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…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

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 …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

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…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…