Skip to main content

We're not like you! You're made of iron, we're just flesh and blood! Hungry and thirsty flesh and blood!

Lifeboat 
(1944)

Like Rope, this wartime Hitchcock effort sees the director thriving on the technical challenge of basing a film around a single location. The script from John Steinbeck maintains the character drama throughout, throwing in battles with the elements and thwarted plans to reach safe harbour. The characters need to be sufficiently compelling as the suspense element is limited by the scenario. Hitchcock was keen to do his patriotic duty during WWII, so it's ironic that some critics suggested the film was pro-Nazi in presenting a German character who was several steps ahead of his fellow survivors; the director's intention was for the lifeboat's occupants to represent the allies in a microcosm, and only by uniting could they defeat the more prepared and resilient enemy.

Tallulah Bankhead makes the most of the ostensible lead (certainly the only big name in the cast), a smart-mouthed, lusty photo-journalist. The first time we see her she is the sole occupant of the titular survival vessel, sat incongruously in her mink coat smoking a cigarette. She is in no doubt of her importance. Bankhead didn't go in for underwear; Hitchcock's reaction was "I don't know if this is a matter for the costume department, makeup, or hairdressing").

Of the rest of the cast the most variable is Hume Cronyn. His "English" accent must be one of the worst ever; it's hard to get past that to consider whether his performance is any good or not.  Water Slezak's German, Willy, is the only actor who can match Bankhead for screen presence. Mary Anderson, a Fox contract-player, is a bit of a babe and seems an unlikely match for Cronyn (stressful environments and all that, I guess). William Bendix, John Hodiak, Canada Lee and Henry Hull are all solid.

Lee's African American character Joe is introduced with the cry of "Hey, Charcoal!" from Bankhead, making you wonder if the treatment of the character can only get worse from there. But for the most part he's written with more awareness than might have been expected for a film of this period. While he's introduced with a negative signifier (he was once a pickpocket), this skill proves vital as events unfold. At one point he expresses surprise that he would be asked for his vote on what to do, and later the other characters further betray their ignorance by showing their surprise at the photo of his wife and children.

The film is so technically accomplished that it smooths over some of the less credible aspects of the script. Most obvious is the amputation of a leg on a small boat in the middle of a storm with only a bottle of brandy as anaesthetic (I hardly think that when the victim comes round he will claim to feel "much better"). Some of Willy's actions probably don't stand much scrutiny in retrospect either (for someone with such skills of manipulation and coersion he makes several very sloppy blunders). At other times the writing is highly insightful; Bankhead is introduced seeing the war as little more than an entertainment that she can make capital from. The film features Hitchcock's favourite of his cameos; it's certainly his most inventive (I won’t spoil it if you haven’t seen it).

SPOILERS:

The climax is interesting in terms of the possible readings one could take away. At first glance, the shaking of heads at the frightened young German who expected them to kill him (he is rescued but then pulls a gun on them) seems to be a somewhat glib ascribing of innate moral superiority to the Allies. But we have to consider also that those uttering this sentiment have just lynched the nefarious German who was plotting their demise/surrender. And Hitchcock filmed them doing this in a fairly unequivocally disdainful eye (as he said to Truffaut, "they're like a pack of dogs"). Nevertheless, while it would have been astonishing to arrive at any other point, I couldn't help but be disappointed that Willy is revealed to be so single-mindedly villainous beneath his charm and manipulation. Walter Slezak makes the character immensely charismatic in his level-headedness while all around are falling to pieces. A more interesting and less polarised approach might have been more satisfying (after all the previous year had brought the amazingly even-handed and insightful The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp). But I was also slightly disappointed for the more prosaic reason that the German being the villain was obvious, and you want Hitchcock to surprise you. But in Lifeboat, the surprise is one telegraphed by the title and poster; the director will be imposing severely restrictive elements upon himself and the pleasure for the viewer is in seeing how he is able to sustain this. 





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window.

Black Hawk Down (2001)
(SPOILERS) Black Hawk Down completed a trilogy of hits for Ridley Scott, a run of consistency he’d not seen even a glimmer of hitherto. He was now a brazenly commercial filmmaker, one who could boast big box office under his belt where previously such overt forays had seen mixed results (Black Rain, G.I. Jane). It also saw him strip away the last vestiges of artistic leanings from his persona, leaving behind, it seemed, only technical virtuosity. Scott was now given to the increasingly thick-headed soundbite (“every war movie is an anti-war movie”) in justification for whatever his latest carry-on carried in terms of controversial elements, and more than happy to bed down with the Pentagon (long-standing collaborators with producer Jerry Bruckheimer) to make a movie that, while depictinga less than auspicious intervention by the US military (“Based on an Actual Event” is a marvellous catch-all for wanton fabrication), managed to turn it into a parade of heroes pe…

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…