Commentary — Politically Correctness In Popular Culture

I just finished reading a thread of responses that followed a story on Hollywood and its propensity for casting young actresses as the love interest of characters played by much older actors.  Apparently Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is 37, was told she was too old to play the love interest of a character who was 55. No one, I suspect, is surprised.  This has been going on since they’ve been making movies. The point of the article was to compare women’s acting careers and their pay against their male counterparts. It is fact and easily observable: Leading men have longer, more lucrative careers than leading women. This is another variation on equal pay for equal work for women with age thrown in for good measure.

Hepburn and Cooper in Love In The Afternoon

I remember puzzling over Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn in Love in the Afternoon.  He was 56 when the film was made.  She was 28.  Clark Gable was 60 and Marilyn Monroe, 35, when The Misfits was released. When Dark Passage was made in 1947, Humphrey Bogart was 48 and Lauren Bacall was 23. Certainly, Cary Grant, and more recently Harrison Ford have had a fountain of youth careers, while most leading actresses, once they reach a certain age, no longer lead – Harold and Maude being a notable exception.

I can’t imagine Hollywood executives getting together premeditatively barring older actresses from certain roles based on anything other than their desire to maximize box office revenues, which means, if that is correct, the problem of inequity is in the marketplace and Hollywood is only exploiting it as they do everything else.  It is what the market wants.  Or is it?

My guess is that this kind of casting is based on groundless  speculation that has become conventional wisdom.  

I’m not sure it’s politically correct to be politically correct these days.  But in my writing I’ve tried to make sure that my work fairly reflects the world it encompasses, while staying engaged in reality. For example, I avoid stereotypes. To me this is not only right morally but also leads to better characterization. Though it is not necessarily my job or Hollywood’s to take on social injustice, in my books there is usually some sort of social issue lurking about in the story, illuminating the plot, which is primarily dedicated the simpler process of finding a murderer.  It doesn’t hurt to be socially aware while we’re at it.

Monroe and Gable in The Misfits

Nonetheless, the Gyllenhaal story had me questioning my role in the seeming perception that a younger woman with an older man is condoned, while the reverse is somehow unacceptable. None of my books have made it to the big screen. However, my little Shanahan series contributes to the overall landscape as is everything that is portrayed in the entertainment arts. And in that series, the main characters are private eye Shanahan and realtor Maureen.  Shanahan is 30 years older than Maureen. The thing is: the age difference is an important part of their relationship. If they were ever portrayed in a film or on TV, I hope the casting director doesn’t try to make it age “appropriate” as some sort of outreach effort to make life fair.

Bacall and Bogart in Dark Passage

On the other hand, it seems to me that automatically insisting that women have an expiration date and men don’t is foolish.  It is a denial of reality for one thing.  And depending on the story, it is much like Hollywood did with Charlie Chan, casting caucasions in the role when there were no doubt many fine Chinese actors who could have played the part without the artificiality.  Who could forget — though we’d like to — John Wayne as Ghengis Khan? Or the grotesque performance of Mickey Rooney as Audrey Hepburn’s Japanese neighbor in Breakfast At Tiffany’s?  The same thing applies to the age of the actors. Unless a vast age difference is part of the story or defines the characters, why wouldn’t a 55 year-old man find a woman who is 37 attractive?  Or a 55-year-old woman?

I think Hollywood learned from the John Wayne and Mickey Rooney debacles, but Hollywood producers should also take a look at the way it stereotypes its actors and the presumption that the public won’t accept 37 as sexy. That being said, my concern isn’t that significant age differences in relationships are inherently wrong or that they shouldn’t be portrayed, but that denying work to qualified applicants based on a woman’s age is sexist and ageist.

Film Pairing — Private Eyes, Newman Times Two

Ross Macdonald is considered by many to be right up there with Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler.  Some even consider him better.  Readers are most likely to be familiar with his private eye Lew Archer, who anchored 18 novels.  However, only two of the Archer novels made it to the big screen.*  And in an odd twist, Archer was renamed Harper in the films because, Paul Newman had been lucky with movies that began with the letter “H.” Archer on paper, Harper on celluloid.

Newman had them make another change. (If James Dean had made the movie as originally intended, it probably would have been called The Moving Target, the Macdonald’s first novel and the one the movie was based upon.)  Newman insisted that the movie be called Harper (Think The Hustler and Hud).  It was released in 1966. 

Harper has significant parallels to Chandler’s The Big Sleep. Like Marlow, Harper is called to an elegant LA mansion, where he is hired by the wheel-chair bound owner to find a missing husband.  In this case, the infirmed is Lauren Bacall, who was incidentally the, smart, sexy sister in The Big Sleep. Despite the larger-than-life presence of Bacall, the film is definitely Newman’s. Even so, the producers weren’t stingy with the supporting cast.  You will enjoy Julie Harris, Janet Leigh, Robert Wagner (perfectly cast) and Shelley Winters.  You’ll recognize many other supporting actors as well.  Except or the moment when I felt embarrassed by how silly we looked when we danced in the sixties, Harper is a worthwhile private eye escape. The talented William Goldman wrote the screenplay.

Almost ten years later, Paul Newman does Harper again, this time in Ross Macdonald’s The Drowning Pool (1975).  They didn’t change the name of the movie, but Hollywood has a penchant for thinking it knows better than the person who wrote the book.  They moved Archer, I mean Harper, from LA to New Orleans. Personally, I love New Orleans.  That alone would get me to watch the movie.  And I can’t help but think this setting makes a much more interesting backdrop.  I also like the slightly more mature Newman, who (cliché alert), like a fine wine (or fine cheese, I guess) improved with age.  Much like Harper, The Drowning Pool is also Newman’s film. But the co-stars are notable here as well.  Joanne Woodward and Melanie Griffith are key, and Anthony (Tony) Franciosa gives a subdued and finely nuanced performance as the main cop.  Again Harper is called to a mansion to get his assignment. But instead of a kidnapping and murder, we have blackmail and murder.

Apparently Ross Macdonald didn’t mind the Hollywood interference. Not only did he go along with The Drowning Pool switch from L.A. to New Orleans, he also approved of Paul Newman playing his famous protagonist.  Many authors had been disappointed in Hollywood’s choices.  I think it’s difficult not to approve of Newman, especially as a P.I.  His late-in-life performance in the minor masterpiece, Twilight, was perfect, for example.

If you are considering libations for the evening, you might consider the Ramos Gin Fizz or a Hurricane, the official New Orleans cocktail.  If the heat wave is dominating your part of the world, you might try a Mint Julep.  And Absinthe might not be totally out of the question.

* Macdonald’s The Underground Man was filmed for NBC as a pilot in 1974. It featured Peter Graves as Lew Archer and had an all-star cast — Celeste Holm, Jim Hutton, Vera miles, Dame Judith Anderson and Jack Klugman.  It isn’t available on Netflix. Also, according to the Thrilling Detective web site, there were six, hour-long episodes broadcast in 1975 called “Archer,” starring Brian Keith. I’ve also read that there might be a new series in the making.

Film Pairing — Raymond Chandler's Marlowe, Bogart or Mitchum?

Friday’s double feature presents an opportunity to compare the performances of two legendary actors as they play one of the two most famous American private eyes in literature and film. Both played Raymond Chandler’s famous creation, Phillip Marlowe, in versions of The Big Sleep.

Of the seven actors who have played him on the big screen — Dick Powell, Humphrey Bogart, Robert Montgomery, George Montgomery, Elliott Gould, James Garner and Robert Mitchum — two set the standard. While I know there are those who would disagree. Some point to surprisingly excellent performances by Elliott Gould and Dick Powell. James Garner in the role also has fans. It still comes down to Bogart, who surprisingly played Marlowe only once, and Mitchum, who did it twice.

The story follows Marlowe, in the employ of a rich old man, General Sternwood. Marlowe is hired to stop a blackmailer who is about to reveal embarrassing photo

graphs of one of the General’s two wild daughters. The blackmailer is murdered, but that only complicates the situation, and Marlowe has a bigger job. He needs to find both a missing husband and a murderer.

I’m really a contrarian at heart, so I wanted to go against conventional wisdom and like the Mitchum version better. Not so. The old black and white Humphrey Bogart film is far superior in almost every way. Sometimes Robert Mitchum’s seemingly effortless acting is good. He never overplays it. Here a little effort might have paid off. He’s almost phoning it in. Sarah Miles, playing Sternwood’s older daughter, is down right ditzy and can’t hold a candle to Lauren Bacall’s smart and sexy characterization. Martha Vickers, in the older film, plays the crazy younger sister and she does crazy far more believably than Candy Clark’s feeble, flailing attempt. There were some great moments in the later version. Watching Richard Boone and Oliver Reed as heavies was a pleasant surprise. And the cars. Great automobiles.

Humphrey Bogart, at 46, was a little older than Chandler’s Marlowe, who was described as 33 by the author. Mitchum was 60 when he played the shamus. However, Marlowe was supposed to be tall and well-built, more like Mitchum and not at all like Bogart who was short and thin. No surprise here. This is Hollywood. There is word that the diminutive Tom Cruise will be playing the 6’5” brute, Jack Reacher, on the big screen.

Those were not the only differences in the two films. The Bogart version was in black and white, took place in L.A. (though director Howard Hawkes didn’t take much advantage of the location) and in roughly the timeframe the book was written. The Mitchum version was in color and for some unknown reason took place in late ‘70s London, which might explain Sarah Miles hair. The changes didn’t add anything.

Despite the later version’s shortcomings, it’s difficult to ignore a movie based on P.I. fiction by one of its founders. If you find my comments on the Mitchum film too off-putting you can substitute one of the other films based on Marlowe. The character was also featured on HBO, the BBC and on other television and radio shows. He was portrayed by many different actors. For the best online information on fictional private eyes, including writer Raymond Chandler and his character Marlowe, go to The Thrilling Detective.

Another option is to pair the Bogart version of Chandler’s Marlowe with Hammett’s Sam Spade also played by Bogart in The Maltese Falcon, thereby putting the top two American private eyes up against each other.

If you choose the both versions of The Big Sleep, watch the Mitchum version first and finish with the classic. To accompany the films, tonight, we come back to Bourbon, I think. Most of the characters in both films drink it straight — not even on the rocks. General Sternwood would have suggested brandy, and perhaps recommended that it be poured into a glass of champagne. In the Maltese Falcon, Spade goes down with a mickey in his brandy.

Film Pairing — Atlantic City and Key Largo, Dangerous Destinations

Last week I splurged on films, providing the sure-to-offend “top best” crime movies and TV lists. Both Atlantic City and Key Largo were honorable mentions, so I’ll trot them out again as a potential double feature for some rainy Friday night. What we have in this pairing are portraits of old gangsters. Lou Pascal, in Atlantic City is an aging gangster who remembers being a big-time gangster and Johnny Rocco, in Key Largo who thinks he still is. Both are wrong. An accompanying similarity is the fact that both movies use their geographical locations as key characters in the drama. One more thing they have in common — both are also based on plays by lauded American playwrights.

Atlantic City, the old Atlantic City that is, is withering away, with, as it turns out, symbolic appropriateness. Louis Malle’s sensitive and somewhat quirky film released in 1980 was based on a script by the highly regarded American playwright, John Guare. Burt Lancaster’s Lou Pascal was fading as fast as the old neighborhoods he inhabits, but he is given a chance to be the person he always thought he was. It is a poignant portrayal in a film that received Academy Award nominations in the top five categories — winning none. Viewers will get a chance to see the pre-Trump and legendary East Coast city that no longer exists as well as seeing an unusual and unusually good film that also stars Susan Sarandon.

For the second feature — how could you go wrong with tough guys Edward G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart? Key Largo (1948) was the fifth time they performed together and apparently their star status (relative to each other) in film advertisements was settled by Bogart’s name being to the left on posters and Robinson’s occupying a higher position in the middle. In the film, Johnny Rocco and his equally nasty crew take over a small hotel in Florida’s Key Largo, where they are threatened by a rival gangster, the police, one of the hostages and a hurricane. Directed by John Huston and based on Maxwell Anderson’s play, the cast includes Edward G. Robinson (as Johnny Rocco), Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Lionel Barrymore and Claire Trevor. Trevor, called the Queen of Noir (says Wikipedia) was nominated three times for an Academy Award and won Best Supporting Actress for her role as Rocco’s alcoholic and abused girlfriend.

The two fading gangsters couldn’t be more different. But we need some sort of tough-guy drink to accompany the double feature. Another question to consider: What should you drink during a hurricane? Rum may not be appropriate for New Jersey, but remember, you’ll be heading for the sultry Keys.