5... JOHN HUSTON Films

5... JOHN HUSTON Films

Casino Royale (1967) - Dir. John Huston, Robert Parrish, Val Guest, Joseph McGrath, Ken Hughes

WATCHED JUNE 19, 2020

I feel bad including this film in a "directed by John Hughes" theme. John Huston had about as much to do with this film as Stan Lee has to do with Avengers: Infinity War. The directors' list alone should tell you a little bit about what's going on in this movie. There are 5 credited directors; 11 credited writers; a cast including the likes of Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, and Woody Allen. There were a lot of strong personalities who worked on this film, and it certainly shows. Every director has their own vision for a film, and this film has 5 visions behind it. Add in the acting by Welles and Allen, writing by Billy Wilder and cinematography by Nicolas Roeg, and you've got NINE established directors, all with big egos and conflicting visions on the film.

Conflict is the best way to describe this film. Behind the scenes, Orson Welles and Peter Sellers hated one another so much so that when they were meant to film scenes together, they had stand-ins for both Welles and Sellers so that they didn't need to be on set together. Woody Allen was also reportedly so frustrated with the set of the film, calling it a "madhouse", and would leave London midday and fly back to New York City all while still remaining in his costume. Sellers was such a problem on set that he was fired as the film was still in production, and his role had to be altered to mask that fact. Sellers literally shot co-star Jacqueline Bisset with a gun filled with blanks, causing her face to be coated with burning gunpowder and bleeding from where shards of glass tore her skin. Some of the actors had no idea the film was meant to be a comedy and thought it was a straight Bond film. Sellers privately hired Terry Southern to re-write his dialogue to "outshine" Allen and Welles. Sellers would leave set for days at a time; Sellers punched director Joseph McGrath, and sacked John Bluthal mid-production. Essentially, Sellers was a mess, and it wasn't like he was surrounded by angels, either. Big egos, conflicting visions and unaware casts and crew cause this film to be all over the place, massively disjointed and without a clear purpose.

Because of all this, it's hard to even look at Huston's role in the film, as he ultimately was just one cog in a disjointed machine. The film was riddled with amateur mistakes, such as when one of Le Chiffre's entourage covers her ears before a loud noise goes off when there was no indication of it in advance; or when Evelyn and Goodthighs simultaneously poison one another and we have no idea whose hands are in the frame and which glass they are poisoning. The film is also plagued with choppy editing and awkward cuts, and the film feels as though it were spliced out of order, with certain scenes going nowhere and others happening at seemingly random points (most of this can be attributed to the large cast that was unwilling to cooperate).

 

I suppose if I were to give the film some credit, I would have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the set design in both the Casino Royale and in Mata Hari's dancing school, the latter of the two being copied directly from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Small, welcome surprises like that helped the film's bloated 131 minute runtime feel much more manageable, and I must admit that the film was funny at points - the scene where a plethora of different countries are all bidding on art in their own respective currencies comes to mind. Because of all this, I don't regret watching the film, but it's not as good of a spy comedy as The Naked Gun, Spy Hard or Get Smart; nor is it the best film by literally anyone on the cast or crew. As for the film in the context of "5... JOHN HUSTON Films", it can hardly be called a Huston film at all.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - Dir. John Huston

WATCHED JUNE 21, 2020

Without a doubt, this was the film I was most anticipating coming into the challenge. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was one of my 'rainy day' films: a film that I was saving for a special moment, and this challenge will certainly qualify. I knew I would enjoy it; despite my general dislike for Humphrey Bogart, the plot of the film was incredibly enticing and I love the desert setting in films. However, I had no idea just how much I would like it. This was incredible, and is a landmark film in all of cinema, as it was one of the first American films to be shot entirely on location and not in the mainland United States. And it shows. Despite the fact that the film is in black-and-white, the gorgeous desert imagery and natural luscious surroundings make the film feel more epic than any sound-stage ever could.

 When it comes to Bogart, I could give or take him. He's the reason that classic films like Casablanca or The Maltese Falcon don't hold as much weight to me; he just doesn't seem like a very pleasant person. This is the first film I've seen with him where he genuinely comes across that way in his character, and it was refreshing to see. Every great anti-hero needs to be fun to root against, and as Bogart descends into madness in an incredibly realistic way, I was constantly surprised at how openly he embraced Dobbs' shortcomings. It's no surprise to see that Steven Spielberg based the character of Indiana Jones on Dobbs, as Bogart portrayed him brilliantly, and, over the course of two hours, made Dobbs one of the multi-faceted and layered characters ever put to film.

Incredibly enough, though, Bogart isn't the best actor in the film. Walter Huston, John's father, earns that title effortlessly. Walter Huston delivers a masterclass on acting in this film, being convincing beyond belief in every scene he's in and giving a performance of a lifetime: a performance so great that producer Henry Blanke was worried W. Huston was upstaging Bogart and asked J. Huston to have his father tone it down. There's something special about W. Huston in that he can put his pride aside and fully trust his son's intuition, and there's something special in J. Huston in that he can objectively look at his father and help guide him into being the best actor that he can be. After the egos in Casino Royale, the humility shown by everyone in this film was truly amazing. Walter and John both received Academy Awards for their work on the film, and John called the experience one of the proudest moments of his life.

The authenticity of this film is inherent in every scene, bleeding through the screen and into the hearts of everyone watching. It's like how, in Paper Moon, Ryan and Tatum O'Neill have a chemistry that can only be achieved through being a father and a daughter. The connection that John had to his father is real, and it shows in the amount of care Walter put in to Howard. It's not just the father/son relationship that bleeds through the screen. J. Huston fell in love with a local boy named Pablo, who would hang around set, and J. Huston cared for him so much that he adopted the boy and took him back to the U.S. with him. Although Pablo never appears on screen, the love that J. Huston had for Pablo helped the portrayal of the locals on screen. They never come across as "less than", a problem many films face in the depiction of foreigners to this day. The Spanish in this film is never subtitled. If you don't speak the language (and I don't, if you don't count three years of middle school courses), you won't know what is being said. You don't need to. It's clear.

I don't foresee any of my remaining Huston films topping this one. Everything about it feels so incredibly authentic and enticing, and it's become an instant classic for me. I'm glad I waited for this 'rainy day'. It was worth it. 

Let There Be Light (1946) - Dir. John Huston

WATCHED JUNE 24, 2020

For years, this documentary was notoriously hard to find. One of three films Huston was commissioned to direct for the United States military, the film was suppressed for over thirty years after its release. It isn't difficult to see why. Due to its controversial nature and clear anti-war stance, the film wasn't able to be viewed by the public until 1980, and was extremely difficult to find until the National Archives restored it and released it into the public domain in 2012. I find it personally crazy that a film that was notorious for being one of the most difficult films to ever find can now be viewed here, here, or here, or with a Netflix subscription. It just goes to show you the breadth of film available at our fingertips.

With that brief foreward aside, I'll focus a little on the movie now. I brought up the film's notoriety simply because I wanted to highlight my main thought headed into the film: this film will be powerful in its anti-war stance. It was; there's no denying that when soldiers cry about their 'sweethearts' or their friends they saw die before them. However, I was expecting more. Films like Battle of Algiers or Rome, Open City accomplished similar sentiments and weren't suppressed to the same extent. Obviously, Huston was commissioned by the military to make this film, but I guess I was expecting more of Huston's personal stance in the film, when, in reality, the film goes so far as to say the opposite.

I typically don't enjoy documentaries with narrators. I think the interviews and footage shown should speak for itself. So, when I heard Walter Huston narrating, I was less than thrilled. The issue gets worse, though, as W. Huston seems to be pro-war, or, at the very least, pro-psychiatric hospital. He talks in detail about how the soldiers have changed since their stay in the hospital, and gushes about how 'normal' they have now become. Again, maybe this is due to the government mandated nature of the film, but it almost felt as though the film didn't know what it was trying to say. Pro-war people won't enjoy the detailed discussions of PTSD, and anti-war people will question why the film doesn't touch on how difficult of a road the soldiers still have ahead of them (the film portrays the soldiers as eager to return to everyday life and implies that they will be welcomed with open arms and all of their problems have disappeared). It just didn't feel as though anything was accomplished.

Touching on Huston's direction itself, it was okay. There aren't many shots that make you take notice, and the pacing of the film definitely could use some work, but I'm glad I watched it. In doing this deep dive, I wanted to touch on a lot of different areas in his career. Otherwise, I would have just watched all of the classics, as I already know I love them. I guess I could have gone a bit more modern in some of my picks, but I wanted to see how Huston fared in the world of documentary film-making. The narration is a big misfire in these fly-on-the-wall documentaries, and apparently Huston never asked for the soldiers' permission to include their very personal stories in his film, but I do appreciate the fact that Huston was told to make a pro-war film and made one that certainly was more ambiguous than that. I just wish that if he knew he was going to cause a ripple, he would've gone for the bigger splash.

The Asphalt Jungle (1950) - Dir. John Huston

Not the original poster, but one that was made after Marilyn Monroe became a household name. She's only in the film for five minutes!

WATCHED JUNE 26, 2020

With so many classic John Huston films I hadn't yet seen, I wanted to try and avoid re-watching films as much as possible. I didn't re-watch The Maltese Falcon or The African Queen, despite their classic status. I didn't even want to re-watch this, but I did for two reasons. The first being that I own the Criterion edition of this film, which is full of special features intended to help your understanding and appreciation of the film. The second is that I had only seen it once before, and this is one of those movies that is viewed completely differently on a second watch. The entire point of the film, as well as with other similar heist films, is to see how things unravel for the protagonists. Knowing how it unravels makes a second viewing completely different.

Huston's direction is different than most similar heist films at the time. Unlike most heist films, the "lead character" is not the most complex at all. Sterling Hayden's character Dix is relatively monotone throughout, and doesn't do much other than advance the plot and enhance the opening scene and coda. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that he is the least interesting of the principal characters, and I'd love to see another cut of this film that tells the story of characters like Emmerich or Doc Erwin Reidenschneider (a character that is so well-done that the Coen Brothers gave Tony Shaloub's character in The Man Who Wasn't There the same name and mannerisms). In fact, I'd say Huston's direction is hurt in the fact that he gave Hayden the top billing and leading role. This film is meant to be an ensemble piece, and Hayden's performance detracts from that.

I don't want to be too hard on Huston, though. In addition to the fact that the studio gave Huston tremendous push back on the Hayden casting choice (perhaps Huston felt Hayden needed such a large role to prove himself?), Huston's father, Walter, died while visiting the set for John's 44th birthday. Watching Walter in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was proof to me that John and his father were extremely close with one another, and I have no doubt that Walter's untimely death negatively impacted the film and John's morale. The themes of family in this film all have a tinge of sadness to them, and I think the end of Emmerich's character in particular serves to highlight John's emotions at the time (I'm trying to avoid spoilers as much as possible in these reviews).

Overall, the film is pretty strong throughout, and it's certainly one of my favorite heist films (the dialogue, by Gus in particular, is just top-notch). The heist is framed well and every character feels important. I don't have too many complaints, other than the pacing, which I felt was hurt by the fact that the heist occurs exactly halfway through the film. In films like these, the heist should either be early on (where the film focuses on the aftermath - think Reservoir Dogs), or it should be at the end (where the film focuses on the planning of the heist - think Ocean's Eleven). When the heist occurs at the halfway point, the film doesn't have a clear message, and it leads to both the planning and the aftermath being truncated when I'd love to see one of them excel over the other. It's still a solid movie, but it's one that could have been better with a few key decisions going differently.

Fat City (1972) - Dir. John Huston

WATCHED JUNE 29, 2020

The final John Huston film I watched was one of my least anticipated. I've never been a huge fan of boxing movies. It's nothing against the sport, but, in terms of sports to focus a sports movie on, boxing is one of the least interesting to me: mainly due to the corruption constantly seen in it. However, I've just come to an epiphany that boxing movies are probably the most successful sports movies out there (Rocky, Raging Bull, Million Dollar Baby) and I guess I can see why. That rampant corruption helps make a compelling film, and, spoiler alert, I loved this. This is a Huston film from 1972 - the man was already past his prime in his filmmaking career. The film also doesn't have a very strong cast. There's no Humphrey Bogart or Sterling Hayden that leads the show. You've got Jeff Bridges, but he was ultimately inconsequential to the movie.

What makes this movie great is the fact that these aren't well-known actors. The leads are Stacy Keach and Susan Tyrrell: both aren't very famous, and both deliver performances of a lifetime. Tyrrell in particular is fantastic; she commands the screen in every scene she's in, and, because I've got to look at the film through the eyes of Huston's direction, I give him credit for everything about her character: her clothing, her voice, her acting. It comes as no surprise to me that Tyrrell was nominated for an Academy Award and that Keach was consistently a contender against Marlon Brando in The Godfather as one of 1972's best performances. Huston was a boxer himself, and, although I don't know much about the world of boxing, this film has a sense of realism about it that can only be achieved through that inside knowledge.

 

Ultimately, the film isn't incredibly unique. It's got a little of Every Which Way But Loose, a little of The Champ, and a little of any film featuring very broken relationships. That's not a knock on the film, though. Rather, Huston takes inspiration from all of these other films and still manages to craft a compelling story, regardless of him treading very familiar ground. And, as much as this is probably a sacrilegious thing to say, I prefer this film to films like Raging Bull. Robert De Niro was a well-known craftsman, but Keach and Tyrrell are two small-town men and women who let me into their messed up world for an hour and a half.

This isn't the best film I've ever seen, and I'm tremendously unsure on whether or not this is better than The Asphalt Jungle, but I enjoyed it nonetheless, and was surprised by that. Over these last five films, Huston has proved himself to be a master craftsman and an expert storyteller (other than Casino Royale, of course), and I can't wait to see more by him.

The Ranking

Here is what I imagine will be my favorite part of these reviews: the ranking. Ranking five films isn't all that difficult, and I suspect avid viewers will already be able to guess my final ranking, but I hope that isn't always the case. And, to those of you have been following along with me, or have already watched these five films, compare your list to mine! Is it the same? I'd be interested to know.

1. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre 
2. The Asphalt Jungle
3. Fat City
4. Let There Be Light
5. Casino Royale 

The Next Theme

Okay. I take back what I said about my favorite part being the ranking. This is my favorite part: the part where I tell you about my next theme and the five films I'll be covering. Recently I purchased the Columbia Classics 4K Box Set which included several films I've been meaning to get on physical media. I had a blast going through all of them again, but, more than any other, I enjoyed re-watching Dr. Strangelove. I enjoyed it so much that I watched it two times since. The first time I watched it, I always thought Peter Sellers was the best, but I've changed my mind in my re-watches: George C. Scott is completely flawless. His performance in Dr. Strangelove alone has convinced me of what my next theme should be...

5... GEORGE C. SCOTT Films

That's the theme, and these are the films: The Exorcist III, The Hospital, Movie Movie, Oklahoma Crude and They Might Be Giants. I really wanted to re-watch some of his classic films like Patton or Dr. Strangelove, but he has too many other great roles to spend 1/5 on the films I've seen a million times before. All 5 of these will be new watches for me, and I couldn't be more excited. Join me in two weeks on July 16th for the second edition of 5... Films!