#154 The Incredible Shrinking Man

Watched: December 10 2017

Director: Jack Arnold

Starring: Grant Williams, Randy Stuart, Paul Langton, April Kent, Raymond Bailey, William Schallert

Year: 1957

Runtime: 1h 21min

shrinking

Source

Somewhere at sea, a young couple are enjoying a day out on a boat. Louise (Stuart – who we absolutely adored), goes below deck to get Scott (Williams) a drink, and suddenly the man is enveloped by a mysterious, glittery mist.

shrinking2
“Oh no! This must be one of those evil, communist, homosexual fogs that turn you gay!”

Source

Although he has no immediate ill effects, after a few months Scott remarks that all his clothes have become too big. Not by a lot, but definitely noticeable. A doctor’s appointment confirms that he is in fact shrinking, and together with medical experts the Carey’s start on their quest to save Scott from a terrible fate.

Shrinking3
“I’m not shrinking. We just underestimated the size of the new furniture we ordered.”

Source

As Scott shrinks, so does his self-esteem. He becomes angry and hostile towards his wife, with whom he no longer feels like the “man” of the household. He also grows increasingly pretentious as he tries to put his own existence into cosmic perspective. Or something. Oh, and he also has to go into battle with a house cat and a spider, which is less philosophical and more action packed.

Incredible Shrinking Man, The
Exploring the usefulness of sewing supplies does not threaten your masculinity. Especially when you use said supplies to battle killer spiders.

Source

Based on a novel by Richard Matheson, The Incredible Shrinking Man explores identity, masculinity and fancy ’50s atomic science. Scott starts off as a normal, likable man in a happy marriage, but as he shrinks he becomes hostile and erratic. Then again, everything around him becomes increasingly dangerous, so you can’t really blame him for some of his attitude. Except for his anger with his adorable wife.

shrinking5
“My stupid wife and her stupid cat!”

Source

It’s a great, old, classic science fiction film, and (most of) the special effects hold up really well even 60 years later. Scott isn’t a particularly likable protagonist/narrator, but it’s still a very entertaining watch, even if from the beginning you get a strong feeling that there’s no way this will end well.

shrinking6
There’s a feeling of doom even before they bring carnies into the mix

Source

What we learned: To God there is no zero. Also, avoid being enveloped by mysterious fogs.

Next time: The Monolith Monsters (1957)

#148 Funny Face

Watched: November 26 2017

Director: Stanley Donen

Starring: Fred Astaire, Audrey Hepburn, Kay Thompson, Michel Auclair

Year: 1957

Runtime: 1h 43min

funny

Source

Dick Avery (Astaire), fashion photographer, bursts into the life of intellectual book seller Jo Stockton (Hepburn) with an impromptu photo shoot in her shop. Fashion editor (and personal hero) Maggie Prescott (Thompson) shuts her out of her shop for being a nuisance, but Dick manages to convince the brilliant lady to make Jo her new “Quality girl” and model.

funny1
Thus starts the arduous task of making a glamorous model out of this hideous beast

Source

Dick talks the reluctant Jo into the job by promising her a trip to Paris – her biggest dream is to travel to the French capital to hear her personal hero professor Emile Flostre (Auclair) talk. He is the inventor of empathicalism, a philosophy Jo follows and Dick ridicules.

funny2
“You silly girl! Stop trying to think and put on a pretty dress!”

Source

They go to Paris, Jo blossoms into a great model, Dick and Jo fall in love (for some reason), Jo gets to meet her hero (which the adage tells us never to do, and we learn why), and Maggie and Dick get to go undercover as Floridian singers to great success. Also, there are complications and conflicts, as there should be.

funny3
Even Parisian rain can be endured with Givenchy dresses and colourful balloons

Source

We’re slightly conflicted over Funny Face. There is so much about it we love: the colours, the musical numbers, the sets, the costumes, the choreography, Maggie Prescott, Audrey Hepburn’s slightly clumsy elegance, the fact that she got to sing her own songs, and generally the overall feel of the entire film.

Funny4
How can you NOT love this?

Source

What we don’t quite get is the romance at the centre. It’s not so much the age difference, although 30 years is a lot (and we’re not strangers to the concept). It’s mainly Dick’s constant treatment of Jo as if she’s just a silly little girl incapable of thought and of seeing the real intentions of her hero. He berates and controls her, and he tries to change her priorities to make her more like the fashionistas he works with.

funny5
Then again, who wouldn’t be persuaded to become a model if it meant wearing dresses like this?

Source

It feels a bit as if he might be better off finding someone else if he wants to change her that much. And that she would be happier with someone who at least supported her intellectual pursuits. We sort of thought Maggie and Dick would have been a better couple. But perhaps that’s just us.

funny6
They do have amazing chemistry!

Source

Overall, we like the film, but the romance feels very dated unless it’s supposed to be a bit uncomfortable. The musical numbers and the gorgeous cinematography sort of makes up for it though. Sort of.

funny7
It made us want to dance in sordid, French night clubs with men in striped shirts for sure

Source

What we learned: Think pink! Also, men in the fashion industry are presumably a lot less superficial than academics and philosophers.

Next time: Kanal (1957)

#86 Rope

Watched: January 30 2017

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger, Douglas Dick, Joan Chandler, Edith Evanson, Cedric Hardwicke,

Year: 1948

Runtime: 1h 20min

rope

Source

We continue our journey through film history with this classic Hitchcock thriller, filmed in glorious technicolor. Brandon (Dall) and Philip (Granger), old school friends, decide to kill a third friend and throw a dinner party for his family with the body hidden in the room. This is what an Ivy League education will do to your sense of morality, apparently.

rope2
Who needs morals when you have unlimited access to alcohol and this penthouse view?

Source

They also invite their old housemaster (whatever that is. Some sort of teacher?) Rupert (Stewart), who Brandon idolizes (and quite possibly is in love with on some level). The idea behind the party is to stroke their egos (particularly Brandon’s) by convincing themselves they have committed the perfect murder. For Brandon the party is exhilarating, while for Philip it’s excruciating.

rope3
One of these men have less of a conscience than the others…

Source

As the (very tense) party progresses, we learn that the murderous philosophies so taken to heart by Brandon originate in Rupert’s fascination with Nietzsche and similar thinkers. They both think that there are differences between people and that some have more right to live than others. In fact, they go so far as to claim that it is the superior people’s right to take the lives of others. For Rupert these are simply thought experiments – not anything to be put into action. However, Brandon takes everything his hero says quite literally and drags his rather more weak-willed friend down with him.

rope4
Guess which one is the dominant one! Hint: it’s not the one doing the actual killing…

Source

Rope is tense and exciting – a sitting room thriller with great long shots and a truly chilling character in Brandon (although, to be honest, there are many movie murderers who surpass him in creepiness). The long shots help build the tension quite well – especially when Mrs Wilson is tidying the chest containing the body after dinner. Philip gradually melts down until his Tell-Tale Heart-moment which reveals Rupert’s true feelings about the philosophies he spouts.

rope5
Turns out, Rupert has some opinions about the difference between theory and practice.

Source

We love Rope – it’s a classic we’ve watched several times before, and we thoroughly recommend it to anyone who loves a good suspenseful melodrama. And a good murder. Which we do. There are also clear parallels to the real case of Leopold and Loeb, but we find fictional murders infinitely more satisfying than real life as we’re not total psychopaths…

Extra fun fact for you: “Farley” (as in actor Farley Granger) pretty much means “dangerous” in Norwegian. So, from a purely Norwegian linguistic point of view, he should have been the one to play Brandon. For some reason, Hitchcock did not take this into consideration when casting the film.

What we learned: Thinking oneself superior is a dangerous thing.

Next time: The Fallen Idol (1948)