Marilyn Monroe

Directed by Otto Preminger

This is by no means a great movie but, for some reason, I like it. For one thing, I love the song. It’s horribly corny, but … well, I like it. Go figure.

I think I’d call River of No Return a comfort movie. Like another movie I get the same feeling from, Father Goose, it’s just feels comfortable watching it and I don’t tire of it. At the same time, I can’t help having qualms because I know it’s not a particularly good film. It’s not bad, either, it’s just a middlin’ kind of movie.

And very cornball. Marilyn Monroe is a honky tonk floozy in a town in the Northwest. Robert Mitchum is a guy with some land he’s working out in the wilderness. Because of a bad guy and Indians (yes, Indians) they’re forced to take a raft down river.

Well, there’s a lot more than that. Essentially, this is an old-fashioned adventure movie with a romance thrown in. Robert Mitchum looks a bit more clean-cut than he normally does, and Marilyn is … well, Marilyn in tight jeans, saloon singer corsets and so on.

Despite this wishy-washy review, there are a couple of really nice elements to the film. One is Marilyn’s singing.

She does quite a bit of it (including a nice rendition of that cornball song I love, River of No Return) and it demonstrates what a nice voice she had and her talents as a singer.

The other element of the film that stands out is the second-unit work. The scenery and the shots that incorporate it are wonderful. Shot in British Columbia I believe, the natural backdrop is quite stunning and the cinematography is top-notch.

As part of the Marilyn Monroe: The Diamond Collection II, the film has gone through the restoration process and the image is fabulous. Maybe a little too much so.

The problem with having such a good image is you get to see some major continuity problems, such as the changes from on location work to studio. This must have been a rushed, low budget affair as a very poor job has been done matching lighting and other elements, and it’s really quite obvious.

You also get to see some omissions in the restoration process. During dissolves, you see one quality of image then, just as the dissolve ends, the quality of the image, particularly the light element, jumps to a much higher quality.

It’s almost as if once the dissolve ends, someone turns on the lights.

I don’t recall noticing this the first time I watched the disc. But I did the second time. And, not being a tech guy, I’m guessing the problem is in the restoration.

However, given the poor job in the filmmaking, perhaps its in how the film was originally made.

Either way, there are some technical issues with this movie that stand out.

So … This is a troubling film. I can see so many problems with it. Yet, despite that, I like it.

There’s no accounting for some people’s tastes.

(Originally posted in 2003.)

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Directed by Billy Wilder

I’ve tried watching and enjoying The Seven Year Itch a number of times over the years and always come up with the same feeling: I just don’t like it all that much. In fact, I find it rather dull. I tried again last night and had the same response to it. But I have a pretty good idea why it doesn’t connect with me.

There are essentially two reasons. The first is that it comes across as dated, very dated. It’s one of those movies that you had to see in the moment, by which I mean the mid-1950s, when it was made. It relies on a number of social and cultural touchstones (like a reference to a scene from the movie From Here to Eternity as well as to attitudes about urban life and the workplace).

The second reason has to do with the script and a device, or conceit, the film uses which is the ongoing monologue of the character Richard Sherman (played by Tom Ewell). The device is due to the fact that the script is based on a stage play, George Axelrod’s of the same name. It probably worked better, and was even a necessity, for the stage. On film, however, I found it annoying very quickly and also found it a constant reminder that I was watching a play put on film, not an original screenplay – a movie.

A lot of the humour is dependent on the monologue and the many double takes, or double thinks (as in, “On the other hand …”), of Ewell’s character. Also, as mentioned, much of the humour is rooted in the period.

While director Billy Wilder (who was also co-writer with George Axelrod on the screenplay) tries to make this a movie, as opposed to a play on film, it’s that endless monologue that works against its cinematic aspect. Wilder uses some very visual scenes, like the famous vent blowing air up Marilyn Monroe’s dress, but it remains a play on film. If it were done today, I think, the first person perspective (of Ewell’s character) would be done with much less monologue, if any, and much more visually, using the camera to express perspective. (Don’t ask me how the humour would get worked in.)

Having said all that, there are some good aspects to the movie and they are primarily Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe – particularly Monroe. The plot is simple and stated well on IMDb: “When his family goes away for the summer, a so far faithful husband is tempted by a beautiful neighbor.”

Ewell (the husband) is wonderfully expressive, visually, as the corporate working schmo. I don’t recall what review I read it in but some reviewer referred to it as his, “hangdog expression,” and that’s it exactly. It’s perfect casting.

Also perfect is Marilyn Monroe (the neighbour) as the summer resident who movies in above Ewell’s apartment. With director Wilder, she is really parodying her image as a sexpot. In fact, when watching the movie the only time I find it really engages my interest is when Monroe appears. She plays it dead on – that is, over the top without going too overboard.

In the end, however, it’s a period film, contemporary only when it was made and not a movie that aged well.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites