Skip to main content

Charming. Now she's got the old boy's money, she's making a play for the younger one.


Woman of Straw
(1964)

(SPOILERS) The first fruit of Sean cashing in on his Bond status in other leading man roles – he even wears the tux he’d later sport in Goldfinger. On one level, he isn’t exactly stretching himself as a duplicitous, misogynist bastard. On the other, he is actually the bad guy; this time, you aren’t supposed to be onside his capacity for killing people. It’s interesting to see Connery in his nascent star phase, but despite an engaging set up and a very fine performance from Ralph Richardson, Woman of Straw is too much of a slow-burn, trad crime thriller/melodrama to really make a mark. All very professionally polished, but the spoiled fruits of an earlier era.

Indeed, at first sniff, Woman of Straw (a play on “man of straw”) looks quite promising. Based on Catherine Arley’s 1954 La Femme de Paille and adapted by Robert Muller (who also penned a 70s series, Man of Straw) and Stanley Mann (later to work on Connery’s bomb Meteor), it positions Richardson as despotic Charles Richmond, assisted by his nephew Tony (Connery), whom he habitually belittles. But not nearly as badly as his African servants Thomas (Johnny Sekka, Colonel Nsonga in The AvengersHave Guns – Will Haggle) and his brother Fenton (Danny Daniels). If Tony didn’t have a diabolical scheme in mind, you’d have no idea why he sticks around, since he’s been promised exactly £20k in Charles’ will (the rest will go to charity). Uncle Charles is worth $50m. The extent of Charles’ interests isn’t known, aside from a copper mine; at one point, Thomas is asked why he doesn’t just leave, and he replies that his hands are tied, since all his people work in the mine.

Charles believes Thomas and Fenton are perfect servants, owing to their people spending “hundreds of years waiting on the white men”; “He treats his servants like dogs, and his dogs like servants”. To prove it, Charles makes Thomas get on his hands and knees in the garden while his dogs jump over him; “They like it, I tell you. They love it!” No stone is left unturned in ensuring the wheelchair-bound Charles is depicted as entirely reprehensible and utterly loathsome. At one point, Fenton nearly drowns while Charles is recklessly out on deck during a storm. At another, Charles throws the chicken dinners served on board against the wall exclaiming “I abominate fowl!” Tony has more than sufficient grounds to hate his uncle, who saw his brother’s suicide as “just another triumph” of a stronger man over a weaker one, and who married his widow (of her death, he is attributed as saying “You gave me everything and took nothing. You were a very stupid woman”).

Richardson is utterly riveting, and it’s no wonder Connery was said to have been in awe of him, signing up partly on the basis of his involvement: Christopher Bray (in Sean Connery: The Measure of a Man) detects discomfort in Connery’s performance due to that respect, but I think Bray’s stretching it (there’s never a moment where Tony doesn’t look like he could knock Charles’ block off if he so wished). The reason Tony doesn’t translate effectively is that, like Pam Ayres' mother's flit gun, he's devoid of charm; Connery just comes across as a sociopath here, and he was similarly cast in a manner that underlined his least appealing tendencies in Marnie. For either to work, there needed to be a conflict in the viewer (like Cary Grant in Suspicion, for example). Tony deals with Gina Lollobrigida’s Maria with deplorable lack of finesse (including a jolly good slap); it comes as no surprise when the twist reveals he did the dirty on their deal. More so that he should come up with a plan so full of holes that it’s inevitable he will be found out (albeit, the actual means of doing so is risible).

More than Connery, however, the problems with Woman of Straw stem from Lollobrigida’s character; its Maria, not Tony, who is the lead, and it’s through her eyes that we see the warped family. She’s suitably sultry, even when she’s positioned as the austere nurse brought in to tend Charles at the opening. But she struggles to give her character any agency beyond recoiling in horror at Charles’ behaviour and softening towards him once they are married. She’s supposed to be sympathetic, but if she were, she’d never have agreed to Tony’s scheme in the first place (whereby she manipulates Charles into marrying her, he changes the will in her favour, and then, when he croaks as he’s destined to before long, she takes the inheritance and Tony gets a million). Throughout most of the film, Maria’s positioned as a Hitchcock heroine, tormented by the men around her, and yet in the opening passages she displays steel and resolve (and even then, her professed integrity is entirely relinquished by dint of her pact).

Basil Dearden directs with leisurely poise but little eye for dramatic tension. A modicum of suspense eventually surfaces with the attempts to move Charles’ corpse home on the basis that the new will won’t be valid unless it is registered; there are so many variables here, it’s a wonder that Tony (whom we later learn poisoned his uncle) gets as far as he did, up to the point where Maria is on trial and sentenced. The deus ex machina of Charles recording an accusation against Tony that was then secreted away by Thomas is irritatingly lazy, as is Tony falling downstairs and breaking his neck.

Indeed, I couldn’t help thinking Woman of Straw would have been a much more intriguing prospect if it had broken the mould. If, as reprehensible as he is, Tony got away with his crime. It would certainly have given the picture a memorable ending. As it is, it’s notable for Richardson’s racist and little else.








Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

I only know what I’ve been programmed to believe. But, of course, the same goes for you.

Raised by Wolves Season One (SPOILERS) Ridley Scott’s latest transhumanist tract is so stuffed with required lore, markers and programming, it’s a miracle it manages to tell a half-engaging story along the way. Aaron Guzikowski ( Prisoners ) is the credited creator, but it has the Ridders stamp of dour dystopia all over it, complete with Darius Wolski ( Prometheus ) cinematography setting the tone. Which means bleak grey skies, augmented by South Africa this time, rather than Iceland. Raised by Wolves is a reliable mix of wacko twist plotting and clumsy, slack-jawed messaging; like the Alien prequels, it will surely never be seen through to a conclusion, but as an agenda platform it’s never less than engaging (and also frequently, for the same reasons, exasperating).

You’re like a human mummy!

The Lost City (2022) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most distressing part of The Lost City , a Romancing the Stone riff that appears to have been packaged by the Hollywood equivalent of a processed cheese plant lacking its primary ingredient (that would be additives), is the possibility that Daniel Radcliffe is the only viable actor left standing in Tinseltown. That’s if the suggestions at least two of the performers here – Sandra Bullock and Brad Pitt – are deep faked in some way, shape or form, and the other name – Channing Tatum – is serving hard atonement time. If the latter’s choices generally weren’t so abysmal and his talent in arears, I’d assume that was the only explanation for him showing up in this dreck.

Okay, just jump right into my nightmare, the water is warm.

Jerry Maguire  (1996) (SPOILERS) I didn’t much like Jerry Maguire at the time, which I suspect is intrinsically linked to the fact that I didn’t much like Tom Cruise at the time. I’m still not really a massive fan of either, but the latter at least made an effort to rein in his most irksome traits subsequently. Jerry Maguire , however, finds him drawing on the same “bag of tricks” that mystifyingly transfixed his fan base a decade before in Top Gun . Bonnie Hunt suggested the toughest part of the role was “ playing a character that doesn’t like Tom Cruise ”. I wouldn’t have had that problem. I do not like Tom and Jerry.