Tag: Identity

“Kansas City Confidential” (1952) starring John Payne & Coleen Gray

EmmaLeave a comment

Detective: … left school to enlist with the engineers. Pretty good soldier too! Bronze Star, Purple Heart!

Joe: Try and buy a cup of coffee with them!

A WWII vet working as a flower deliveryman, Joe Rolfe (John Payne- best known as the lawyer/neighbor in Miracle on 34th Street), becomes the fall guy for an armored car robbery worth $1.2M. Payne is very tall (6’4″), w/ an athletic body, and large/expressive brown eyes. When Joe is released for lack of evidence, after being roughly interrogated by the cops, he’s determined to discover who set him up and why. After 6 mos, he gets info which leads down to Tijuana, Mexico. There he meets a nervous ex-con, Pete Harris (Jack Elam), at a gambling house. Pete doesn’t have his share of the robbery money, but is flying to Barrados (a fishing village) to pick it up. He doesn’t know who planned it, or the other criminals (character actors Neville Brand and Lee Van Cleef). They all had to wear full face masks during the robbery!

[1] …Payne started off as a crooner and hoofer, a light leading man… he ended up one of the most convincing ordinary-guy protagonists in the noir cycle. He’s tough, all right, but still shows the flop-sweat of fear; and he’s smart, too, but because he’s forced to be what he’s trying to hang onto is all he’s got.

[2] The suspense in Kansas City Confidential is not about who did it. The three robbers are… three of the nastiest dudes in film history. The suspense lies whether Payne can put it all together. As he says to one of them, he’s flying blind in this one.

John Payne gives a riveting performance of a desperate man and one you don’t leave holding the bag without consequences. This is one of the best noir films ever done, not to be missed.

-Excerpts from IMDB reviews

Quentin Tarantino said that Reservoir Dogs (1992) was inspired by this film noir. Kansas City Confidential was directed by Phil Karson (who also made Scandal Sheet); he worked steadily in small budget pictures. This film doesn’t shy away from violence (punching, kicking, and gunplay). The fights happen fast and don’t look slick; they’re a fact of life for shady men. Joe spent a year in jail, too; he can handle himself in rough situations. His love interest is pretty, but also smart (a law student); Helen (Coleen Gray) surprises her father (Preston Foster) by arriving at the resort for a vacation. Gray is perhaps best known as Fay, the loyal girlfriend to Sterling Hayden (another handsome tall drink of water) in Kubrick’s The Killing (1956). The romantic scenes were few, but played well; Payne and Gray became a real-life couple for some time. I noticed (on second viewing) that the editing is tight and well-done. Check out this film for free (since it’s in the public domain) on Amazon or YouTube!

“Scandal Sheet” (1952) starring Broderick Crawford, John Derek, & Donna Reed

EmmaLeave a comment

An ambitious/tough-talking editor, Mark Chapman (Broderick Crawford), meets the wife he abandoned 20+ yrs ago at a “Lonely Hearts Club” ball sponsored by his NYC newspaper. Charlotte Grant (Rosemary DeCamp), threatens to expose him as a wife-deserter and impostor (he changed his name). In a fit of rage, he pushes and accidentally kills her! When Mrs. Grant’s body is found, Chapman assigns his young protégé reporter, Steve McCleary (John Derek), to the story. It could be a juicy follow-up story to the ball and raise circulation. Julie Allison (Donna Reed), a features writer/Steve’s girlfriend, gets a phone call which could crack the case.

This film noir is based on the 1944 novel, The Dark Page, by Samuel Fuller. The wise-cracking photographer, Biddle, is played by Harry Morgan (who gained fame in the TV show M.A.S.H.) Less than a year ago, Chapman was brought on board to save the paper, as it was losing money. Now, some of the shareholders don’t approve of the scandalous stories which he chooses to cover, though the paper is nearing a circulation of 750,000. Julie can barely hide her disdain for Chapman; she’s disappointed that Steve looks up to him. Derek is (as expected) uber-handsome w/ long lashes and thick dark hair; his character makes some sexist comments (reflecting the era). A few viewers were a bit shocked that Reed (who does a fine job) smokes in this movie- LOL!

Top notch suspense as Crawford gambles that he can keep his cool and get away with it, even as the walls close in and the odds look worse and worse. Crawford is at his no-nonsense, take no prisoners, mince-no-words best…

Reed plays a woman who is like the voice of conscience in the movie–always appalled at Crawford’s methods and making it clear that she wants no part of this degradation of the paper.

-Excerpts from IMDB reviews

Spoiler-Free Review: “Indian Matchmaking” (2020)

Emma18 Comments

[1] This show is basically romanticizing patriarchy.

[2] If there is any critique, it’s not that of arranged marriages, but of the unspoken biases, the pressure of marriage, and cringeworthy laundry list of preferences that constantly perpetuate.

[3] I was fuming at Geeta’s “women need to adjust more.” I have SO many issues with this show… the matchmaker’s job depends on the patriarchal society, but it is truly representative of the culture. Truly representative. Which is the sad part.

[4] The fact that so many people cringed watching it only proves how real those people felt to us. The appeal lies in the fact that whether you laugh or scream, it’s difficult to deny that the whole thing has a wallop of truth to it.

[5] This is the whole purpose of the show: to make people cringe and relate at the same time so that they can understand that what’s wrong and what needs to be changed.

-Excerpts from IMDB reviews from Indians in the diaspora

This is THE show (on Netflix) being discussed the past week on Twitter! While Helen of Troy may’ve launched a 1,000 ships, this show probably launched a 1,000 think-pieces. Indian Matchmaking sprung from the mind of Smriti Mudhra (a millennial documentary filmmaker raised in the US); she was nominated for an Oscar for her short film- St. Louis Superman (2019). Now, I know what some of you are thinking- isn’t this a reality show!? A pop culture critic was calling it a mash-up of The Real Housewives, Monsoon Wedding, and The Bachelor. Mudhra described it as a “commercial docu-series” on an interview w/ professor Sree Srinivasan on his YouTube channel (see comment below for full video).

For the first few days after its release, I resisted watching it (b/c I usually don’t watch everything that’s “popular”). Then, last SUN, I gave in… and quickly realized WHY so many viewers found it “cringey.” I found it partly cringe-worthy, but also partly tolerable (as in I couldn’t look away). There are two characters (one in US, one in India) who I could relate to. I will keep this spoiler-free, BUT I must warn you that sensitive issues will come up (see comments below for further reading). Is this show regressive, or is it revealing hard truths re: the arranged marriage process (“holding a mirror to nature”)? Are desis hungry for representation? Is this show enjoyable? Let me know your thoughts below!

The show follows 7 single individuals of Indian heritage (ranging in age from mid-20s to mid-30s) living in the US and India. They’re clients of the narrator/main protagonist, Sima Taparia, who refers to herself as “Mumbai’s Top Matchmaker.” Her business is “booming,” as arranged marriage is the norm in India (no stats are given on this, but it’s part of the culture). Sima Auntie (as she is commonly known) explains that she works w/ more “traditional families” who see marriage as a union of two families, not only the couple. The clients in India are among the 1% (elite): a jeweler (Pradhyuman), an engineer who went to college in the US (Akshay), and a fashion designer/entrepreneur (Ankita). The clients in the US are middle to upper-middle class; this group includes an educator in Austin (Vyasar), a lawyer in Houston (Aparna), a Guyanese dance teacher/entrepreneur in New Jersey (Nadia), and a Sikh divorced mom in Colorado (Rupam). Sima chooses matches for these people and sets them up on arranged dates, sometimes w/ family in tow.

There is no mention of how much money clients pay Sima over the 8 eps (around 30 minutes each), I assume it’s a hefty sum. It’s also assumed (by us in the desi diaspora) that most of Sima’s clients are Hindu, wealthy, and come from the upper caste; other viewers may or may not realize this. There is no discussion of the caste system. Some words are defined onscreen; “biodata” (a sort of resume for singles) is explained in detail. There are several instances where the words “tall, slim, and fair” (as in light-skinned) are used to describe prospective matches or clients’ preferences. Colorism is a big problem in India, as well as other nations of the world. The way these words are used may not shock most desis, but this show isn’t only being watched by us. It was a BIT jarring- at first. The words “good character” and “good heart” were used often to describe individuals.

“The Wedding Guest” (2018) starring Dev Patel & Radhika Apte

Emma3 Comments

Jay (Dev Patel) is a quiet/mysterious Muslim man who travels from London to the Punjab region of Pakistan, supposedly to attend the wedding of a friend. He brings along duct tape, guns, several cell phones, and a plan to kidnap the bride-to-be, Samira (Radhika Apte). Despite his cold efficiency, the plan quickly gets out of control, sending Jay and his hostage on the run across the border and through different parts of India. Jay has various names and identities, so carries several passports and credit cards. He was hired by a wealthy man who is now nervous to meet up and pay. The kidnapping and fallout make international news (Samira is a British citizen). The story evolves into a road trip, but w/ settings we usually don’t see in movies.

The film (which I saw last week free On Demand) has British and Indian producers. It has some twists and turns, but isn’t a typical thriller. It seems to me like a neo noir (in some aspects). The British writer/director, Michael Winterbottom, is known for out of the box films; I’ve seen Jude and The Claim. The cinematographer, Giles Nuttgens, has shot several films in India (incl. Earth, Fire, Water, and Midnight’s Children w/ director Deepa Mehta). The music, composed by Harry Escott, is unique and helps to create tension. The attraction between Patel and Apte develops as they open up to each other (slowly); they have good chemistry together.

[1] The movie benefits enormously from Dev Patel’s excellent work. He is in virtually every frame of the movie. Indian actress Radhika Apte… turns out to be a worthy sparring partner for Patel.

[2] You’ll like this movie if you like human characters, feelings, & relationships, along with a “slice of life” style, where you witness the characters move through a time & set of shared experiences together & may end well, badly, or anywhere in between.

Patel is now a mature leading man — in this movie, a bit of a Jean Reno type. He’s deadpan, but I like it.

-Excerpts from IMDB reviews

Art, Gender, & Desire: “Venus in Fur” (2013) starring Mathieu Amalric & Emmanuelle Seigner

EmmaLeave a comment

Based on the Tony-winning Broadway play by American writer, David Ives, Venus in Fur is a 2013 French film by famed/controversial director Roman Polanski. Alone in a Paris theater after a long day of auditioning actresses for his new play, writer-director Thomas (Mathieu Amalric), complains to his fiancee (on the phone) that no actress has what it takes to play the lead female character. Thomas is about to leave the theater when actress Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner) bursts in, a whirlwind of energy. At first, she is pushy, desperate, and not prepared- or so it seems. Under her coat, Vanda wears a risque black leather and lace outfit (w/ a dog collar). Thomas reluctantly agrees to let her try out; he is stunned by her transformation. Vanda is perfect (even sharing the character’s name); she obviously researched the role, learned the lines by heart, and brought along some props! As the audition continues, Thomas’ feelings go from from attraction to obsession, and Vanda takes on a more dominant role in the story. Vanda comes to tower over Thomas as she becomes stronger.

This was Polanski’s first non-English feature film in over 51 yrs; I saw it several years ago (and didn’t realize he was the director). I re-watched it on YouTube (it’s available for rent). The lighting is superb and the music (composed by Frenchman Alexandre Desplat) is used very well. He moves the story from NYC to Paris, b/c Polanski wanted to work w/ his wife in her native language- French. Originally, Vanda was a 24 y.o. actress (thus her short resume) and Thomas was a young playwright (w/ a few plays under his belt). On Broadway, then recent NYU grad- Nina Arianda- made a name for herself (2010-2012) as Vanda opposite Wes Bentley and Hugh Dancy. In London, Natalie Dormer (The Tudors; Game of Thrones) played the role opposite David Oakes. Louis Garrel (who is young and conventionally handsome) was originally cast as Thomas for this movie. Amalric is middle-aged, w/ a small build, and dark/intense eyes. As some viewers noted, he resembles a younger Polanski. Amalric’s mother comes from a Polish/Jewish family; she was born in the Polish village where Polanski lived w/ his family before WWII. Directors don’t make decisions w/o a reason!

Forget that badly-written and adapted Fifty Shades trilogy! There are several layers to this clever story of power imbalance: woman vs. man (in the play set in 1870), actor who wants the role vs. director who decides who gets the role (in the theater), and man vs. goddess (Venus AKA Aphrodite). It’s also about life imitating art, hidden desires, misogyny, and role playing. Thomas has to read w/ Vanda b/c none of the actors are there; it turns out that he’s really into it. Thomas starts out directing Vanda, but later she doesn’t hesitate in directing him. She even knows how to adjust the lights in the theater- hmmm. They put on and take off clothing to create these characters, as is common backstage in the theater. They quickly and easily switch from being themselves to the characters in the play!

[1] Thanks to the brilliant connections between literature, stage and reality, and thanks to the many things that remain unclear about the character’s real identities and motivations, this movie sounds much more like a question than like a an answer…

[2] The characters conflict with each other perfectly, I don’t mean that they completely disagree on everything, I mean that they disagree on a certain number of things and they agree on a certain number of things for their characters to have great chemistry.

[3] What was most surprising for me is how much we laughed during the film. It was really hilarious…

[4] The mystery of who exactly Vanda is keeps getting bigger until it reaches deific proportions…

-Excerpts from IMDB reviews