Skip to main content

Better luck next time. Only not with me, of course.


The Prince and the Showgirl
(1957)

Probably more famous for the much-reported difficulties that Laurence Olivier had with co-star Marilyn Monroe than the film itself. It’s either testament to Oliver the director that she is easily the most enjoyable part of the film or an indictment of Oliver the actor that his titular Prince is played with all the warmth, and certainly the demeanour, of a leg of cold ham.

Monroe was 31 when the film was released, Olivier 19 years her senior (playing 45-ish). It’s fair to say that Olivier’s flirtation with Hollywood stardom had been brief; Rebecca had shown a dashing, intense leading man not-quite-comfortable with such duties, while 49th Parallel gave us that rarest of his big screen personas; dashing, relaxed and highly charismatic (a shame then, that he appears only in the first section of the film). The fifteen years or so between were notable for a triumvirate of Shakespeare adaptations that he directed, starred in and (two of the three) produced. He won Best Actor Oscar for Hamlet, which also took Best Picture (and he was nominated for Director) in 1948. Four years earlier he had been nominated in the same categories for Henry V. Richard III, tow years before Prince, didn’t go down quite as well, and he had to settle for an Actor nomination alone. So what was the attraction of Prince, even given the Terrence Rattigan screenplay (based on his stage play)? It was far from his beloved Bard, and the presence of his co-star seemed like shameless chasing of big audiences. A few years later, with Crassus in Spartacus, an era of notable and not-so-notable supporting roles would be ushered in.

Monroe, meanwhile, had been a bona fide star for a mere four years, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and The Seven Year Itch making the biggest impression. Cast to her strengths, her brand of airheaded innocence made for irresistible comedy, but no one was coming forward with tales of how easy she was to work with. Certainly, the combination of the two performers looks like a marriage of opposites on paper, let alone the production itself.

Olivier’s problems with his lead are reportedly the reason for his absence from film directing for another 13 years. His presence in the film is not so strange when one learns that he had played the role on stage (with Vivien Leigh in the Monroe role); he was in place when the Monroe came aboard and she had no say (despite having quickly become a major player who could allegedly demand 75% of the film’s profits; whether this was gross is unclear).  Still, Olivier clearly knew how to make his lead’s assets feature prominently, both in terms of personality and physicality. The Monroe butt is in prominent display throughout (sealed in a figure hugging dress, of which there were several versions made to support the star’s fluctuating weight at the time).

If the production appeared thorny ground from the off, the results weren’t favoured either. Critically Prince wasn’t much loved, and commercially it merely scraped back its costs (it also inspired My Week with Marilyn, released a couple of years ago).

Set in London against the backdrop of the coronation of King George V (1911), Prince concerns the relationship of the Carpathian Prince Regent, Charles (Olivier) with actress Elsie Marine (Monroe). Whom he initially invites to the Carpathian Embassy for supper; she discovers it is a pretext for a one-night stand. Nothing goes according to his plan, and her stay extends beyond Charles’ comfort zone, as she strikes up friendships with the young King Nicholas (Charles’ son, played by Jeremy Spenser) and the elderly Queen (Charles’ mother-in-law, played by Sybil Thorndike). Charles is a rigid, stern figure and his relationship with the incumbent king is fraught. The British government wishes to protect its interests in Europe, where tensions are rising, but Nicholas is keen to depose his father with the help of German contacts. Of course, the involvement of Elsie provokes less than predictable results for all concerned.

Olivier, as mentioned, really is a terrible old luvvie here. His performance is highly theatrical; all exaggerated mannerisms and elongated (semi-) Eastern European accent. There’s nothing to convince you that he’s falling for Elsie, just as her sudden announcement that she is in love with him is mystifying (to be fair, she states she doesn’t know why but this makes it no less baffling). Monroe fares much better, certainly in respect of her familiar little-girl-comedy act. She comes up short, however, when we’re asked to believe that she speaks fluent German and the mask of her ignorance is dropped for insightful suggestions (it’s not as if the script is asking us to believe she’s a brainiac; Charles refers to her as having “the mind of a backwards child”).  There are definitely occasions when the free-and-easy versus starchy-and-uptight yield amusing results (“It’s your medals; they’re tickling me”) but Olivier isn’t versatile enough at comedy to make the most of it (perhaps Mike Myers could remake it…)

The failure of the romance is one thing, but Olivier’s lack of economy in the storytelling is a bigger problem. This sort of material should be rendered with a lightness of touch, rather than stagey leadeness. There’s a scene of Elsie being overcome by the beauty of Westminster Abbey that seems to go on for about five minutes. And the song Monroe wails at one point is rather dreary too.

Rattigan begins by taking some potshots at the abuses of power and status, with a fairly pronounced sexual set-up established (there are a number of quite overt references to sexual activity throughout the film, which must have been a touch risqué for the mid-to-late 1950s) but then drops any subtext for fairly run-of-the-mill plotting.

Nevertheless, I didn’t find it quite the chore to sit through that some would have you believe (this was the second time I’ve seen the film, but little had stuck in the mind from my first viewing). The strange clash of approaches between Olivier and Monroe is fascinating. And there are some highly enjoyable supporting turns, including the estimable Richard Wattis as the put-upon embassy official Northbrook. Thorndike and Spenser are also good (the latter, in particular, manages to make a potential brattish character sympathetic).

One might point to the abrupt, non-committal ending as a reason for the film’s failure, and I don’t think it helps. But really, do you want to see these two together? Tellingly, there is a much stronger rapport between Elsie and the young king. Ultimately. the problem may have been Olivier’s autonomy; a more comedy-minded director might have staged the action less ploddingly and elicited a more sympathetic turn from the leading man.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Perhaps I am dead. Perhaps we’re both dead. And this is some kind of hell.

The Avengers 5.7: The Living Dead
The Living Dead occupies such archetypal Avengers territory that it feels like it must have been a more common plotline than it was; a small town is the cover for invasion/infiltration, with clandestine forces gathering underground. Its most obvious antecedent is The Town of No Return, and certain common elements would later resurface in Invasion of the Earthmen. This is a lot broader than Town, however, the studio-bound nature making it something of a cosy "haunted house" yarn, Scooby Doo style.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

What if I tell you to un-punch someone, what you do then?

Incredibles 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Incredibles 2 may not be as fresh as the first outing – indeed, certain elements of its plotting border on the retread – but it's equally, if not more, inventive as a piece of animation, and proof that, whatever his shortcomings may be philosophically, Brad Bird is a consummately talented director. This is a movie that is consistently very funny, and which is as thrilling as your average MCU affair, but like Finding Dory, you may understandably end up wondering if it shouldn't have revolved around something a little more substantial to justify that fifteen-year gap in reaching the screen.