Today is the birthday of Italian actress Ania Pieroni.
You may not recognize the name but, if you’re a fan of Italian horror, chances are that you’ve seen Ania Pieroni at least once. Even though she only has 11 credits listed on the imdb and apparently made her last film over 30 years ago, Ania Pieroni achieved screen immortality by playing key roles in three of the greatest Italian films ever made.
In Dario Argento’s Inferno, she was the first actress to play the mysterious Mother of Tears.
In Lucio Fulci’s The House By The Cemetery, she played the mysterious housekeeper and nanny who, in one of the film’s most memorable scenes, nonchalantly mops up a huge pool of blood before subsequently losing her head in the house’s basement.
And then, in Argento’s Tenebre, she played the unfortunate shoplifter who pays a steep price for not paying for Peter Neal’s latest novel.
Today, the Shattered Lens wishes a happy birthday to Ania Pieroni with….
4 Shots From 4 Films
Inferno (1980, dir by Dario Argento)
The House By The Cemetery (1981, dir by Lucio Fulci)
Today is the 117th birthday of the great director, Vincente Minnelli!
While Minnelli actually made films in several different genres, he’s best remembered for his many musicals. It’s been said that Minnelli was one of the directors for whom technicolor was invented and his musicals certainly prove the truth of that statement. Minnelli made films that not only celebrated music and dancing but which left audiences wanting to sing and dance themselves.
Several of Minnelli’s films were honored by the Academy. Two of his films won the Oscar for Best Picture and today’s scene that we love comes from the first one to do so, 1951’s An American In Paris. In this scene …. well, the why is not important. What’s important is the way the Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron move and the way that Minnelli captures and celebrates every movement.
The 1967 film, Barefoot in the Park, tells the story of two newlyweds.
Paul Bratter (Robert Redford) may have a terrible last name (seriously, Bratter?) but he’s an up-and-coming lawyer with a bright future. He’s a little bit uptight and doesn’t seem to have the greatest understanding of human nature but he’s handsome and he’s charming and he means well. Paul has just recently married Corie (Jane Fonda). Corie is a free spirit who cringes at the idea of conformity. Having been raised by a judgmental mother who has always told her that she will never be good enough to make it on her own, Corie has decided to murder Paul and steal all of his money by insisting that they live in a drafty apartment that’s on the fifth floor of an New York apartment building that doesn’t have an elevator. If climbing up the stairs doesn’t kill Paul, the fact that the skylight has hole in it probably will. Helping Corie with her plan is her eccentric neighbor, Victor Velasco (Charles Boyer). When Paul comes home one day to discover Victor lifting up his lingerie-clad wife, Victor says, “We are heating up the apartment.” Corie assures Paul that they’re just trying to get the radiator to start working but we know the truth….
Okay, that’s actually the Lifetime version of Barefoot in the Park. The real Barefoot in the Park is a charming, lighter-than-light adaptation of Neil Simon’s famous play. (If I’m biased towards the play, it’s because I once played Corie in a heavily edited version of the play that we put on in high school. I was the perfect Corie, if I may say so myself.) As played by Robert Redford, Paul is charming but uptight and, as played by Jane Fonda, Corie is a free spirit who doesn’t really seem to have much common sense about the realities of living in New York City. (Running barefoot in Central Park? Probably not a good idea in 1967.) They do end up living on the fifth floor and there are a lot of jokes (in fact, there’s probably too many jokes) about people getting out of breath from having to climb all of the stairs. There’s also a broken skylight, which is a problem since it snows in New York. However, Corie never deliberately plots to kill Paul. Instead, she tries to set her mom (played, in an Oscar-nominated performance, by Mildred Natwick) up with Victor.
Barefoot in the Park is probably one of those films that seemed semi-daring when it was originally released in 1967 (“Look! A honeymoon sex joke! Look! Corie’s walking around in Paul’s shirt! Look! Paul looks like he’s about to say a forbidden word!”) but today, it seems like an old-fashioned but likable fantasy about what’s like to be a newlywed in New York. The city’s beautiful and full of romance. The dialogue is witty and zippy. (Zippy’s a word, isn’t it?) Charles Boyer overacts in the most charming way possible and Mildred Natwick has some good moments as Corie’s mom. (To appreciate Natwick’s peformance, it helps to imagine what the film would have been like if Shelley Winters had played the role.) Most importantly, Robert Redford and Jane Fonda have got an amazing chemistry and, as they were both young in 1967 and considerably less weather-beaten than they are today, it’s hard to imagine a more beautiful couple. Though Gene Saks’s direction is visually flat and, cinematically, the film never quite breaks out of its stage-bound origins, the chemistry of Redford and Fonda and Boyer and Natwick carry you through the occasional rough patch.
4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
Today is the birthday of one of the greatest films stars ever, Elizabeth Taylor! And you know what that means. It’s time for….
4 Shots From 4 Elizabeth Taylor Films
A Place in the Sun (1951, dir by George Stevens)
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959, dir by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
2019’s Long Shot is a film that truly took me by surprise.
I have to admit that, when I first saw the trailer for Long Shot, I had my concerns. First off, it was an American political comedy and it’s been a while since there’s really been a good one of those. There’s been many attempts, especially after Donald Trump was elected in 2016. But, for the most part, the American films are always at their weakest when they try to be overly political. There’s always a disturbing lack of self-awareness that, when mixed with the type of strident tone that can only be maintained by people who have never seriously had their ideas challenged, tends to make for a very boring viewing experience. And, no, don’t you dare say, “What about Vice?” because Vice was freaking terrible.
Secondly, the trailer emphasized that Charlize Theron was playing the Secretary of State and that she was running to become the first woman elected President. This led me to suspect that the film might essentially be Hillary Clinton fanfic. Over the past few years, there’s actually been quite a few films and television show that have featured idealized versions of Hillary Clinton — i.e., all of the accomplishments without the albatross of her husband or the reputation for being casually corrupt. (For six seasons, there was a TV show called Madam Secretary that basically only existed to present an idealized version of Hillary.) Hillary fanfic, with its attempt to rehabilitate the image of a candidate so inept that she actually lost to Donald Trump, is always cringey.
Finally, as much as I hate to admit it, I was concerned that the film not only starred but was produced by Seth Rogen. And don’t get me wrong. I love Seth Rogen. Seth Rogen is literally my favorite stoner. I think that, with the right material, he can be one of the funniest performers around. The problem is that, in the past, Seth Rogen has always been brilliant as long as he wasn’t talking about politics. Whenever he started talking politics, he just turned into every other wealthy and rather self-righteous progressive. While Rogen’s political tweets were never as banal as the thoughts of uberboomer Stephen King, there was still nothing about them that suggested that Rogen would be capable of producing one of the funniest and most good-hearted political comedies to come out in the past few years.
And so, like a lot of people, I skipped Long Shot when it was playing in theaters. I waited until it was released on video to watch Long Shot and you know what? It turned out that almost everything that I had assumed about Long Shot was incorrect.
Yes, it’s a very political movie but it’s also far more self-aware than I was expecting it to be. Seth Rogen apparently knows that he has a reputation for being a very loud, knee-jerk leftie because he actually does a very good job of poking fun at his own image. Rogen plays Fred Flarsky, a loud and crude journalist who quits his job when he discovers that the underground newspaper that he was working for has been purchased by Parker Wembley (Andy Serkis, playing a not-at-all disguised version of Rupert Murdoch). Fred is about as far to the Left as one can be and he tends to assume that all of his associates agree with him, even though he never bothers to ask them. One of the best scenes in the film comes when his best friend, Lance (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.), reveals to a stunned Fred that he’s not only a Republican and a Christian but that he’s been one the entire time that he’s known Fred. Fred never caught on because he just assumed that Lance, being black, would naturally be a Democrat. When Lance asks Fred why he thought Lance wore a cross around his neck, a befuddled Fred can only reply that he thought it was “cultural.” It’s a great scene and one that’s wonderfully played by Rogen and Jackson and it works precisely because it remains true to what we’ve seen of both characters. Almost everything that Lance says over the course of the movie does reflect a traditionally conservative mindset but, like Fred, we don’initially don’t notice because Lance is being played by Ice Cube’s son. When Fred discovers that Lance is a Republican, it doesn’t change Fred’s mindset but it does teach him that progressives can be just as guilty as conservatives when it comes to making assumptions about people based on where they’re from or what they look like. As a stunned and chastened Fred puts it, “I’m a racist, you’re a Republican, I don’t know what the fuck’s going on.”
Secondly, the film’s romance is incredibly charming. Charlize Theron plays Charlotte Field, the Secretary of State who used to be Fred’s babysitter. After they run into each other at a reception, Charlotte hires Fred to work as a speech writer for her nascent presidential campaign. You would not expect Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen to have a ton of romantic chemistry but they do. Theron is an underrated comedic actress and there’s a lot of fun to be had in just listening to her and Rogen bounce lines off of each other. In fact, as funny as Rogen is, I’d have to say that Charlize Theron is even funnier. One of the highlights of the film is when Fred and Charlotte sneak away to a club, where they dance and end up taking ecstacy. Over course, as soon as the drugs kick in, a major diplomatic crisis breaks out and an extremely high Charlotte has to deal with a hostage crisis. Theron appears to be having a ball with the role and really, this is the film for which she should have been Oscar nominated. Theron convinces us that 1) she’s a masterful diplomat, 2) that she could be elected President of the United States, and 3) that she could fall in love with someone as messy as Fred without sacrificing her own ambitions.
Long Shot has its flaws, of course. Andy Serkis is a bit too over-the-top in his villainy and the film has a 125-minute running time, which is way too long for what is essentially a fairly simple romantic comedy. Some of the scenes of Fred and Charlotte traveling around the world probably could have been cut without harming the story. There’s an environmental subplot that feels a bit too obvious and there’s a joke about Fred accidentally ejaculating on his own face that’s never as funny as the film seems to think that it is.
That said, Long Shot is often a surprisingly charming film. (I know what some of you are saying: “Yes. Lisa Marie, Seth Rogen ejaculating on his beard sounds really charming.” I know, I know. But the majority of the film is charming.) If you missed it when it came out the first time, give it another chance.
The 1973 film, Scenes From A Marriage, is a real endurance test.
That, in itself, shouldn’t be surprising. It’s an Ingmar Bergman film, after all. Bergman was one of the world’s great directors but the majority of his films did not exactly focus on happy themes. Scenes From A Marriage is a nearly three-hour film in which two people — who start out as married and eventually end up as divorced — talk and talk and talk and talk. They talk about work. They talk about their relationship. They talk about their married friends who are trapped in a loveless marriage. They talk about their unsatisfactory sex life. They occasionally mention their never-seen daughter. The conversations are usually friendly and semi-affectionate but there’s a hint of tension running through every single one of them. Whenever this couple talks about anything, it’s under a cloud of disatisaction and repressed anger. Violence always seems like it could break out at any time and, at one point, it does. (Of course, if 167 minutes seems like a long time to watch a marriage collapse, just consider that the film was an edited version of a four-and-a-half hour miniseries that originally aired on Swedish television.)
Scenes From A Marriage is regularly cited as being one of the best films about marriage ever made and also as one Bergman’s best films. Personally, I think it’s a bit overrated but still, no one can deny the skill with which the film was made. Though it may ultimately just be a reflection of the film’s roots as a television series, the film is full of probing close-ups. When Marianne (Liv Ullmann) and Johan (Erland Josephson) discuss their life, the camera gives them no escape. There’s no sudden jump cuts or fade outs to bring the conversation to an end and, as talky as the film may be, the awkward silences often tell us even more about what’s going on between these two. Ullmann and Josephson both give excellent performances. There’s an honesty to their anger and their disillusionment that will often leave you cringing but unable to look away. When Marianne and Johan discuss why they’ve never had a satisfactory sex life, it’s a crushingly honest scene and neither Ullmann nor Josephson hold anything back. When one of their conversations suddenly erupts into a violent fight, it’s scary, heart-breaking, and expected all at the same time. We’ve spent so much time with these two characters that we feel as if we know them. We can see what’s coming, even if they can’t.
If I’m not as enthusiastic for Scenes From A Marriage as some, it’s because I didn’t particularly like either Marianne or Johan. I understood them. I felt as if I knew them. By the end of the film’s first scene, I could confidently tell you that Johan would probably vote for Mike Bloomberg while Marianne would send money to both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar while joking about how, if it was good enough for The New York Times, it was good enough for her. But ultimately, both Johan and Marianne come across as being a bit too smug and safely bourgeois, even after they realize that they’re “perfect” marriage isn’t perfect at all. This is actually something that I’ve noticed about most films about divorce. It’s rare that you ever seen a film centered around a working class divorce. Instead, it’s almost always the members of the middle and upper classes, people who are relatively stable financially and who have a support system of liberal and sophisticated friends and family to fall back on. In films like this, divorce is an issue where the concerns and sufferings are almost exclusively emotional. I think a lot of this is because most films about divorce are made by directors who have just gone through their own divorce and they basically end up telling their own side of the story under the guise of fiction. Ingmar Bergman admitted as much when he said that Scenes From A Marriage was based on both his two failed marriages and his own relationship with Ullman. (Just last year, we had another example of this with Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story, a film that owes more than a little debt to Bergman’s film.) For all of the film’s technical skill and good performances, Scenes From A Marriage is still just two and a half hours of watching two less than likable people get a divorce. By the end of the film, you’re just happy to be away from them.
If you are among those who wanted to celebrate Mardi Gras today but couldn’t make it down to New Orleans, fear not! There is a solution to your problem. You can always just watch 1969 counterculture classic, Easy Rider.
Easy Rider features one of the most famous Mardi Gras scenes of all time and adding to the scene’s authenticity is the fact that it was actually shot in New Orleans during the celebration. If you watch the Mardi Gras sequence carefully, you’ll notice that several people on the streets of the French Quarter actually stop and stare directly at the camera. It reminds you that you’re watching a movie but, at the same time, it also reminds you that you’re seeing something authentic. Those weren’t just professional extras pretending to get drunk and glaring at Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda. Those were people who were actually in the French Quarter for Mardi Gras and who just happened to end up getting included in one of the biggest cult films of all time. If you want to know what Mardi Gras was like in the late 60s, this is the film to watch.
At the same time, after watching Easy Rider, you may be find yourself happy to not be in New Orleans today. As with almost everything else in Easy Rider, Mardi Gras starts out as something exciting and full of promise but it ends as something dark and full of death. One minute, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Karen Black, and Toni Basil are walking down the streets of New Orleans and having what appears to be a good time. The next thing you know, they’re in a cemetery and Peter Fonda’s sobbing and talking about his mother’s suicide while Toni Basil and Karen Black are freaking out. Of the four of them, only Dennis Hopper appears to not be having a bad trip but then again, Hopper is so naturally spacey in Easy Rider that it’s kind of hard to tell.
The next morning, Fonda and Hopper leave New Orleans on their motorcycles and promptly get blown away by two shotgun-toting rednecks in a pickup truck. It seems a fitting conclusion to a film that celebrates the beauty of the American landscape while, at the same time, suggesting that almost everyone who lives there is a complete and total prick.
Of course, the whole Mardi Gras sequence doesn’t occur until the very end of the film. The majority of the film deals with the journey to New Orleans. Billy (Dennis Hopper) and Wyatt (Peter Fonda) are two motorcycle-riding drug dealers who have just made a small fortune off of selling cocaine to Phil Spector. Billy and Wyatt are heading to New Orleans to celebrate and visit a famous brothel. Wyatt is cool and stoic and always seems to be thinking about something. Billy is Dennis Hopper. Easy Rider is often referred to as being a hippie film but neither Billy nor Wyatt is really a hippie. They’re outsiders and they like to smoke weed but they’re also largely apolitical. They just want to enjoy the open road. If anything, they’re beatniks who were born a year or two too late.
As they ride from California to New Mexico, Billy and Wyatt meet plenty of people along the way. They stop off at a hippie commune and then later, they get harassed by a bunch of rednecks in a diner. The rednecks are menacing while the hippies are annoying. The rednecks throw Wyatt and Billy in jail for “parading without a permit.” The hippies have a mime troupe. The rednecks drive around with shotguns. The hippies try to grow crops in the desert. (I’m enough of a country girl to know that Billy’s right when he scornfully says that nothing that they’re planting is going to actually grow.) The rednecks are ignorant. The hippies are smug. None of them really seem like people that you would want to spend too much time around.
Along the way, Wyatt and Billy temporarily travel with two others. The hitchhiker is played by Luke Askew. We never learn his name but he does play a key role in the film when he gives Wyatt the tab of acid that will eventually ruin Mardi Gras. Meanwhile, George Hanson is an alcoholic lawyer and he’s played by Jack Nicholson. At the time that the film was shot, Nicholson was on the verge of retiring from acting so he could concentrate on directing and writing. He took the role and expected, as almost everyone did, that Easy Rider would just be another biker film. Instead, Easy Rider became a hit and a cultural milestone that not only won Nicholson his first Academy Award nomination but also made him a star.
Interestingly enough, Jack Nicholson is not really that good in Easy Rider. His attempt at a Texas accent is terrible and you never believe him as someone who has never smoked weed before. If anything, Luke Askew gives a far better performance than Nicholson and he actually has more screen time as well. However, I think Nicholson benefited from the fact that George is probably the most likable character in the film. (Depending on how you feel about Billy and Wyatt, you could argue that he’s the only likable character in the film.) He’s not a smug hippie nor is he a murderous redneck. Unlike Wyatt and Billy, he has a job that doesn’t involve selling cocaine to Phil Spector. Whereas Luke Askew’s Hitchhiker seems like the type of guy who would just love to lecture you about why Vietnam is all your fault, George comes across as being a gentle soul. George is a character that viewers can feel safe identifying with, even if Nicholson is never quite convincing as someone so naive that he fears he’ll freak out after taking one hit off of a joint.
Easy Rider‘s critical reputation tends to go up and down, depending on who you’re reading or talking to. There’s a tendency, among many critics, to complain that Fonda acted too little while Hopper acted too much. Personally, I think there’s a lot of hidden wit to be found in Hopper’s performance and I love how annoyed he gets when they’re at the hippie compound. As for Peter Fonda, he may not have been the most expressive actor but he did capture a certain feeling of ennui. For most of the film, it’s hard to tell whether there’s anything actually going on in Wyatt’s head. Then, we follow Wyatt and Billy to that cemetery in New Orleans and we discover that there’s actually quite a bit going on behind Wyatt’s wall of stoicism. After watching Wyatt curse at a statue while sobbing, we understand why he keeps so much hidden.
When it was released in 1969, Easy Rider was a huge box office success and it inspired every major studio to try to duplicate it’s success with a counter culture film of its own. (Hopper was given several million dollars and sent down to Peru to make a follow-up to Easy Rider. The result was The Last Movie, a legendary disaster that temporarily ended Hopper’s career as a director.) Seen today, Easy Rider is undeniably pretentious but always watchable. The scenery is beautiful and the Mardi Gras sequence sets the standard by which all other bad trips should be judged. Most importantly, the film works as a historical document. Everything about it — from the music to the cultural attitudes to even Hopper’s attempts to imitate Jean-Luc Godard in his direction — makes this film into a time capsule. Until they invent a time machine that works, Easy Rider is as close as some of us will ever get to experiencing the end of the 60s.
And finally, it’s the ultimate Mardi Gras film, even if it’s main message seems to be that everyone needs to stay the Hell away from Mardi Gras. Or, at the very least, don’t accept LSD from a scruffy hitchhiker before rolling into New Orleans. Seriously, the more you know….
One of the more surprising things about the 1987 film, The Big Easy, is that there aren’t any big Mardi Gras scenes.
Don’t get me wrong. Several characters in the film mention Mardi Gras, usually in a semi-mocking way. And there is a scene in a warehouse where Ellen Barkin and Ned Beatty walk past some fearsome looking floats which Beatty says are being stored there until Mardi Gras. But that’s pretty much it.
Despite not having any huge Mardi Gras scenes, The Big Easy is essentially a cinematic love letter to New Orleans. (In fact, one could probably argue that the film is so in love with New Orleans that, by not including any big Mardi Gras scenes, the film is saying, “There’s more to this wonderful city than just beads, boobs, and people throwing up i the streets!”) While the film does have a plot — technically, it’s both a romantic comedy and a crime drama — the plot is ultimately less important than the city where it takes place. The Big Easy was shot on location in New Orleans and the camera loves every single street, building, and bridge to be found in the Crescent City. The Big Easy loves the distinctive music and dialect of New Orleans. Even more importantly, The Big Easy loves the attitude of New Orleans. This is perhaps one of the most laid back and nonjudgmental crime films to have ever been made.
Dennis Quaid plays Remy McSwain, a Cajun police detective with a nonstop grin and a cheerfully corrupt nature. Today, we tend to associate Dennis Quaid with playing grim-faced authority figures and serving as the commercial spokesman for Esurance so it’s interesting to see him here, playing a lovable, charismatic, and undeniably sexy rogue. Remy may be corrupt but he doesn’t mean any harm. For the most part, he just takes the occasional bribe and sometimes looks the other way when it comes to certain crimes. He used at least some of the money to put his younger brother through college so really, how can you hold his lack of ethics against him?
Ellen Barkin plays Anne Osborne, a state district attorney who has been sent to New Orleans to investigate allegations of police corruption. Anne is serious about doing her job and exposing corruption. At the same time, she also finds herself falling for Remy, even when she has to prosecute him on charges of taking bribes. It doesn’t take them long to become lovers.
Together, they have great sex and solve crimes!
Actually, in this case, they really do. The film opens with the murder of a local mafia boss. (“We call them wise guys,” Remy says, at one point.) When more drug dealers start to turn up dead, Remy’s boss, Captain Kellom (Ned Beatty), suspects that a gang war has broken out. (Two of the drug dealers are found with their hearts missing from their bodies, which leads to a lot of talk about how one of the city’s biggest drug kingpins is into voodoo. It’s not a New Orleans films without a little voodoo.) Remy, however, has reason to believe that the murderers could be cops!
As I said before, the film’s plot is less important than the city where it takes place and the people who live in that city. Director Jim McBride and screenwriter Daniel Petrie, Jr. do a good enough job with the crime plot but it’s obvious that they’re most interested in taking Remy and Anne and surrounding them with a host of eccentric, identifiable New Orleans characters. As a result, the film is full of memorable performances from character performers like Ned Beatty, John Goodman, Lisa Jane Persky, and Grace Zabriskie. Even Jim Garrison, the former New Orleans district attorney whose attempt to frame an innocent man for the murder of John F. Kennedy inspired Oliver Stone’s JFK, makes an appearance as himself.
Even without any big Mardi Gras scenes, The Big Easy is an entertainingly laid back tribute to New Orleans.
Flames of Passion is a British film from 1938. I’ve seen the trailer but I’ve never actually seen the film and that’s kind of a shame because it’s a really good trailer. Not only does it feature romance and adventure but it’s apparently based on a novel called Gentle Summer. As someone who is fascinated by the power of a good title, I have to give credit to whoever changed that one. Flames of Passion is far more intriguing than Gentle Summer.
Another reason that I want to see Flames of Passion is because it was apparently “Epoch-Making!!!” In fact, they say so right in the trailer:
Unfortunately, I’ll never get a chance to actually see Flames of Passion. As you probably already guessed, it’s a fictional film. (I’m going to guess that “Epoch-Making” gave it away.) It’s a fake film that plays a very important role in real film, the 1945 classic Brief Encounter.
Taking place in Britain shortly before the start of World War II, Brief Encounter tells the story of two people. Laura Jesson (Celia Johnson) is respectable, middle class, and middle aged. Every Thursday, she takes the train into a nearby town where she does the shopping and catches a matinee. Alec Harvey (Trevor Howard) is a doctor who rides the train every Thursday so that he can help out at a local hospital. Dr. Harvey volunteers at the hospital because that’s the type of person that he is. He also volunteers, one Thursday, to help Laura get a piece of dirt out of her eye.
The next Thursday, Laura and Alec run into each other again. They have coffee. A week later, they have lunch. A week after that, they go to the movies and they see the trailer for Flames of Passion. Laura and Alec enjoy each other’s company and they quickly find themselves growing very close to one another. The only problem is that, occasionally, Laura’s friends see the two of them together. Laura knows how quickly gossip can be spread.
Actually, that’s not the only problem. There’s actually an even bigger problem that neither Laura nor Alec know how to deal with. Both of them are married and both of them have children. In fact, Laura would appear to have the type of life that a lot of people would envy. She has a nice home. She has wonderful children. She has a husband named Fred (Cyril Raymond) and there’s no doubt that Fred loves her. Fred’s a good man but he’s boring, safe, and set-in-his-ways. He’s the type who, when Laura mentions that she’s made a male friend and that she goes to the movies with him, barely looks up from the newspaper.
What is Laura to do? She soon finds that her life is now centered around those Thursday meetings with Alec but are they worth the risk of losing her family? And when Alec tells her that he’s been offered a job in South Africa, Laura realizes that she will soon no longer even have Thursday to which to look forward.
Brief Encounter is an interesting film. From the minute that Alec and Laura meet, you know that they’re destined to fall for each other but nothing else about the film plays out in the way that you would expect it to. As much as being a love story, it’s also a story about two people who have reached a point in their lives where they’ve reached the halfway mark of their lives and now they’re asking, “Is this it?” It’s not just that Laura is attracted to Alec, though she certainly is. It’s also that she knows that Alec represents what is probably her last chance to do something grand and romantic with her life. Once Alec leaves, it’ll mean accepting her life as it is, with the good and the bad things that go along with it.
The film’s dialogue is as erudite and witty as you would expect from a cinematic adaptation of a Noel Coward play and David Lean keep the action moving along at a brisk pace. Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard are absolutely perfect as the two would-be lovers, with Johnson especially giving a powerful and sympathetic performance. (If you don’t tear up during Laura’s final scene with Alec, you may want to check to see if you have a heart.) It helps that neither one of them was a traditionally glamorous movie star. (Trevor Howard may have been handsome but he was no Cary Grant.) They come across as being very real people and it’s easy to imagine them being very happy together. They’re such decent people that they even feel guilty for walking out on Flames of Passion, which Laura apparently did not feel was a particularly good movie. Watching Brief Encounter, you wish that Alec and Laura could have met earlier but you are happy that they at least had their Thursdays.
It was on this date in 1989 that Dale Cooper first arrived in the small town of Twin Peaks, Washington to help the authorities with their investigation into the death of Laura Palmer. Here at the Shattered Lens, we’re all big fans of Twin Peaks. Back in 2017, this site was literally a Twin Peaks fan site for a good couple of months. As such, today is a big holiday around these parts and what better way to celebrate than with a special edition of 4 Shots From 4 Films?
So, in honor of Twin Peaks, here are….
4 Shots From 4 Films
Twin Peaks: The Pilot (1990, dir by David Lynch)
Twin Peaks 2.22 “Beyond Life and Death” (1991, dir by David Lynch)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992, dir by David Lynch)
Twin Peaks: The Return Part 18 (2017, dir by David Lynch)
Through the Shattered Lens