Watch movie and then comment on it. Take notes if you feel that you'll forget something that you think would be worth commenting on.
Agreed. The documentary's well-produced regardless of its content, which the film-makers treated in the best way possible.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Robertson, Barrymore)
John Barrymore's Ghastly Ghost Tarantula! Coming soon to a bed below you!
Yes: that sequence is the stuff dreams (nightmares) are made of. Skeletal strings plucking and the visage of Mr. Hyde meshing into an ever-more vulnerable Dr. Jekyll—it's the most creative and horrific image in the entire movie. Little moments like this don't just advance the plot by visualizing what's going on in the mind of a character. The very idea of Mr. Hyde invading an innocent's psyche in the form of a ghost tarantula speaks to the same part of the brain that artists like Hieronymous Bosch did with anthropomorphic monstrosities. Social scientific malaise is, to the characters in this story, as gruesome as the decadent swoop of a deadly-haired beast. I don't know if the director looked towards German expressionist films for some idea for this adaptation, but this little sequence reminds me of why this brand of surreal horror is still relevant. Even though I've just described what happens, how it appears on screen and through the speakers feels totally unique and appropriate for that part of the movie, and no textual description can render that moment less unique.
I think it's a shame the rest of this vintage cinema can't match the tarantula sequence in sheer quality. Most of the movie's first act focuses more on direct, overextended exposition that serves the blunt inter-titles more than it allows the visuals to speak for themselves. The only actor in the film who can hold these slower segments together is John Barrymore himself, an actor best suited to describe Dr. Jekyll's increasing fear and torment on-screen. Sure: most of the actors play their roles just fine but, when so many sequences just sag and sag and sag until they've become foregone conclusions, not even Barrymore's great acting can help the end product. There are times when Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde just goes too slow, even by the standards of contemporary directors like Murnau and Walsh; I generally don't like it when the horror elements get sidelined more often by a petty costume drama than the other way around. There's no excuse for heavy direction unless it's backed by other elements, and sequences like the ghost tarantula moment are rare even in films like Nosferatu. A more fluid depiction of the evolving relationships between Dr. Jekyll and his friends would have freed up more of the film for Barrymore to play his convincing Mr. Hyde.
Crippling faults in the pacing aside, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde's a robust adaptation of a great story, and there are many aspects of its production that never fail to impress. The collected chamber-orchestra score captures a grand range of expression that's even more impressive than some other scores of the time (like those for Dr. Caligari and Nosferatu, surprisingly; those two movies have excellent music!). Robertson's photography gets around its dearth of dynamic action every now and then, usually when characters enter more reclusive parts of Soho like the run-down tavern, through interesting composition and more specific lighting than normal. And, once the third act starts with Mr. Hyde's outrageous murder, most of the film's previous issues disappear and the entire thing ends just the way I like it: subdued yet chilling to the bone.
Joe Bob sez check it out.
***
•
Fitzwilly (Delbert Mann)
Okay. I think this is as close to a Mort Drucker film as I'll ever get, unless some lucky film-maker out there dearly wishes to impress me. If anyone put Fitzwilly and Fitzcarraldo in the same room together, the end result would shock the whole world and still be controversial centuries later. That's how magnanimous this movie's protagonist is: the most badass butler to ever grace an old lady's house's front door!
He really is a clever sunnava. Much of the film revolves solely around his masterminded plans that both service his own needs (read: money, impersonations, and the chance to call his employees "children") and aid his employer's. But even he has to deal with both his own human errors and, unluckily for him, the first woman to truly match his wit in daily observation and quick poker faces. I simply wish that director Mann focused more on the rivalry between these two characters instead of forcing a consummate romance comedy structure into the middle of the film. They should definitely form an interesting relationship, but their end coupling just doesn't work outside of the fact that they're both brilliant schemers.
In franchises like Lupin the III, for example, the femme fatale wants the treasure more than the man himself! I definitely think that, whether or not Juliet should act more like a Fujiko Mine-type character, the rom-com arc insert detracts from a great premise that has its base mainly in manic comedy, not just push-and-pull romance. A more complex turnout than "we're together, yay!" would have capped off an excellent story with panache and an awareness of the impossibility of their togetherness given their equal suspicions of each other.
That said, the dynamic between Fitzwilly and Juliet works because of Dick Van Dyke and Barbara Feldon, two actors who arrived on the big screen—coming from the littler screen of TV land—knowing exactly how to play their respective characters. I'll make another Lupin the III comparison and say that Fitzwilly is as close to the aforementioned master thief as I've yet seen in a feature-length film. Van Dyke's way with flattering accents, humorous body language, and punctual comedic timing lends him an authenticity for his role that few other actors could sport. I can say the same for the ways in which Feldon portrays a shady college student who gets into harm's way to successfully rat out whatever in wintery Hell Fitzwilly's been up to. Their double act sells itself and the whole story in turn; the supporting cast, not to be discounted, balances story presence with screen discreetness, both effective and as much in the background as it ought to.
Getting away from the crazy-cool cast, though, I've noticed other issues plaguing Fitzwilly the film. For example: how does Juliet enter the house once she's been kicked out? It's a matter of fact that she's more than capable enough to do whatever she can think of, but invading Fitzwilly's property never seems important to Mann, yet the whole movie's about devious trickery! Blast—I should have known it wouldn't all turn out perfect. There's no reason for the admittedly hilarious Christmas Eve department store mob sequence to go on longer than it should have, eventually exhausting some great gags and constantly repeating shots of a nervous Fitzwilly mulling about the first floor in his disguise. The film's already focused on a reasonably small-scale plot that chicanes in a needfully focused manner, so the editing must be botched or something. Well, I can't ask for too much in life or I'll probably end up making a movie based on a dictionary for illiterates! (Yes, that's a crucial part of the story too).
Fitzwilly's flaws stand out, of course, just as the worst musicians stand out in the world's best marching bands. What's here is solid, honest, cartoony fun. See that poster? Frank Frazetta drafted it. Hear that music? It's one of John William's earliest film scores, and he's credited in the opening credits under his father's own name. Quality shines like highlights in Juliet's eyes all throughout Fitzwilly, and it's an exceptionally accessible heist comedy that lives up to what its cast is capable of. I still think that, if he ever had the chance, Dick Van Dyke would have made for a pitch-perfect Lupin the III, and maybe another actress like Barbara Feldon could have become Fujiko Mine too. Until then, there's this—and Fitzcarraldo, though that's about rubber and this movie's about mutter.
Joe Bob sez check it out!
****