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…

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…

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…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

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.

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.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

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 …