Skip to main content

Open holidays only? How many of those are there?

Holiday Inn
(1942)

(SPOILERS) A slender premise that sustains itself surprisingly well, most obviously because, unlike the later White Christmas, which reuses Bing Crosby and the famous song first sung here and that more-dependable-than-the-real-stuff asbestos snow, there’s a degree of conflict ensuring Holiday Inn isn’t just a collection ineffectual interludes between Irving Berlin numbers.

Linda: I don’t know. It sounds like something you’d dream about at night and it would be wonderful. And then you’d wake up in the morning and realise it wouldn’t work.

Much of the effectiveness of Holiday Inn comes from Fred Astaire’s willingness to play such a louse; on those grounds, it would make sense that he turned down White Christmas, there being no such tension between the leads. When Crosby’s Jim Hardy announces his decision to retire to a Connecticut farm with Virginia Dale’s Lila Dixon, the third member of the act, Astaire’s Ted Hanover persuades her that he loves her and she should continue to perform with him “The two of us, dedicating our lives to making people happy with our feet”. The stinker. Crosby takes it on the chin and before long has turned the ailing farm into an inn, which, in appealingly indolent fashion, is open only on the holidays (“That gives me about 350 days a year to kick around in”).

Astaire, being voraciously predatory and a low-down dirty philanderer – he’s seriously shameless – then can’t resist stealing away the next woman to work with Crosby, Marjorie Reynold’s Linda Mason. Now admittedly, Bing, rather backed into a corner, is less than straight up with Astaire and Reynolds and attempts to put a spanner in the works, but you can’t really blame him for wanting to stomp on the little weasel. My sympathy’s all with Crosby when, on hearing Reynolds is to be whisked off to Hollywood and his holiday inn idea is to be appropriated – albeit not by a hotel chain, yet – responds sullenly “I can see now that I’m the only one who could be happy here”.

It all ends happily, naturally, thanks to Louise Beavers, his wise black housekeeper (most of Beavers’ roles were maids or housekeepers), who gives him an earful, but somehow, there’s absolutely no justice for dirty Fred. Indeed, he gets hitched to Dale and doubtless subsequently embarks on numerous extramarital affairs. It’s especially notable that no other side to Astaire; he’s entirely, shamelessly, scheming and duplicitous. There’s nothing to lend him a more likeable veneer.

Well, aside from his dance numbers; his tap solo punctuated by firecrackers is probably the best musical sequence in the picture; his drunk dance is pretty good too. The least auspicious is the especially tailored – post Pearl Harbour, which happened during the production – war effort promo with Bing singing Song of Freedom in a daft hat. Talking of which, you’ve got to hand it to Berlin for a lyric like “I could write a sonnet, about your Easter bonnet”.

The version I saw had its blackface number Abraham edited out, Channel 4 presumably being over sensitive to criticism after Theresa May announced it as her favourite Christmas film (much as I’m disinclined to throw the weight of my support behind the ex-PM, the way The Independent reported her admission, you’d think it's her favourite Christmas film because of the blackface. Which I’m sure isn’t the case).

Bing and Fred aren’t quite Bing and Bob (Hope), although it would have been nice to see Crosby one-upping Astaire the way he frequently did Hope in the Road movies. Holiday Inn's funniest scene, however doesn’t feature either lead. Having been delayed in her drive to the inn by hired hand Gus (Irving Bacon), who stops his car in the creek, leading to her getting very wet, Reynolds is given a lift by Dale. Learning why the latter is there – Crosby has connived to bring her together as Astaire’s partner again – Reynolds offers to drive, as she knows a shortcut to the inn. Instead she stops in the creek again, so leaving Dale stranded. Very crafty.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.