Back to the Wall (a.k.a. Le Dos au Mur; 1958)

Directed by Édouard Molinaro; produce by François Chavane and Alain Poiré

Jacques Decrey (Gérard Oury), a wealthy industrialist, has been married for eight years to Gloria (Jeanne Moreau), but has recently discovered that she is having an affair with a penniless actor, Yves Normand (Philippe Nicaud). Riven by misery at this betrayal, Decrey decides to make the two pay for their transgressions, and creates an elaborate scheme to ruin them.

A well-plotted and acted movie, Back to the Wall is also well-paced, at least until the last fifth, which seems not to be ill-fitting as much as unnecessary. Nonetheless, it does not ruin the film. The story is a good one. As is usual with tales which involve a character’s intricate plot, that plot does not run entirely smoothly, failing to take into account the ultimately unpredictable nature of people. Interestingly, this does not create complications along the way, but a result different than what Decrey intended, and the audience expects. The story is adapted from a novel by the prolific and best-selling French author, Frédéric Dard.

The acting is very good. Oury may be under-rated in his role. Though he himself became a distinguished actor and director, Moreau was, at this time, and after, the bigger star. Both give excellent performances here, but Oury’s, in particular, must be interpreted by his actions and his voice-over narration. His character remains stolid and largely - at least on the surface - unmoved by events. He must be, in order to conceal his knowledge of his wife’s infidelity, and his plans.

The minor characters are interesting. Claire Maurier plays a café owner with ulterior motives for intervening in the plot, while Nicaud’s character’s dedication to his affair seems less than his enthusiasm for acting. Jean Lefebvre has a slightly comic part as a private investigator, though his character, too, adds something to the movie.

The direction must be commended, as well. This was Molinaro’s first feature, though one wouldn’t know it. It is filmed in black-and-white, with plenty of shadows, which reflect the hidden nature of all that is going on: Decrey’s plot, his wife’s affair, other characters’ duplicity, as well as the camouflage of the Decrey’s married life. The opening sequence is especially good, as we see Decrey set out from his home one night; the sequence ends with him disposing of a man’s body. That in itself is, in a way, a trick of the light, as what happened and how Decrey arrived at that point are not as they appear at first.

A somber, though entertaining, examination of jealousy and revenge, with more than one twist thrown in, Back to the Wall will satisfy crime-movie fans, and those who value a good story in their films. And yes, the title is a double entendre.

Godzilla (2014)

Directed by Gareth Edwards; produced by Thomas Tull, Jon Jashni, Mary Parent, Brian Rogers

Mining in the Philippine Islands releases a giant yet unseen creature, which heads toward the nearest nuclear facility and demolishes it. Fifteen years later, the monster, having fed on the radiation it had unleashed, breaks free of its cocoon. It seems unstoppable, and mankind may have to depend upon the creature’s ancient enemy, an equally powerful being, to destroy it before it breeds and overwhelms the world.

The Godzilla series spans about thirty movies, all of them Japanese until an Americanized version was attempted in 1999. Though the Japanese films varied widely in quality, the 1999 version stripped away much of what made Godzilla an interesting character. She - and in that version he was a she - was not even featured in the climax.

This time, Hollywood gets it right. Part of the success is due to going back, at least in a form, to Godzilla’s roots. In the first movie, from 1954, he was the embodiment of the menace and fear of the nuclear age; born of radiation, he even had atomic breath, like a dragon’s fire. His destructiveness, indiscriminate killing and seeming invincibility were traits of the new weapon, of which Japan, and Japan alone, had had a full taste.

The 2014 version changes the creature’s origins. He is, in this story, a primordial being, evolved in the days when Earth’s radiation levels were much higher (that was, in fact, billions of years ago) and content to live deep under ground or sea, alone and untroubled. His species’ enemy, however, dubbed by humans MUTO (‘massive unidentified terrestrial organism’) is awakened; Godzilla, alerted to this, goes on the hunt.

The nuclear menace is not ignored. Radiation - in the form at hand in nuclear weapons - is still a threat to mankind, because the MUTO feeds on it, and each attempt by man to use nuclear weapons to destroy the monsters just makes them stronger. And a hydrogen bomb, armed and ready, is at one point poised to destroy a city. Like the original film, nuclear weapons just make things worse. Godzilla becomes the champion not of man, but of nature. One character urges the military to put away its arrogance, and let the monsters fight, knowing that that will be nature’s way of restoring balance.

The writing is good in other ways. Though some reviews have stated that there is not enough of the monster, Godzilla wisely creates three-dimensional characters: Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), a nuclear engineer obsessed with what turns out to be a MUTO, his son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a U.S. Navy officer caught up in events, and Ishirō Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), leader of Monarch, an international organisation studying Godzilla. Greater emphasis on the monsters would have allowed for more special effects, but would have dragged the movie into tedium.

It should be pointed out that Godzilla is given a character to an extent, as well. He is not the jokey hero of mankind that he became in the later Japanese movies, nor the enraged killer bent on annihilating everything in his path from the 1954 original. Neither good nor bad, he is a force of nature; humans seem not to be of account to him, their ships and automobiles strange little animals and his buildings just part of the landscape. There is an intriguing moment when he appears actually to see a human being, and the two look to share a moment of weary sympathy. That is the extent of his concern with humanity.

The director makes the interesting, and correct, decision not to show Godzilla immediately. Though well-known to audiences, to suggest such a thing would have been to wink at the movie, and to include the real world beyond it. Instead, we catch glimpses of the monster: his trademark dorsal scales; his silhouette in the ocean; even when he at last confronts the MUTO, we are given quick views of their battles - through closing doors, on a tv set - until their climactic encounter. This builds suspense for the final showdown, and is greatly in the movie’s favour.

An entertaining and involving film, Godzilla doesn’t suffer from too little of the monsters. With three or four big action scenes, there’s plenty of excitement and, since the players and the director treat the subject seriously, the movie becomes an exciting story that adults and older children can enjoy.

The Clay Pigeon (1949)

Directed by Richard Fleischer; produced by Herman Schlom

Jim Fletcher (Bill Williams) wakes in a hospital to find that he’s about to stand trial for betraying his comrades in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp, an action resulting in the death of his friend. He can’t remember what had happened, so he flees the hospital and sets out to discover the truth. With the reluctant help of his late friend’s wife (Barbara Hale), who believes him to be a traitor, Fletcher has to outrun the authorities and some mysterious killers to clear his name.

What starts out as a promising film noir - albeit with a premise that was probably well-used even by 1949 - loses its potential as it goes. This is surprising, considering the writing and directing talent involved.

The screenplay is by Carl Foreman, who also wrote High Noon and The Guns of Navarone, and adapted 1950’s Cyrano de Bergerac. The dialogue in The Clay Pigeon is nothing outstanding, but what is disappointing is the story-line. If you can’t guess the villain within seconds of seeing him, you’ve probably never seen another film noir - or crime movie. I kept waiting for the villain’s personal motive to be made clear, or even implied, but this was never forthcoming.

The over-all plan behind the frame put around Fletcher is simplistic, and explained in about a minute and a half in the movie’s dénouement. This was a story that called for a more complicated plot, yet seemed rushed, as if Foreman were apathetic about it, and wanted to get on to other things. The Clay Pigeon was early in his career, it’s true, but it certainly is not like anything that came after. As well, the transition of Hale’s character from suspicious and hateful to sympathetic is too easy and rapid.

Richard Fleischer too is known for some good work, such as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Tora! Tora! Tora! and Soylent Green. He is, perhaps, not considered in the top tier of directors but nonetheless has done better than this. Though The Clay Pigeon was early work for him, as it was for Foreman, he had an atmospheric and equally low budget movie in the same year - Follow Me Quietly - which, though flawed, was more entertaining.

The acting here is good but not exceptional. Williams might come across as benevolent and innocent with his baby-face, but he is able to give a semi-tough guy portrayal. Hale, unfortunately, is not effective as a leading lady, and is better in supporting roles. The two leads were married at the time of this movie, and remained married until Williams’s death. Their son is actor William Katt.

Predictability, lack of imagination and simplistic plotting ruin what might have been a decent crime film, and what could have been saved in The Clay Pigeon is thrown away by lacklustre direction and writing.

Project Hail Mary (2026)

Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller; produced by Amy Pascal, Ryan Gosling, Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, Aditya Sood, Rachel O’Connor, Andy Weir

Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling) wakes without memories in a spaceship. He begins to realise that he is the sole survivor of a team sent from Earth, the sun of which is being destroyed by interstellar micro-organisms. It was discovered that many stars are suffering similar fates, but not Tau Ceti. Three people are sent to Tau Ceti to discover its immunity to the organisms, harness it and use it to save Earth’s sun. When Grace wakens, he finds an alien, whom he nicknames Rocky, has been sent on a similar mission: his planet’s sun is dying, too. The pair work together to solve the mystery of Tau Ceti, and rescue their people.

An interesting and entertaining movie, Project Hail Mary nonetheless has some flaws. I could not help comparing it to The Martian (2015), which concerns another, albeit more personal, rescue mission. I then learned that both movies are based on books by Andy Weir.

I felt that, though very good, Project Hail Mary was the lesser of the two, as it seemed slightly cartoonish in aspects. The character of Rocky - so called because his race appears to be silicon based, and he looks like a jumble of stones - is not played for laughs but is nevertheless used for humour in a variety of situations, including his misinterpretation of English phrases. As well, despite having some differences from Grace, Rocky acts much like would a human who has had limited exposure to Grace’s culture. He’s almost too cute a sidekick.

While it has its faults, Project Hail Mary is an enjoyable film. Gosling is in every scene, and his character is by far the main one, so much depends on his performance. Fortunately, he is a very likeable actor, snd he creates an equally likeable character though, as with the movie, Grace is not without his flaws. He is revealed as not really heroic, just a frightened man who must do what he can under the circumstances. This makes him more, rather than less, sympathetic.

The other actors have small parts compared to Gosling’s, but they do very well with them. Sandra Hüller has a good role as the head of the project, seen mostly in flashbacks, and James Ortiz, the puppeteer who is responsible for much of Rocky’s actions, provides the alien’s voice. Even if the character as written is rather too human, Ortiz does a fine job giving him a voice.

The story is intriguing. Like The Martian, there is no bad guy. All the characters are striving to do what is best with what they have to work with. It is almost invigorating to watch a movie in which the characters all have the best intentions at heart. The science, while reduced to what the average cinema-goer can understand, appears scientifically feasible, and the ‘enemy’ being an extraordinary single-celled creature is a refreshing change from the spaceship-flying invaders or shape-shifting villains that usually populate science fiction stories. There are problems with the writing, such as both human and alien showing up at Tau Ceti at the same time, and, unless I missed something, an explanation of how Rocky survives an accident is not given.

The writing is good, and especially clever in having Grace suffer amnesia initially. This allows the audience to learn what is going as he does, obviating the pointless explanation Grace would otherwise have had to provide to himself in order for the story to be comprehensible to viewers. There are some dull bits, some padding and some attempts at humour that go awry - Grace trying to put on a space-suit in zero-gravity is clumsy and boring - but for the most part, the script and the direction work well together.

All in all, Project Hail Mary reminded me rather of what Steven Spielberg would have done thirty-five years ago or so: a fun movie about people using their brains rather than their brawn, a film that provides entertainment with a large dose of science and optimism.

Fingerman (1955)

Directed by Harold Schuster; produced by Lindsley Parsons

Casey Martin (Frank Lovejoy), not long out of prison, hijacks a truck and the evidence lands him in the local office of the U.S. Treasury Department. There, he is offered a choice: a lifetime in jail as a ‘four-time loser’, or the chance to start clean. The latter, however, involves infiltrating and bringing down notorious gangster Dutch Becker (Forrest Tucker), which will be dangerous not just for Martin, but for those near and dear to him.

Though it has elements of film noir - voice-over narration by the main character, and enough trenchcoats to have emptied a studio’s wardrobe department - Fingerman fits more into the genre of ‘gang-buster’ movies. Instead of a policeman or federal agent, the good guys’ mole in the criminal organisation is a tough-talking, tough-acting ex-convict, who has reasons other than government coercision for bringing down the bad guys.

Lovejoy does a decent job in the lead. His character is an essentially kind man who treats fair those who treat him fair. He is supported by Peggie Castle as Martin’s love interest. (Tragically, both actors would die relatively young: Castle of alcoholism at 45, and Lovejoy of a heart attack at 50.) Tucker does well as a menacing villain; he manages to make his character’s stated abhorrence of violence seem true. Aside from the strange Timothy Carey as Becker’s sadistic right hand, the rest of the cast is unknown.

A product of Allied Artists, the re-named Monogram Pictures, Fingerman shows its low production values. As with many cheap productions, however, the lack of funds does not really hinder the movie. Crime dramas, like westerns, could be made without great cost. The story takes place in the usual unnamed city, which allows filming on generic sets.

What hurts Fingerman, however, is the writing; specifically, the pacing of the story. At 82 minutes, the movie is about as long as most films of this genre. But it seems to spend most of its time in the set-up. It’s half over before Decker decides to take on Martin as a member of his gang. Ordinarily, a slow build-up would be commendable: one assumes that under-cover work demands long preparation.

The trouble is that once accepted, Martin learns too much too fast. What he is able to find out while undercover could have been achieved with a well-placed eavesdropping device. Perhaps the writers, realising that they had spent most of the running time leading up to the meat of the story, had to rush the remainder. In any case, there is something strongly unsatisfying about the second half of Fingerman.

While good performances and dialogue help the movie, its rushed narrative does Fingerman too great a disservice, and hurts the over-all results.

The Conformist (a.k.a. Il conformista; 1970)

Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci; produced by Maurizio Lodi-Fe

Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Trintignant) has joined Italy’s Fascist Party and is ready to prove himself to his bosses. To do so, he is ordered to kill his former university professor. As he prepares for the task, he recalls his earlier life, visits with his drug-addicted mother and his insane father, and the people who shaped the man he has become.

The Conformist has been praised as one of the greatest movies ever made. While it is certainly very good, I cannot agree with such a rating. There are a number of outstanding elements to the film but I find it flawed in a significant way, which inhibits its completeness.

The acting is first-rate. Trintignant is excellent in the title role. He never strives to make Clerici likeable, but does give him depth and a kind of complexity that makes him understandable. He is a villain, and meant to be a villain in a kind of banal, every-day fashion. But if one cannot understand a villain, he becomes little more than a cartoon character. Certainly Clerici is understandable - perhaps too much so.

The direction complements the acting, and there are some scenes that are tense and frightening in a realistic manner. In particular, an assassination sequence is almost horrifying in the mundanity of the killers and their behaviour.

What was very visually noticeable was the look of the film, the responsibility of production designer Ferdinando Scarfiotti and art director Nedo Azzini. They recreated an atmospheric 1930s look and feel (perhaps accentuating the styles of the times), as well as the monumental architecture and décor beloved of Fascism. The giant, stony offices in which the Italian government officials work is reminiscent of the genuine productions of Mussolini’s regime and its attempts to portray itself as an immense entity, but they also emphasise the emptiness of the Fascists and their beliefs.

What I found to be less than these elements was the writing and the story. This may be surprising, as they were adapted from the acclaimed novel by Alberto Moravia. I thought the obviousness of the story a factor in dulling its effectiveness. Clerici wishes to join the Fascist secret police, and the man to whom he applies lists the reasons why people want to join, but expresses puzzlement over not being able to fathom Clerici’s motives. This scene is intercut with another in which Clerici explains to a friend that he craves ‘normality’. Everything is laid out for the viewer.

It may be that the intention is to demonstrate that Clerici doesn’t understand the difference between normalcy and conformity, between being contentedly ordinary and following the crowd to fit in. If so, then the movie damages its own argument, since becoming a Fascist would be normal - for the time and place - but joining the secret police would not be. No one associated with a totalitarian police force could claim normalcy.

The dénouement is a brief scene set in 1943, when Mussolini has fallen. Clerici accepts this event blandly, which doesn’t seem right, considering what he had become, and his actions toward an old friend, while fitting, are predictable.

While I can recommend The Conformist for its look and sympathies, the story is neither exciting nor demanding enough for the scale of the production or its intention.