Skip to main content

Aloof sounds good.

Sweet Charity

(SPOILERS) Bob Fosse’s directorial debut, and very far from any kind of classic. Sweet Charity does, however, offer a sequence that undeniably merits such status, and knocks 99 percent of choreographed numbers into a cocked hat. Unfortunately, it comes during the first thirty minutes, and there are still two more hours to go.

Indeed, the preceding Big Spender is no slouch either, and obviously the song from the musical that has since gained legendary status; a prospective client surveys a line-up of taxi-dancers for his delectation. Fosse opens the movie in crash-zoom overdrive, like he’s getting giddy with the camera’s possibilities (which, unless you’re Ken Brannagh, Stephen Sommers or Chris Carter, is arguably better than doing nothing with it). But when he settles into numbers employing expert choreography and precision timing, the combination of camera, performer and editing are invariably a wonder to behold, as evidenced in nightclub sequence The Rich Man’s Frug. Comprising The Aloof/The Heavyweight/The Big Finish, this is surely one of the greatest musical sequences ever (and later copied by Mike Myers in Austin Powers – I was going to say spoofed, but homaged would be better).

Based on Neil Simon’s 1966 stage musical, also served up by Fosse, and in turn inspired by Fellini’s Nights of Cabiria (about a hooker, rather than this picture’s private, well, taxi-dancer), Sweet Charity follows the unhappy love affairs of Shirley MacLaine’s Charity. Having been thrown in a Central Park lake by her boyfriend (who makes off with her savings), she captures the attentions of movie star Vittori Vitale (Ricard Montalbán, great). He has just split with girlfriend Ursula; Vittorio and Ursula soon end up together again, however, due to Charity being overly, er, sweet. But all is not lost; she meets Oscar Lindquist (John McMartin) after leaving an inopportune appointment with an employment agency. Alas, Oscar’s proposal is, in due course, scuppered. He’s unable to see past the number of men she’s been with (the line between taxi dancer and hooker evidently being a sketchy one).

The problem with Sweet Charity’s structure is that, once Vitale is out of the picture, the proceedings are mildly diverting at best, something of a chore at worst. Charity and Oscar are stuck in a lift. There’s a decent cameo number from ever-popular, self-professed Satanist Sammy Davis Jr as – of all things – a preacher named Big Daddy; he’s holding forth at the Rhythm of Life Tabernacle (number seven of the top ten religions, doubtless pushing the Process Church aside). It’s so obviously filler, though, a digression designed to distract attention from the big empty nothing of the main action, that in some ways it’s a mistake. And, after all that, having Charity left on her own is a massive downer.

Fosse, expecting a clash with studio, also filmed a “too corny” happy ending (where Charity and Oscar end up together after all). To his surprise, Universal didn’t pressure him to use it. Really, though, this isn’t West Side Story. There’s nothing crucial that requires Charity to finish up in a place of bittersweet resignation. There’s barely a plot to hang anything on in the entire two-and-a-half hours, let alone a running theme. Still, I’m informed Sweet Charity’s very popular… on the stage.

I see MacLaine was compared disparagingly with Gwen Verdon’s “eccentric line” in that production, and I can quite appreciate how a different, more embracing and self-conscious flair from the lead could have worked… perhaps not wonders – the story would still be flaccid – but make it more appealing. There’s one great MacLaine moment preceding the standout number (the aforementioned The Aloof/The Heavyweight/The Big Finish), where the attendees are all asking in turn “Who is it?”, in reference to Ricardo’s date, and she responds to the inquisitive camera with “It’s just me!” That would have been exactly the gusto to give the character throughout, throwing off the continued chasteners lobbed her way.

Verdon was nearly a decade older than MacLaine – and not a movie star, crucially – so I’m not necessarily suggesting the movie needed a younger player; I would say it certainly needed a younger MacLaine, however. This is the point where she’s no longer so fresh and inspiring, despite being a mere wisp of 35; crucially, she’s in the transitionary state from her likeable younger self to jaded older harridan (I wouldn’t go as far as Don Siegel in the following year’s Two Mules for Sister Sara, but I can see his point when he complained “She’s too unfeminine and has too much balls”). No shortage of Atlantean crystal ones, though.

Indeed, fellow dancer Paula Kelly (The Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green) makes for a much more appealing potential lead as Shirley. Also in the cast is Bud Cort as one of the hippies whose “peace” vibe saves Charity from suicidal thoughts (something that dated the movie even before its release).

Pauline Kael commented “It’s a disaster”, but she dug Fosse’s choreography and dancing. Time Out’s Tom Milne reappraised it as “No masterpiece but a generally underrated musical all the same” and called MacLaine “splendidly funny”. So again, your mileage may vary based on how appealing you find her. Sweet Charity could be added to the log jam of musical flops over the last few years of the ’60s, ones that resoundingly cancelled the lavish enthusiasm for the genre following the triptych of The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins and My Fair Lady. There’d be significantly fewer during the subsequent decade, but two of them would notably come from Fosse, learning from his novice errors here.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…