Film Pairings — Of Crime And Politics

With all the political buzz these days, it seemed like the right time to revisit two old politics-oriented classics in film. Both have historical underpinnings and are based on popular novels by well-regarded authors. Also, considerable cinematic talent went into their making.

Charles Laughton And Walter Pidgeon

Advise & Consent — The 1962 film was criticized at the time for suggesting that some of our politicians were corrupt and that the making of laws was not always in the best interests of the citizenry.  Otto Preminger directed this film based on Allen Drury’s best-seller by the same name. Historians and those around long enough might well pick up allusions to real-life personages.  The film is also loaded with some of Hollywood’s best character actors.  My favorites here are Charles Laughton who played a particularly nasty southern Senator and Lew Ayres as the ineffectual vice president.   Look for Franchot Tone, Gene Tierney, Henry Fonda, Walter Pidgeon, Paul Ford, Burgess Meredith, Don Murray and Peter Lawford as well as a cameo by Betty White. It might be interesting to note that this moderately cynical film was released a year before Kennedy’s assassination and before other events (Vietnam for one) also pointed to the loss of America’s innocence

Broderick Crawford

All The King’s Men – People of my advanced age will always remember a hefty, gravel-voiced Broderick Crawford standing just outside his cop car yelling “ten four” into the radio mic on TV’s “Highway Patrol.” However he had quite a film career before he was squeezed into the small screen.  And his performance here earned him an Academy Award. Robert Penn Warren wrote this fine novel that was the basis of several adaptations, including this 1949 U.S. film and a second not particularly successful remake in 2006. In addition to Crawford as a Huey Long –type politician, Joanne Dru, John Ireland, John Derek and Mercedes McCambridge (who also picked up an Academy Award), starred. Character actor Paul Ford played a similar roles in both films in today’s pairing. Directed by Robert Rossen, this is generally considered to be an essentially true story and cinema noir at its best .

Cocktails of any type (with or without alcohol) or Southern Comfort might go well with this double feature.

Film Pairing — Only The Shadows Know

In Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum arrives to court Shelley Winters, mother of two. He wants her to believe he is a righteous, religious man, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The film, though almost worshipped now, was a failure at the box office, perhaps because it was unlike any film anyone had ever seen. It was a collaboration with renowned writer James Agee and the only film that actor Charles Laughton directed.

Night of the Hunter was story based on David Grubb’s novel of the same name. While there are still those who are critical of the melodramatic nature of the screenplay, its high rank on lists by film scholars is largely because of its ground-breaking, expressionistic cinematography. Deep, dark, angular shadows set the mood. Every moment of the film seems to suggest some deep, dark horror is only a few frames away.

With Sin City, if you want mood, if you want dark and harsh and brutal images, one after another, you’ll get it here as well; but it will be through advances in filmmaking technology. Nothing wrong with using the tools we have. And here they are used well. This is Frank Miller’s movie. It is based on his fine graphic novel, also of the same name. He directed with help from Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. Like Night of the Hunter, Sin City is shadowy black and white; but with strategic touches of bold color. Where Hunter is more fluid visually, Sin City has more sharp edges. Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Own, Jessica Alba, Benicia Del Toro, Rutger Hauer and Josh Hartnett are among the talented stars rendered in graphic fashion. Sin City has its critics as well. For some, the characters didn’t seem quite human.

There is some truth, I think, in the criticism of both films —created half a century apart. However the truth in both these cases is what makes them the significant contributions to film history that they are. I don’t think either director set out to make a conventional film. And they didn't. That’s one of a number of reasons to see them.

How about Jack Daniels on the rocks for the double feature? Something rugged from Tennessee seems appropriate.