Humphrey Bogart - Film by Film Thread

You're right. But also consider how many of Bogart's seemingly 'hard bolied' roles also contained comic elements. 'The Big Sleep', for instance, is closer to being a comedy than it is to a straight noir.

Hmmm. One key difference is that De Niro's switch to comedy has coincided with a drastic decline in the quality of his films. Yes, 'Meet the Parents' was a bit of a guilty pleasure, but so many of his films since then have been dreadful. Bogart was able to switch between genres and modes much more easily.

 

Hmmm. I ealyy don't like De Niro playing comedy Too much of a stretch.

 

^ Nor I.

 

No offense but that seems like historical revisionism to me. I don't think they were trying to be ironic. Given the crazy shooting history of that film they were lucky to edit anything out of it.

I love the car that Bogart drives.

 

No offence taken.

But no revisionism necessary. 'The Big Sleep' is a Howard Hawks movie to its very core. I don't know if 'ironic' is the right word but it's close enough. They were definitely approaching the story in an arch, knowing, and always airly amused manner.

Also, I don't think the shooting history was so very crazy, was it?

 

I would call it a witty movie rather than a funny one.

 

So what is the next film? How close are we to Sabrina?

 

Good movie, but I would guess I haven't seen it in 20 years or more.

 

It was indeed. 20 years or so ago, there was an interesting documentary on TNT. I'm sure it will be discussed once the film features in this thread.

 

Next up will be the highly troublesome 'The Barefoot Contessa'.

 

Yes, I know about that. But I don't think that counts as crazy, though. We'll see when we get to it...

 

Bump!

 

Saturday nite TV being such a vast wasteland, I pulled out Casablanca for my wife and me to watch. It was the third time this year...

 

The Barefoot Contessa

'The Barefoot Contessa', 1954, United Artists

Directed by: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Writers: Joseph L. Mankiewicz.

Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Ava Gardner, Edmund O'Brien

128 minutes, Technicolor

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046754/


Here's (part of) Wikipedia’s plot summary (mild spoiler):

What follows may seem harsh; it represents how I feel right now about the film, and what I've always felt. That could change one day, but I don't expect so. I'm hopeful that other will contradict me and maybe win me over. Good luck...

This should have been a classic. The tragedy is not that it wasn't, but that it fell so phenomenally short of what logic dictates the expectations must have been. The great Mankiewicz, director of 'All About Eve'; the sizzling hot Ava Gardner, tucking into a meaty role with real-life resonances (her character has shades of Rita Hayworth), and the whole thing being filmed by ferociously talented cinematographer Jack Cardiff. And here Hollywood was focusing on subject that was dear to its heart: itself. Movies about the movies are often the best; this one is the exception that proves the rule.

What went wrong? Well, it's turgid, far far too long, and generally feels like the filmic equivalent of a cigar that won't light because it's been soaked in treacle. Bogart is very good here, but he's let down on all sides. Edmond O'Brien is surely one of the oddest Oscar winners of all time. Not that he didn't deserve his award, but his performance does nothing to alleviate the film's cardboard atmosphere. Marius Goring and
Rossano Brazzi are two of the dullest on-screen rivals in cinema history; the viewer could be forgiven for fantastsing that they might fight a duel and shoot each other dead.

There are countless longuers, everything is done incredibly heavy-handedly, the tone is bloated, ludicrously portentous and po-faced. This film is just no fun. And we haven't even mentioned Ava Gardner yet. To say she and Bogart lack screen chemistry is like saying cats don't like water. Gardner, ex-wife and perpetual tormentor of Bogart's friend Frank Sinatra, apparently enjoyed on-set relations with Bogart that began bad and quickly got worse. Bogart was ill, bad-tempered, and drinking buddies with Sinatra - the man Gardner's rejections drove to attempt suicide. It was never likely to be a happy experience; but perhaps that's hindsight. In any case, it's probably that all of these factors contributed to the frigid, unyieldingly remote and humourless performance contribute by Gardner here, and actress who elsewhere was often scintillating and fun-loving.

Creaky old curmudgeon Bosley Crowther's contemporaneous New York Times review hit the nail on the head when it branded this "curiously empty tabloid tale" a "lengthy account of bleak frustrations". Crowther's review is, in fact, more entertaining than the film. Here's his conclusion, which would be hard to top:

This film is an exception in this series so far, in that I haven't re-watched it for the purposes of the thread. I’d seen it again recently already, having bought the DVD. It's still essential viewing for Bogart fans, and raises interesting questions about the fragilities of greatness, etc. The opening scenes are the best, and contain some scattered elements of entertainment. But boy does it seem to last forever. Want to slow down time for a couple of hours? Slip this disc into your DVD player, lie back, and dream of drying paint.


'The Barefoot Contessa' - Suggested 5-Star Movie Rating: 2.5

'The Barefoot Contessa' - Suggested 5-Star Bogart Performance Rating: 3.5

 

The Barefoot Contessa was a mirror of 50's continental chic style. Put some interesting features together ...and presto ....expect a good film. Instead you invariably got a souffle that someone slammed the oven door on. The written characters were too disparate to properly connect. The same , could be said to also refer to the various actors, cast . Edmund O'Brien.... jeepers! All it needed to complete the disaster would be to include ZSa Zsa Gabor to momentarily walk on and say "Ah! Darlinnk There you are!"

 

Great cast, but...

You're right, it's just not fun. The kind of Bogart movie I'd happily miss and I can't say that about many.

Again, I think he's good in it, but the cast doesn't seem to work at all. Two out of five for me.

 

I never watched this one...and thanks to Fielding I probably never will

 

+1, but I'd give it a 3 out of 5.

 

Bump!

 

Let's ressurect this thread.

As a dedicated Bogart fanatic, I am of course buying up all teh Blu Ray editions of his films, as they come to market. My latest acquisition, and the next film in our rverse chronology, is 'Sabrina'. So let's do it.


Sabrina (1954)

Directed by: Billy Wilder
Writers: Billy Wilder, Samuel A. Taylor, Ernest Lehman, Samuel A. Taylor

Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden

113 min, Black and White


IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047437/


Here's (part of) Wikipedia’s plot summary (mild spoiler):

Sabrina Fairchild (Audrey Hepburn) is the young daughter of the Larrabee family's chauffeur, Thomas, and she has been in love with David Larrabee (William Holden) all her life. David is an oft-married, idle playboy, crazy for women, who has never noticed Sabrina, much to her and the household staff's dismay.

Sabrina then attends culinary school in Paris, and she returns home as an attractive and sophisticated woman. David, after initially not recognizing Sabrina, is quickly drawn to her.

David's workaholic older brother, Linus (Humphrey Bogart), sees this and fears that David's imminent marriage to Elizabeth Tyson (Martha Hyer) may be endangered. If the engagement is broken off, it would ruin a great corporate deal between the Larrabee business and Elizabeth's very wealthy father. Linus confronts David about his irresponsibility to the family, the business, and Elizabeth, but David is unrepentant.

Linus then tries to distract Sabrina from David by drawing her affections to himself.


IMdB shows an average rating of 7.8, which seems to me surprisingly high. Then again, good old Bosley Crothwer, in his contemporaneous New York Times review, raved about it:


For "Sabrina"-we might as well say it and get it over with, now-is, in our wistful estimation, the most delightful comedy-romance in years.

Crowther allows that this high praise "may sound extravagant in the light of the recognized thinness of the stage play by Samuel Taylor, from which it was made" but sticks to his effusions and concludes thus:

We hesitate to say this, because it dates us like button shoes, but we can't remember liking a romance any better since "It Happened One Night."

Whilst acknowledging the strong appeal of Audrey Hepburn, Crotwhe nonetheless notes the equal importance of Bogart:

But it is just as much Mr. Bogart's picture, for he is incredibly adroit as the strongwilled aristocrat of business who finally chips when he crashes with true love. And the skill with which this old rock-ribbed actor blends the gags and the arch duplicities with a manly manner of melting is one of the incalculable joys of this show.

The NYT review is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9406E3DF1238E23BBC4B51DFBF66838F649EDE


If only this film could live up to all this acclaim! Mentioning it in the same breath as 'It Happened One Night' is borderline insane. Sadly, this is far from Billy Wilder's best work - in fact, it's often hard to believe that this fairly tiresome film (which somehow manages to be souffle-light yet traffic jam- turgid) is a Wilder film at all. And this isn't a good Bogart movie either. Bogie hated making it. He was ill at the time, and quickly grew frustrated with Audrey Hepburn (the two did not hit it off, Bogart averring that "she's ok, if you don't mind twenty takes", or words to that effect), and suspected that Wilder and close collaborator William Holden were conspiring to reduce and trivialise his role. The part is utterly unsuited to Bogart, of course, and although he makes a very good go of it, it's generally an unpleasant and frustrating experience for the viewer to watch him struggle with such unsuitable material.

Hepburn, of course, is Hepburn, and how well you take to the film may well depend a lot on how fond you are of her. Sure, she's delightful, but there is zero chemistry with Bogart, and after a while all the whimsy gets extremely wearying.

Bogart does have his moments, particularly when he's having fun with self-deprecating humour. But this film is an odditty, saccharine tinged with a dash of Wilderian sourness, like a cocktail made from Guinness and creme de menthe.

Frankly, if pushed, I'd rather go back and watch 'The Barefoot Contessa' again, rather than subject myself to Sabrina. And that is saying something.


'Sabrina' - Suggested 5-Star Movie Rating: 2.0

'Sabrina' - Suggested 5-Star Bogart Performance Rating: 2.5

 

Another yes for continuing this thread. I cannot really start contributing until Caine Mutiny, as I have not seen any of Bogart's "later" films that have been reviewed so far and in fact, now realize that there are several fairly essential Bogey films that I have not seen even once, which is a serious lapse on my part. However, I am waiting to chime in on Caine, which is one of my all time favorite movies, as well as Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Maltese Falcon, Key Largo, and of course Casablanca, all of which I own on DVD.

I suspect there are a few other folks like myself who are lurking and waiting until they can contribute.

Please carry on....

 

Cool. Of the later films covered so far, if you haven't seen them then I'd strongly recommend The Desperate Hours and The Harder They fall.

 

We're there now. Feel free to chip in...

 

Regarding Sabrina, I agree that Bogart was very unsuited to the part. He was just too old--not so much chronologically, but in the way that his character was portrayed in this film. The possibility of romance between Bogart and Hepburn is just not credible to me. I know that May-December romances exist, but this one did not seem possible to me. It's so awkward that it is almost creepy.

I like little bits in this film, such as the father (Walter Hampden) trying to get the olives out of a jar. I love the part when Bogart's record player has not been used for so long that dust is literally blown off of it, and Bogart plays a record which is so old that Hepburn wonders if it is new. That scene reminds me of a 60 year old man today trying to woo a 20 something woman with his Jethro Tull collection.

So this film did what I thought could not be done, make Humphrey Bogart seem inauthentic.

 

Agreed. The small moments make the film, and help to alleviate the fact that overall as a movie it just doesn't work. The leads seem miscast and overall I always felt as if no one's heart was truly in the piece. Bogie has some great tender moments when his character's outer resolve cracks and we begin to see the older man struggling to redeem his lost self. But otherwise the movie is fluff and another 50's Wilder film that reeks more of Billy having to slum it and do proven successful material instead of daring fare such as the scathing Ace in the Hole.