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

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

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…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death
There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death, accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.