Skip to main content

Christmas! Nothing but a merchants’ holiday.

Beyond Tomorrow

(SPOILERS) This one’s definitely a Christmas curiosity. With such a premise – including throwing in a “twist” halfway through, assuming you haven’t seen the movie poster (bottom of the page) – and a surer hand at the tiller, you suspect it would have played like gangbusters. Dusted off and spruced up, it might even be an evergreen, ripe for its own remake: a kind of Yule Ghost, with a couple’s happiness at stake, the divine intervention – or from beyond, at any rate – and holiday season theme would later become central to the ultimate entry in Beyond Tomorrow’s genre, It’s A Wonderful Life.

They have a redemptive theme in common – “Sometimes we have to go to the darkness before we see the light” – and it applies both to those passed beyond (Harry Carey’s George Melton) and those remaining on Earth (Richard Carlson’s James Houston, consorting with a floozy rather than remaining true to his true belle, Jean Parker’s Jean Lawrence). As seems to be common among ’40s Christmas pictures – doubtless A Christmas Carol over-influenced – there’s a focus on haves and have nots.

But where It’s a Wonderful Life’s Mr Potter is unrepentant in his mercenary attitudes (like Mrs Deagle in Gremlins forty years later), those in Beyond Tomorrow and It Happened on 5th Avenue are either openly giving, warm-hearted and caring, or very soon will be. In such pictures, there’s no problem with a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven. An assuagement of guilt, post-Great Depression? Those holding the purse strings telling themselves they aren’t so bad, really? Certainly, the prime offender here is made out to be the glorious revolution, requiring Russian Countess Madam Tanya (Walter Matthau-alike Maria Ouspenskaya, of The Wolf Man fame) to flee her motherland with nothing.

The movie begins with a Christmas Eve bet between wealthy engineers Michael O’Brien (Charles Winninger), Allan Chadwick (C Aubrey Smith) and George. Michael is full of festive cheer, in a very Oirish fashion, and Allan, an-ex Major, is easily persuaded of the virtues of such sentiments. George, in contrast, is a grump who would have everyone working through the night if he could. Curiously, they share a mansion. More curiously still, they share it with Madam Tanya.

The bet has the kind of flippancy later seen in Trading Places – throw their wallets into the street with only a tenner in them, and see who brings them back – but without the underlining sadistic intent. Appropriately, curmudgeon George never sees his again, but Michael’s is brought back by Houston and the Major’s by Jean, sparking a star-crossed romance between the two. One that, for some reason, the three old bachelors seem fully invested in (a montage sees them entertaining revolting orphans, going bowling and all sorts of other unlikelinesses in each other’s company).

There seems more than enough material there in itself, particularly with George’s mutterings – refreshingly left murky – about a dark past, and his moral rectitude when countering the major’s boasts of the great things the British Empire has fostered throughout the world (such as “civilisation to the wilderness” of Australia). However, at about the halfway mark, the trio are killed when their plane crashes in a storm. They return as ghosts to their home (this appears to be a break with lore, where spirits remain in the vicinity of their fatal departure, traumatised and bewildered). It’s rather as if, having believed Marion Crane was the lead in Psycho, she only went and lingered on to haunt Norman after she’d been offed.

The precise metaphysical legislation involved in this happening is unclear, but the newly ghosted are snatched up from limbo to the permanent beyond – no mention of reincarnation here – in gradual order of their decency. So rather the reverse of the expected. George is taken first, summoned by the darkness as it seems, and Michael pleads with him that he can surely stay, “if you’re sorry for it”. But George is unchastened: “What I did needed doing… and I’d be a hypocrite to say I’m sorry now”.

A short time later, the Major’s son David arrives for him (“I heard something. It’s the old bugle call”), and the schema becomes clearer: “Every man gets his dream” (which, alarmingly, is the Major’s old army outpost: halcyon days). It’s a recuperative period, which isn’t far from some descriptions of the post-life astral sojourn of some souls, depending on requirements. No disqualification for the wealthy in this dojo, such that we see a returned George at the end, having discharged the bitterness that infused his system.

There is also the warning – from the voice of the beyond, sounding a little like Knight Rider’s KITT – that, should Michael stay on in the lower astral in an attempt to mend the situation between Houston and Jean, he’ll become one of those feckless spirits prone to haunting hither and thither: “It means you will linger in the shadows of Earth, for all time”. Obviously, this voice of wisdom is a bit of a sly one, prone to changing its mind after issuing portents of doom, and subject to the barracking of a fiery Irish matriarch: “Your mother would give us no peace until we came back for you”.

There also seems to be something of a reliance on the pull of the material realm with regard to those staying, for whatever reason, be it unfinished business or, in the case of aforementioned floozy Arlene (Helen Vinison) on being shot by her ex: “She’s gone. She had no soul at all to go on with”. In contrast, Houston meets Michael in the astral, the latter having ascended from the operating table, and pleads with KITT, on the basis the lad deserves a second chance. He was simply “Too young and thoughtless and success came too suddenly”.

Notably too, the Russian countess can sense the presences of the spirits and had a premonition the three men should not fly (Houston also senses George as he heads off with Arlene – “Say, do you believe in hunches?” – but superficial pleasures get the better of him). Other incidents of note include a kindly policeman allowing Houston to ride his horse – and his sergeant not reprimanding him – and a conversation on the merits of Brussel sprouts.

Performances are all pretty decent, with Carey, Smith and Winniger effectively inhabiting their types; there’s thus little need for over explanation. Carlson was having a good run at this point, appearing with Bob Hope in the same year’s The Ghost Breakers and going on to the Oscar-nominated The Little Foxes in 1941. Parker only really gets to be dumped, unfortunately.

A Edward Sutherland’s direction isn’t especially distinguished, but there’s some nice moody photography from Lester White (he also lensed several Rathbone Sherlock Holmes), adding more of an atmosphere than the rudimentary staging in a number of Christmas tales of the era (Lady in the Lake, It Happened on 5th Avenue). Adele Commandi would later pen Christmas in Connecticut. Perhaps the drawback with Beyond Tomorrow is one of perspective, unable to switch focus sufficiently to the young leads because the older trio, and particularly Michael, have commanded the attention. Nevertheless, a likeable little Christmas tale, and interesting for its metaphysical take.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.