davidholmesfr

This is a mish-mash where the original cynical Marlowe of the late 40s meets the laid-back and careworn private detective of the 60s. We move from all those shadows that dominated the noir films to the bright lights of the swinging 60s. And it doesn't really work; nor should it. To me, it comes over more as a satire on the originals with plenty of good one-liners and a surreal couple of scenes with Bruce Lee.

The storyline is too complex to set out here and I suspect there will be many differing versions of just what the story actually is. Not that that matters too much as I think it may be better simply to see it as a satire or, perhaps, a parody.

Gayle Hunnicutt was out of place although Rita Moreno maybe makes up for that. Garner is, well, Garner. See it as a curiosity rather than as something that is important or significant in the history of film.

Given the somewhat clichéd and thin storyline (from a short story rather than a novel), the film just about hold up. This seems to be due to Negulesco's balancing act between some of the overwrought passions and the basic telling of the story.

Joan Crawford came to this following on from her Oscar-winning success in "Mildred Pierce". No doubt she, and the studio, thought that this would be "her" film. But John Garfield's performance actually overshadows Crawford; may this be a testament to method acting? I found it difficult to muscle up much sympathy for either of the main characters and this probably accounts for my comparatively Luke-warm conclusion. Both characters seemed devoid of any humour but fortunately we have Oscar Levant's one-liners to relieve some of the emotional tension. The extensive music performed in the film will be a plus for many, especially as much of it is from the Romantic era of classical music.

It's certainly worth watching if you're interested in film history; if you're not then I suggest you wait for a wet Sunday afternoon when it's on TV.

I must confess to approaching Camille with some trepidation. The story had been done so many times in opera, theatre and cinema that my question was simple.What would MGM bring to the party that others hadn't, especially in those years between the Depression, the growth of fascism in Europe and the outbreak of World War II? The answer is, of course, a wonderful cast, great direction and sumptuous sets and costumes. My fears that this would be given an overly-sentimental Hollywood treacle treatment were wholly unfounded. It was interesting to see how the film gets the message across that Marguerite is a courtesan ("hooker" just sounds too down and dirty for Garbo!). No overt mention of her trade is made in the dialogue although in the titles we are informed that these women are "girls of discretion". But the way Garbo moves, reacts to events and speaks leaves us in no little doubt as to her profession.

Robert Taylor plays a touching Armand, Henry Daniell is outstanding as the Baron and Lionel Barrymore skilfully manages a blend of severity and compassion in the comparatively short, but crucial, scene in which he appears with Garbo.

Any downsides? Well,maybe a scene or two could have been shorter, or even excluded but this is a minor issue. Not quite a masterpiece but essential viewing for anyone interested in the history of film.