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.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?