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

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.

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…

Trouble’s part of the circus. They said Barnum was in trouble when he lost Tom Thumb.

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
(SPOILERS) Anyone of a mind that it’s a recent development for the Oscars to cynically crown underserving recipients should take a good look at this Best Picture winner from the 25thAcademy Awards. In this case, it’s generally reckoned that the Academy felt it was about time to honour Hollywood behemoth Cecil B DeMille, by that point into his seventies and unlikely to be jostling for garlands much longer, before it was too late. Of course, he then only went and made a bona fide best picture contender, The Ten Commandments, and only then pegged it. Because no, The Greatest Show on Earth really isn’t very good.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

What lit the fire that set off our Mr Reaper?

Death Wish (2018)
(SPOILERS) I haven’t seen the original Death Wish, the odd clip aside, and I don’t especially plan to remedy that, owing to an aversion to Charles Bronson when he isn’t in Once Upon a Time in the West and an aversion to Michael Winner when he wasn’t making ‘60s comedies or Peter Ustinov Hercule Poirots. I also have an aversion to Eli Roth, though (this is the first of his oeuvre I’ve seen, again the odd clip aside, as I have a general distaste for his oeuvre), and mildly to Bruce when he’s on autopilot (most of the last twenty years), so really, I probably shouldn’t have checked this one out. It was duly slated as a fascistic, right-wing rallying cry, even though the same slaters consider such behaviour mostly okay if the protagonist is super-powered and wearing a mask when taking justice into his (or her) own hands, but the truth is this remake is a quite serviceable, occasionally amusing little revenger, one that even has sufficient courage in its skewed convictions …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Monster? We’re British, you know.

Horror Express (1972)
(SPOILERS) This berserk Spanish/British horror boasts Hammer titans Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (both as good guys!) to its name, and cloaked in period trappings (it’s set in 1906), suggests a fairly standard supernatural horror, one with crazy priests and satanic beasts. But, with an alien life form aboard the Trans-Siberian Express bound for Moscow, Horror Express finishes up more akin to The Cassandra Crossing meets The Thing.

Countess Petrovski: The czar will hear of this. I’ll have you sent to Siberia. Captain Kazan: I am in Siberia!
Christopher Lee’s Alexander Saxton, anthropologist and professor of the Royal Geological Society, has retrieved a frozen corpse from Manchuria. Believing it might be the Missing Link he crates it up to transport home via the titular train. Other passengers include his colleague and rival Dr Wells (Cushing), an international spy, and an antic monk called Father Pujardov (Alberto de Mendoza, strikingly lunatic), who for some rea…

You had to grab every single dollar you could get your hands on, didn't you?

Triple Frontier (2019)
(SPOILERS) Triple Frontier must have seemed like a no-brainer for Netflix, even by their standards of indiscriminately greenlighting projects whenever anyone who can’t get a job at a proper studio asks. It had, after all, been a hot property – nearly a decade ago now – with Kathryn Bigelow attached as director (she retains a producing credit) and subsequently JC Chandor, who has seen it through to completion. Netflix may not have attracted quite the same level of prospective stars – Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Tom Hardy and Channing Tatum were all involved at various points – but as ever, they haven’t stinted on the production. To what end, though? Well, Bigelow’s involvement is a reliable indicator; this is a movie about very male men doing very masculine things and suffering stoically for it.

I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
(SPOILERS) There isn’t, of course, anything left to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey, although the devoted still try, confident in their belief that it’s eternally obliging in offering unfathomable mystery. And it does seem ever responsive to whatever depths one wishes to plumb in analysing it for themes, messages or clues either about what is really going on out there some around Jupiter, or in its director’s head. Albeit, it’s lately become difficult to ascertain which has the more productive cottage industry, 2001 or The Shining, in the latter regard. With Eyes Wide Shut as the curtain call, a final acknowledgement to the devout that, yes, something really emphatic was going under Stanley Kubrick’s hood and it’s there, waiting to be exhumed, if you only look with the right kind of eyes.

Poor A. A. Milne. What a ghastly business.

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
The absolutely true story of how P. L. Travers came to allow Walt Disney to adapt Mary Poppins, after 20 years’ persistent begging on the latter’s part. Except, of course, it isn’t true at all. Walt has worked his magic from beyond the grave over a fairly unremarkable tale of mutual disagreement. Which doesn’t really matter if the result is a decent movie that does something interesting or though-provoking by changing the facts… Which I’m not sure it does. But Saving Mr. Banks at least a half-decent movie, and one considerably buoyed by the performances of its lead actors.

Actually, Mr. Banks is buoyed by the performances of its entire cast. It’s the script that frequently lets the side down, laying it on thick when a lighter touch is needed, repeating its message to the point of nausea. And bloating it out not so neatly to the two-hour mark when the story could have been wrapped up quite nicely in a third less time. The title itself could perhaps be seen as rubbi…