favorite movie #104 - holiday edition: the lion in winter

Favorite movies that have had an impact on me - #104 - The Lion in Winter (1968) - It's Christmastime, 1183, and King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) wants his youngest son John (Nigel Terry) to succeed him. His wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katharine Hepburn), does not. She wants their eldest son, Richard (Anthony Hopkins) to be king of France and England. Middle son Geoffrey (John Castle)? No one seems to want him. Just a typical marital spat between powerful rulers? Not exactly. Henry has had Eleanor imprisoned for years, to punish her for suspected treason and to curb and control her power. The Lion in Winter is not history exactly, but it is a wonderful imagining of how this historical family may have interacted. Mostly it is delightful to watch.

Eleanor (Katharine Hepburn) and Henry (Peter O'Toole)

L-R: John (Nigel Terry), Eleanor, Richard (Anthony Hopkins), and Geoffrey (John Castle)

Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katharine Hepburn): I adored you. I still do.
Henry II (Peter O'Toole): Of all the lies you've told, that is the most terrible.
Eleanor of Aquitaine: I know. That's why I've saved it up until now.

hitchcock's true romance

Last week was Alfred Hitchcock's birthday. One of my all-time favorite filmmakers, Hitchcock was funny, talented, and more than a little bit quirky. This past year two films attempted to tell behind-the-scenes stories of the man and his films. A made-for-cable movie, The Girl, premiered on HBO and focused on Hitch's obsession with actress Tippi Hedren during the filming of The Birds. Not to diminish what Hitch may have put Ms. Hedren through, but it was not a great film, focusing on hearsay of the most prurient kind. Also released this year was Hitchcock, based on Stephen Rebello's book, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. The film does include some fun peeks into the making of the famous horror film, but the true center of the story is the relationship between Hitch (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife, screenwriter and editor Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).

Alma Reville

Helen Mirren as Alma

Hitchcock is a far better film than The Girl (which isn't really saying much). But true Hitchophiles may wish for a bit more "making of" footage than the filmmaker's inserted dream sequences, where the great director talks to Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein, the inspiration for the book by Robert Bloch and the film. Film buffs will enjoy being reminded how completely unusual Psycho was for its time. Because of its graphic subject matter, Hitch's studio, Paramount, wouldn't finance the film, so the director (and his wife) had to put up the money. Hitchcock used his television crew from Alfred Hitchcock Presents to film Psycho. When the studio would only releas the film to a very limited amount of theaters, Hitchcock countered with some brilliant publicity gimmicks — buying up all copies of the Bloch book, so that no one would know how the story ended, and by decreeing that absolutely no one would be allowed into the theater after the movie had started.

Hitch swears the cast and crew to secrecy on the set of Psycho - L-R: Jessica Biel as Vera Miles, Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, and James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins

Hopkins may not look exactly like Hitch, but he does a great job with his voice, especially his over-enunciated speech. He could have slowed down some of his phrasing even more. Mirren gives a wonderful, acerbic performance as Alma. She may not closely resemble Mrs. Hitchcock, but she captures the frustrations involved in being married to a man who always had to have a "Hitchcock blonde" standing by. The pair bicker and try to one-up each other throughout the film, but they also manage to convey their great love for one another. Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Reville were married 54 years, from 1926–1980, when Hitch died. Alma died two years later, in 1982.

Hitchcock and Alma on vacation

Alma (Mirren) helps Hitch (Hopkins) edit Psycho

Hitchcock tries to amp up the drama by having Alma indulge in a flirtation with fellow screen writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) who wrote Stage Fright and Strangers on a Train. Their collaboration on a new project while Hitch is working on HIS film inflames Hitch's jealousy and inspires his rage, which he channels into the famous shower scene. Maybe. It's pretty well-known that the shower scene was completely story-boarded and not a spontaneous expression of Hitch's personal rage on the set. What the film does do is underline how essential Alma was to Hitch and his films. It may slightly overplay her contributions to Psycho, but it does show how her discerning eye and opinion was Hitch's absolute first and last stop during his creative process.

Although the film and romance belongs to Hopkins and Mirren, the supporting cast does a good job with their interpretations of well-known actors. Jessica Biel especially stands out as Vera Miles, a woman, who like Tippi Hedren, was being groomed to be a star, a Hitchcock blonde, but who fell out with the director after becoming pregnant prior to his starring her in Vertigo (the part then went to Kim Novak). James D'Arcy is an uncanny Anthony Perkins. Scarlett Johannsson tries to charm as Janet Leigh, but apart from her figure, doesn't really suggest the actress or the era.

Janet Leigh (Johansson) and Vera Miles (Biel)

Quibbles aside, Hitchcock is an entertaining peek into the relationship between Hitch and Alma and Hollywood's first slasher film. After viewing this biopic one might want to screen the original and reflect on all that went into making this black and white horror classic.

wolf man slack

The Wolfman was so universally panned when it came out that I never got around to seeing it. So when I came across it the other night I figured I'd give it a try, with my expectations low. I can't say that the movie confounded those expectations. All in all it was pretty bad. Funny in all the wrong places, serious—ditto, and obsessed with phony flesh-tearing gory special effects that were just—gross. But it made me think—not about the plot, but about all the hard work going on behind-the-scenes—while I was watching it. I was able to separate myself from all of the failed aspects of the film, while wondering about some of stellar ones, and there were a few.



How disappointed an artisan must be. Spending months on location or in the studio, utilizing their particular skill to get something—the costumes, the light on an actress or the furniture, the exterior landscaping of a building—just right. Do they know while they are watching it that the actors or director are not doing it justice? Do they hope it can all be fixed in the editing room? Or are they just jurneyman, there do the best job possible?

The look of the thing. Whether the crew of The Wolfman knew where the production was headed or not, they definitely delivered a gorgeous film. When many folks watch the Oscars, categories like set design and the like are usually only appreciated by film nerds while the rest of the audience is itching for the producers to get on with it. I can be in either camp, depending on my mood, or interest in the nominees. But while watching The Wolfman I got seriously caught up in the fabulous set design. So much work and detail went into the interiors of Anthony Hopkins's manse and Emily Blunt's curio shop.

The locations were gorgeous and gorgeously-filmed. The costumes were impeccable. Not flashy, but era-appropriate. They looked like real clothes, not too new or not too grubby—many costume pictures send a false note when they get this important detail wrong. When it wasn't over-busy with entrails and decapitations, The Wolfman was lovely to look at.

The supporting cast. Geraldine Chaplin was minimally used as head gypsy, but she was still great and it's always fun to see her. Hugo Weaving obviously had a blast. The man simply does not get enough work. Or I need to look out for his movies more diligently. I was honestly more interested in his character after five seconds onscreen than anyone else in the film.

One plot/structure change could have made the entire film so much better. More updated, more meaningful. If the movie had been told from Emily Blunt's character's point of view it could have been turned into a gothic paranoia classic, a la The Others. There were germs of this, especially in her late-in-the-movie horseback ride-to-the-rescue at the end of the film. Truly a missed opportunity. It could have been Emily Blunt, Werewolf Hunter. If I ruled the world ...



Two more observations. Anthony Hopkins has been over-chewing the scenery for so long, that it is hard to know how to take him in any role anymore. Funny on purpose? There for a paycheck? He is so ham. But his presence was also strangely comforting. Benicio Del Toro was so completely miscast it was painful. I love me some Benicio. At first I thought maybe the problem was that he hated what he got himself into, but he was also a producer and apparently a big Wolfman fan

... a fan of the original and collector of Wolf Man memorabilia in the lead role. Screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker was attached to the screenplay, developing the original film's story to include additional characters as well as plot points that would take advantage of modern visual effects. Del Toro also looked towards Werewolf of London and The Curse of the Werewolf for inspiration.—Wikipedia

No matter his Wolfman fandom, his method/interior work style of acting was not a good fit for this monster flick. As I was watching him suffer, maybe it was the Danny Elfman music, but I suddenly thought, "Too bad that he and Johnny Depp couldn't have changed places." Depp would have been well-suited, I think, to this role. He would have been better able to emotionally connect with Blunt and the audience as man and beast. And Del Toro would make a fabulous Barnabas Collins. He might even temper the wackadoodle collaborative thing Tim Burton's got with Depp. I have real fears for the upcoming Dark Shadows.

[According to] Rick Baker [who] created the make-up for The Wolfman ... Going from Benicio to Benicio as the Wolf Man isn't a really extreme difference. Like when I did An American Werewolf in London, we went from this naked man to a four-legged hound from hell, and we had a lot of room to go from the transformation and do a lot of really extreme things. Here we have Benicio del Toro, who's practically the Wolf Man already, to Benicio del Toro with more hair and bigger teeth.—Wikipedia

I'm not sure that's anything to brag about. Isn't the underlying werewolf myth all about transformation, from a man into an animal, into our basest desires? Categorizing Benicio as uber-hairy is overstating it. He's dark-haired and swarthy, maybe.




One more observation. What the hell was going on with all the gore? Did the filmmakers think that was going to make the movie scarier? It was just silly. Why were these werewolves so angry and flesh-hungry? A little lore might not have hurt the proceedings. The wolfmen tore through twenty people a night. Talk about hunting and wasting the resources.

There is just something intrinsically goofy about a guy, still in his clothes, running around in the woods as The Wolf Man. If you don't find the right note, the suspension of disbelief just kills the whole thing. What happens to the Wolfman's torn and bloody clothes post-transformation is always an issue, or at least confusing to me. An American Werewolf in London handled the dilemma humorously by having David Naughton creatively cope with his naked post-werewolf state. Now that's a werewolf movie to check out. Or even Teen Wolf.

Movie production stills from Universal.

Related articles

• Benicio Del Toro and Gaspar Noe Directing Segments in Omnibus Film '7 Days in Havana' (slashfilm.com)