skyhouse5

Having seen this "original" all those decades ago, and recalling little if anything of it, other than Laughton's Puckish performance, after all, the observer who noted that Gable was Gable uttered a no-brainer. That said, what bemuses this still-breathing, if barely, onlooker is the hoohah over subsequent "versions" of the yarn. Especially that of the Brando retake. Sight unseen, Brando at the very least had to be one take closer to an "acting" performance than Gable, who was, well, just one more of those over-hyped Gollywood "dreamboats" of yore. Yes, he was rather charming vis-a-vis Claudette in that Columbia throwaway, "It Happened One Night"? But, for all his excesses of baggage AND Group Theater mumblings, Brando should be excoriated for his disrespect of Milestone, even as he may be excused for his pant-ripping appetites. He too was, simply, like James Dean as well, just one more overblown staple of the Hollywood mills that ground exceeding fine, chiefly in the perceptions, not to mention the ratings and rankings, of generations to come. I count myself among those few who found Brando's bellowings in "Streetcar" less than convincing, and his motorbikings not all that much more persuasive. He did, finally, achieve a degree of dignity as the Don in "The Godfather," but that is as much due to the casting as it was to the "portrayal." Brando, like Gable and Dean, was a paean to the promotions of the Hollywood fraternity of "praise singers," apologies to the author of The Charioteer." That "millions," both in dollars and in the audience, continue to pay serious homage is a tribute to the efficacy of the entertainment Machiavellis and Tsun-tzus and Goebbelses. Consider: who is not convinced that both Gone with the Afflatus and that shameless Titanic are both "classic" cinema? Well, so they are, as popcorn merchants. But as works of art? Finally, again, sight unseen, the Brit "Bounty" with its weighty cast, would HAVE to be an improvement on BOTH Yankee versions. And, as an irreverent, yet one more, observation?, I find it "rich" that Richard Harris found Brando er, ah, overripe.

After all these years, I have just started to watch this Lewis Milestone masterwork again, having seen it in the long and forgotten "ago." And the opening scenes alone, the establishing title shots, cameraman's shadow notwithstanding, struck with the full force of both "truth" and "genius," the former for the Steinbeck novella and the latter for Milestone's seamless evocation. I have read a few of the commentaries on both this "original" filming and the latterday Sinise/Malkovich version, which I have yet to see, and find little to disagree with in my samplings. It is interesting AND instructive that both Betty Fields and Lon Jr. received brickbats along with kudos. The former earned the same in "King's Row," and the latter, of course, never received all that much attention. That said, I, for one, thought Chaney was at the peak of his form as the "retard" Lenny, and, whilst it is more than understandable that some found his performance "over the top," that is purely a matter of subjective reaction. Burgess Meredith was a fine George, and I rather doubt Sinise could have improved on it, sight unseen, but, that too is purely subjective. There were some observant AND penetrating insights among the comments I scanned on both versions, but only one, the fellow who observed that there were "chick flicks" and this was a "dick flick." And, on that score, I did not read a single acknowledgment of the fact that the obvious homoerotic themes, not just that between George and Lenny, but also the "closet-queen" implications of Curly's overmacho stances, were not overtly noted. To me, George and Lenny, in their own ways, were the templates for the protagonists of "Brokeback Mountain," another near-Oscar entry. Although, in the latter, the retard survives in his zombie estate. Finally, it was a personal "shock" to see the wondrous "character" performance of Roman Bohnen again, this overlooked and under-appreciated mainstay of the old Actors' Lab experiment in Hollywood, way back then. By the way, what with my lack of "hearing" and unavailability of captions for the Milestone version, I found I did not need same. Indeed, focussing on the setups and closeups the "action" and "dialog were all too clear. Tell me about those rabbits.

Sight unseen, well I have only just begun to unspool this DVD on may little Dell screen, but, already awreddy, I know it is time to ask the 64-thus query: WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? "Sideways" was enough of an answer, but Dennis Quaid as a sullen and self-submerged Yank of dubious merit? I begin to despair of my contemporaries, well make that their scions and blowbys. And, even if this flick purports to be satire, self-satirization if not enough. Certainly not enough to balance the scales of misrepresentation. "Americans," the bulk that is, are better than, superior to, and less than subservient to the likes of the chief protagonists of these two flicks. Who gives a good Goddamn about such likes? Why bother? They deserve themselves AND their narcissistic somnambulisms. Better a Henry Fonda and his "gtsprs" of gripes, or even a slovenly hulk of a "retarrd" as Lon Cheney Jr. projected in "Of Mice and Men," The "innocent" America of the mid-century last, or, at the very least, its image and projections, gives the lie to today's overblimped likes of our neocon fraternity, blonde bombers online as well. Anne whatsername especially. If America is to transcend its own obituary, then it must begin to transcend the likes of these two "movies." P.S.: And Reagan protestants notwithstanding, Ronald was a fink.