It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?
When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).
Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations.
I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?
When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).
Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations.
I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?