much as usual, effortlessly gliding around the set as his character sets his plan in motion.
This film also adds some credence to my theory that make-up folks sometimes darkened McGoohan's eyebrows for certain productions. As can be seen here, they were very light indeed.
I’ve already covered here my relief that McGoohan's drumming looks credible, and his American accent is for the most part more believable here than in the first Danger Man series (perhaps the lack of slight Irish-tinge makes the difference). As for the scenes where he is smoking marijuana, being a teetotaler I can’t really judge his performance (I didn’t know pot came in dark, neatly rolled cigarettes, and I always thought the smoke was supposed to stay inhaled longer).
And in some early scenes, it seems as though McGoohan is perhaps over doing things a bit. That is, until the plot unfolds, and the audience starts to realize just what Johnny Cousin is up to.
Unlike Paul Harris, McGoohan is easily able to express thoughts and emotions with subtle changes to his face. He goes from scheming-happiness to stressed-apprehension to glee in the blink of an eye (1:16:59-20). He stands in the background watching his surroundings (27:54), and we know he has just thought up a new angle for his plan without him saying a word. We know exactly how he feels throughout the film, even though he never says a single word to anyone.
And despite being a conniving, underhanded louse, it is rather difficult to hate his character. Is it because of his intelligence? His smile? His upbeat manner? His good-natured, helpful ways? Or do we feel sorry for him thanks to that ever present, slightly insane look in his eyes? Only a few times do we see actual malice in those eyes. The other characters don’t see it, just the audience.
Even Johnny’s reaction to being unmasked as the man who caused all of the suffering of the evening is understated. After his initial “what, who, me??” reaction, he just stands there, ever so slightly changing his expression as the noose tightens. He says nothing, not even when Rex has him by the throat, ready to turn him into a bloody puddle of tuxedo. It’s all in his face and body language.
Only in the last scene does the audience get any actual first-hand insight into Johnny’s mind. He has gone from the happy-go-lucky drummer in his very first scene, to a miserable, disheveled, lonely man, seemingly unable to love and be loved. In fact, one almost wonders if all his scheming actually had nothing to do with getting his own band started at all, but to get back at everyone around him who had someone to love.
If this is the case, what about his wife Emily, who seems to really love him, warts and all? Was the fact she never got their marriage annulled a thorn in his side? Did Johnny really mean it when he told Delia it wasn't about having his own band, but because he needed her? Take a look at the 16:21 mark of the film. Is he being genuine? Or is that band with his name on it his one and only priority? He had, after all, already spent a whole year and lots of cash putting it together. Johnny was turned down in one way or another by (in order) Berger, Delia, Rod, even Cass, who simply lets it be known nothing could ever break up Rex and Delia's marriage. By the time the night is over, Berger is publicly insulted by Cass, Delia almost looses her husband (and life), Rod's party is ruined, and Cass is thrown from a second floor staircase. Payback, perhaps?
No doubt, this is where the whole Shakespeare thing kicks in… I should have tried to pay more attention in English class!
The ending is also the point when we, the audience, may indeed finally hate Johnny Cousin, if just for the way he treats his wife. And yet, in a way, we can still sort of feel sorry for him as he manically beats his drums, alone and in the dark.
And so I give this film a “yup, go watch it” rating. It may take a few viewings to catch all of the little intricacies, twists & turns. I caught a lot of things while working on the screen-shots. The movie looks good (some interesting camera moves here and there help) and sounds good as well.
Oh, that reminds me… you better like jazz if you watch this one…
There are a LOT of jazz musicians in this film. The list above is incomplete, and I hope I got the names matched up properly to the faces (let me know if I didn’t!). I think it's darn nifty the musicians got their names in the beginning credits right along with the actors.
DANGER: Personal opinions ahead!
Jazz is a type of music with something for many, varying tastes. There are only so many styles of rock, fewer styles of country-western, and even fewer of the blues. But with jazz, you have Fusion, West Coast, East Coast, Dixieland, Acid, Contemporary, Ragtime, Be-Bop, etc. It can all get very personal. And snobbish.
While not an actual aficionado, I have liked jazz since I was a kid. I grew up with my brother playing guitar to jazz records. Wes Montgomery, Barney Kessel, Kenny Burrell, they all wafted down from his attic bedroom. Later on I discovered Vince Guaraldi, The Modern Jazz Quartet (with Milt Jackson on vibes), and Oscar Peterson. Some purists probably will scoff, but 1940s swing and even some Dixieland is just plain good stuff.
But one thing that has been constant is my dislike of horns in jazz. I know there are players from the past I would like, I just haven’t made the effort to look into their albums yet. But as far as guys like Miles Davis and Charlie Parker… no thank you.
All Night Long, though, is full of “brass”.And I like about 95% of it, which proves my theory there ARE jazz horn players I would like.
I had only heard of two of the musicians in the film, Dave Brubeck (piano) and Charles Mingus (bass).Though I have never really listened to their music (I know I like Brubeck’s song Take Five).I believe a majority of the rest of the guys are British.And they swap places throughout the movie, with different men playing drums, piano, bass… even bongos!Tubby Hayes even goes from vibes to sax.
As stated earlier, drummer Allan Ganley had the task of helping Patrick McGoohan learn drums well enough to look convincing on screen.Check out the scene at 9:17, where Johnny Cousin arrives with his own set of drums (with "his name on it").That is Ganley staring at him as he talks to the band.This little bit seems to be tongue-in-cheek.Johnny the master drummer takes charge and tells this other interloper what to do, when in reality it is an actor pretending to tell his drum teacher what to do!
Another aspect of jazz I have never liked is singers, especially female ones (personal preference rears its ugly head here again).To me, jazz is purely musical.No lyrics required (except maybe with Big Band swing) .This might be why I do indeed like Ella Fitzgerald.She tended to sing like a musician.So did Mel Torme.But so many women seem to try too hard to sound “jazzy” or "torchy", and it just turns me off.
Because of this, I am going to refrain from commenting on the two songs sung in the film (first one is better). (Oh, wait... that is a comment... ooooops)
For those interested in the film’s soundtrack, an LP was issued in 1962 on the Fontana label.It wasreissued on vinyl by Not NowMusic. 6/3/2020 - Jonelle DeFelice
John Dankworth
Allan Ganley
Tubby Hayes
Ray Dempsey
Colin Purbrook
Harry Beckett
John Scott
