Category: Small town drama

Kings Row (1942)

Soapy melodrama on the surface, viciously biting satire underneath – making it as two-faced as the town it’s about

Director: Sam Wood

Cast: Ann Sheridan (Randy Monaghan), Robert Cummings (Parris Mitchell), Ronald Reagan (Drake McHugh), Betty Field (Cassie Tower), Charles Coburn (Dr Henry Gordon), Claude Rains (Dr Alexander Tower), Judith Anderson (Harriet Gordon), Nancy Coleman (Louise Gordon), Kaaren Verne (Elise Sandor), Maria Ouspenskaya (Madame von Eln), Harry Davenport (Colonel Skeffington)

There are few things more idealised than the decent American small-town, where everybody knows your name and people leave their doors unlocked safe with their trusted neighbours. That ideal is comprehensively dismantled by Kings Row. Like some sort of proto-Twin Peaks, it presents a small-town that is all picket fences and porch swings on the surface, but a seething morass of petty jealousies, hypocrisies, lies, cruelties and sadism underneath. Kings Row was adapted from a best-seller by Henry Bellerman many considered unfilmable (among the things it features that are obscured in the film are incest and assisted suicide) and is a searingly successful melodrama.

Covering the 1890s to the 1910s, Kings Row follows the lives of four young people, all suffering from the older generation’s pettiness and wickedness. Parris Mitchell (Robert Cummings) is a young man, training to be a doctor, in love with his austere mentor Dr Tower’s (Claude Rains) sensitive daughter Cassie (Betty Field). His best friend Drake McHugh (Ronald Reagan) is an amiable lothario, denied engagement to Louise (Nancy Coleman), daughter of the snobby Dr Gordon (Charles Coburn) and his wife (Judith Anderson). After personal disasters and tragedies for both men, Parris travels to Venice to train as a psychiatrist and McHugh finds true love with daughter-of-the-railroad Randy (Ann Sheridan). But the dark forces of Kings Row demand a price from Drake.

Kings Row is a sensational plot-boiler, bought to life with great care and a delicious sense of the tender and salacious by Sam Wood. Working closely (again) with William Cameron Menzies on the design and tone, this must have been a glorious change of pace for the pair after the worthy (but flawed) Our Town, which treated similar ideas with reverence. There is none of that in Kings Row, with its frequent recourses to moody skies and Gothic storms via James Wong Howe’s Oscar-nominated expressionistic lighting of its imposing local buildings. This is not a town of homespun values and decency, but lean, mean cruelty and possessiveness, with dark secrets behind every door.

You get that sense from the start, as our characters bound around the town as children. As a young girl, Cassie Tower’s birthday party competes with the announcement Louise Gordon will hold hers on the same day. Sure enough, Parris alone attends Cassie’s – the humiliated torment of this girl at the head of a large empty table, loaded with food, is agonising – while the rest of the town piles into the Gordon’s party. This is a town that plays favourites, and the Gordons are at the top of the social tree. But then, the Towers are not pure as the driven snow. Rains gives a horrific air of quiet, suggestive menace to Tower’s controlling iciness, a grim ogre at the heart of his Gothic pile. Glimpses of Tower’s wife are seen upstairs, confined in isolation like Jane Eyre’s Bertha. His control extends over every inch of Cassie’s life, keeping her isolated and firmly in place.

This continues well into her adulthood – there is a lovely transition here, with a close up of young Parris’ foot stepping over a style with a distinctive brush of the surface, and his adult foot (with the same brush) crossing back over in the same shot – a control that has helped turn her into a flustered, anxious, neurotic, played with intensity by Betty Field. She still attracts the love of Robert Cummings – who does well in a rather thankless role as our quietly, stoic centre – but its doomed by her father’s possessive assumption that he knows what’s best for both her and Parris. The shockingly brutal action Tower takes – and the, on reflection, under-the-carpet brushing of this deed the powers that be carry out – is a clear sign this midwestern town is in fact a ghastly place.

Perhaps the only decent person of the older generation is Maria Ouspenskaya, very heartfelt as Parris’s Russian grandmother. As her health deteriorates, it’s commented by the town’s higher ups that with her passes an era of decent values: an inadvertent satirical comment in itself, since this representative of American values is a Russian accented immigrant. Real Kings Row values are controlled by the Gordon’s: Harriet (played by Judith Anderson in sub-Danvers form) is a bitter snob, while Charles Coburn’s Dr Gordon is the must unsettling character he ever played, a sadistic quack who refuses anaesthetic (and worse) to patients he deems morally inferior and treats the town’s working classes as his personal societal petri dish.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that the one guy everyone in the town thinks is a nailed on cad, is the most decent guy there. Ronald Reagan never had a better role than Drake McHugh (his most famous line “Where’s the rest of me!” became the title of his first autobiography). Reagan makes Drake warm, likeable, refreshingly loyal and honest, a ladies man but also a man of his word, treating everyone around him with respect. Kings Row is, in many ways, a parade of events to crush his decency, losing the chance to forge his own business, his trust fund filched, his body mutilated by a sadist doctor.

The dramatic and emotional force ends up being our wish that Drake survives everything the town throws at him. He has the support of best friend Parris, a horrified witness to the evils around him, and Randy played with a charisma and charm by Ann Sheridan that makes an instant impact, despite only making her first appearance an hour into the film. Randy becomes the force of good and hope in the film: alongside her working-class family bastions of true decency, in a town where everyone else seems two-faced, wicked or willing to shove their heads in the ground pretending everything is fine.

After all, nothing can be allowed to rock the boat in Kings Row. You could argue Harry Davenport’s Colonel Skeffington, who good-naturedly wants to keep everything ticking over, is even the real villain. There seems to be nothing he won’t hush up: fraud, murder-suicide, an epidemic of surgical maiming… Nothing can challenge the idea Kings Row presents on a sign at the town’s boundary: it is “A Good Town. A Good, Clean Town. A Good Town to Live In and a Good Place to Raise Your Children”. Doth the town protest too much?

With this darkness and clear-eyed vision, Kings Row may frequently feel soapish, but it’s a vicious satire exploding a particular all-American ideal and exposing it as rotting garbage, a fountain of lies where the decent and vulnerable (like Drake and Cassie) suffer the most. It makes Kings Row, in its own way, one of the most consequential films of its kind, the sort of denunciation (dressed up as reassuring melodrama) that Hollywood would wait decades before daring to repeat.

Our Town (1940)

An attempt to take an unfilmable play to the screen doesn’t really work but has its moments

Director: Sam Wood

Cast: William Holden (George Gibbs), Martha Scott (Emily Webb), Fay Bainter (Julia Gibbs), Tim Davis (Joe Crowell Jr), Beulah Bondi (Myrtle Webb), Thomas Mitchell (Dr Frank Gibbs), Guy Kibbee (Charles Webb), Dix Davies (Si Crowell), Stuart Erwin (Howie Newsome), Frank Craven (Stage manager)

Thornton Wilder’s Our Town is a landmark in American theatre. A play diving into peopes lives in a small American town over thirteen years, told to us by an omnipotent stage manager, it’s a theatrical staple. An intensely theatrical piece, deliberately staged with few props and staging, with the world of the town created by the actors, playing multiple roles, it’s miles away from the realism of film. Despite this, its success made a screen transfer both inevitable and a seemingly impossible task.

Nearly all the elements of the stage triumph are there. The stage manager – here billed in solely in his more formal ‘role’ as drugstore owner Mr Morgan – is still there, introducing Grover’s Corner and moving us through the years, frequently interjecting to guide the characters into place or move them along. The lives we follow are the same: young schoolfriends and neighbours turned married couple George Gibbs (William Holden) and Emily Webb (Martha Scott). A first act introduces the town, a second focuses on George and Emily’s wedding day (with flashback to the realisation of their mutual love) and a final act focuses on Emily’s childbirth deathbed, her spirit moving among the fallen.

What it can’t quite capture is the mythical, theatrical magic of the more impressionistic original. Where the theatre draws on the viewer’s imagination, Our Town is full of intricately created sets, households crammed with period appropriate props and recreated streets of Grover’s Corner. While the stage manager remains present, his role as both an identifiable character and an omniscient narrator is deliberately blurred – and clumsy attempts to recreate a few moments of audience interaction (muffled voices off camera shouting questions at the experts the stage manager brings on to introduce the town) don’t really work at all.

Some of these were inevitable when the media switched. Thornton Wilder was heavily involved in adapting his play, including signing off (or, perhaps, even suggesting) the change to the play’s conclusion to shift Emily’s heartbreaking experience of the loneliness of the afterlife into being a dream during her recovery from terminal illness. It’s arguable no Hollywood film would have dared stage something as expressionistic as the original stage work (you’d have to wait almost seventy years before Dogville did – but that was a very different film, a dark commentary on Our Town). Despite this, the shift of media left designer William Cameron Menzies as a strong creative force – arguably more so than director Sam Wood – whose designs charted Grover’s Corner’s layout and also the camera positioning and framing for nearly every shot.

This framing frequently uses low-angles, with the camera positioned low to the floor, close to surfaces like tables, or in the corners of rooms staring up at the actors. This effect adds a mythic, almost Homeric, scale to the action. It’s complemented by Aaron Copland’s score, a series of beautifully poetic compositions which carry real emotional force. The final visions of the afterlife have a starkly lit, gloomy power: deceased characters stand on their graves in theatrical beams of light, speaking with coolness to the middle-distance, their graveyard mixing with the fields surrounding the town, which the Stage Manager will walk across like some sort of medieval prophet presenting Grover’s Corner like a celestial PowerPoint. It’s striking, like something out of Dreyer.

Lots of this works. But it’s a complex, well-planned attempt to utilise the realism of film to make something that relies on simplicity and theatrical minimalism to carry emotional impact. On stage this minimalism gives the simple, beautifully low-key stories of Grover Corner a universal power, generations have found moving. But on screen, the detail and design (however hard it tries) drains this power out of the dialogue. In fact, it makes most of the play feel like what (on the surface) it is: ordinary people, having small, everyday, frequently undramatic conversations during which very little happens or changes. Put simply, it makes Our Town feel like it’s about not very much at all, and it’s very easy to let your attention drift.

This is despite the fine efforts of the cast. While William Holden is a little raw and slightly too lightweight as the well-meaning but not too bright George, Martha Scott is first rate as Emily. Narrowly winning the right to recreate her stage role, Scott gives Emily a radiant intelligence and a lovestruck adoration of George while just about managing to suggest that (in the long run) she might have found the slightly plodding George rather trying. Frank Craven also recreates his stage role with assured, authoritative effect. A host of fine Hollywood supporting players give wonderfully heartfelt performances, especially Mitchell, Kibbee, Bainter and Bondi as the parents. Mitchell in particular has a fine speech of fatherly concern.

Where Our Town really stands out is that sad, insightful view the loneliness and isolation of death and the purgatory stage of the afterlife. Sure, the film may undermine this with its cop out idea that Emily lives (undermining much of the stage manager’s message about the inevitability of the universal human journey to death). But the imaginative transitions (especially a wall of pictures to a field of graves, or a bedsheet to a funeral march through the hills) are beautifully done. The composition of the vision of the dead on their tombs – with their disconnected, dwindling personalities – has a deeply moving Bergmanish beauty to it. Despite the slightly cheesy view of a ghoulish Emily watching a day in her life, the sequence is the closest the film gets to capturing something of the universal power of the original play.

But it’s a solitary moment in a film that otherwise struggles to find a middle ground between theatricalism and realism. Imagine if Hollywood had been brave enough to try and do something without the realism, to present something that really was (as the poster blared) “the season’s most unusual picture”. But that’s not Hollywood is it?

Jezebel (1938)

A star turn helps to lift this bonkers melodrama into the realm of delicious entertainment

Director: William Wyler

Cast: Bette Davis (Julie Marsden), Henry Fonda (Preston Dillard), George Brent (Buck Cantrell), Donald Crisp (Dr Livingstone), Fay Bainter (Aunt Belle Massey), Margaret Lindsay (Amy Bradford Dillard), Richard Cromwell (Ted Dillard), Henry O’Neil (General Theophilius Bogardus), Spring Byrington (Mrs Kendrick), John Litel (Jean la Cour)

It’s pretty much the first line in any review about Jezebel so let’s start with it: rumour claims it largely exists as a consolation prize for Bette Davis after missing out on Scarlett O’Hara. It makes sense: Julie Marsden is a Southern Belle so similar to Scarlett they could almost be sisters. And Bette Davis is so wonderfully, passionately, brilliant playing her that, if it wasn’t for Vivien Leigh’s landmark performance, Jezebel could make you deeply regret Davis never got that role. But there is more to Jezebel than that, a handsomely filmed adaptation of a hit play by Owen Davis Snr, which predated Margaret Mitchell putting pen to paper. This is delicious, old-school, scandal-tinged Hollywood melodrama, with a star actor in a custom-made star role.

Julie Marsden is a fiery, independent-minded woman in 1850s New Orleans, convinced she can bend the world around her (and the wills of men) to her own whims. She’s engaged to strait-laced Pres Dillard (Henry Fonda), but flirts with playboy Buck Cantrell (George Brent) and won’t play by societies rules. So much so, she plans to attend the high-society Olympus Ball in a dress not of virgin white but Jezebel red. This goes down like a lead balloon; Pres effectively drops her in disgust at her wilful selfishness and a year later returns married to someone else. At which point Julie, a woman spurned, plans revenge even as yellow fever rips through the city.

Jezebel is a great big, melodramatic soap with a celluloid-burning turn by Davis (who won her second Oscar) at its heart. Davis dominates the film, a boundless force of charisma from the moment she sashays (late!) into her own party, whipping her dress up behind with a riding crop to when she departs the film, eyes full of genuine remorse, nursing a fever cart. She plays the role full of sinful flirtatiousness and playful certainty. No one will tell her what to do and where to go – from charging through a bank (captured in a beautiful tracking shot from Wyler) to drag Pres out for the day, to headstrongly ignoring all pleas to not wear her dress of choice, to holding court a year later in her own home planning revenge with burning, destructive glee.

It’s a portrait of bull-headed, feminine, self-destructive foolishness and pride that Davis would make her own, a marvellous star-turn that helps lift this otherwise rather silly melodrama with an inevitable message (this bull-headed floozy will learn the error of her head-strong ways) into something quite magic. That and the superlative richness of Wyler’s direction (and Gregg Toland’s sumptuous camera work), full of dynamic images, as well as a series of top-drawer performances from a strong cast.

Obviously, it’s hard not to spot that Jezebel lacks the scale and colour of Gone with the Wind (has any black-and-white film ever so openly revolved around colour as a source of drama?). But it has a lot of its dramatic energy, despite the fact you can sense its theatrical roots (it splits rather neatly into four acts, each set in a distinct location). Jezebel juggles its balls remarkably well, balancing a focus on Julie’s desire for attention and control with a fine portrait of two different men. George Brent, with a sly, self-satisfied grin as a Don Juan and Henry Fonda, prissy and stuffed-of-shirt (mouthing, at points, an awkward Southern accent) successfully making Pres profoundly wise, surprisingly weak despite his certainty, rigid and unpersuasive.

The pivotal ball-room sequence, and its build-up, works particularly marvellously. Despite Julie’s determination, its clear everyone around her feels it to be a terrible idea. Pres concedes to it with a grudging irritation and, once it becomes clear even to Julie it’s an appalling idea, forces Julie to be swallowed up in her public humiliation. After watching a parade of genteel ladies and gentlemen scurry away from her, as if in fear of catching her loose morals, Pres drags her to the dance floor (despite her pleas). Tracking back, Wyler shows the dance floor clear in moments, leaving just these two dancing alone (Pres even insists the band continues playing), cementing her humiliation. He’s made his point and, even though she slaps him later, even she knows he was right. Not that this will help either of them in the long run.

It’s part of the moral of the story, that sometimes women need a firm hand. (Sometimes literally so, as Donald Crisp’s grouchy Dr Livingston tells Pres). There has to be a punishment for Julie’s willingness to scheme, her constant placing of her own whims above everyone else and her inability to even consider that there might be dangerous consequences to her actions. It doesn’t wear us down though, because Davis is such a dynamic and forceful presence it’s hard not to rather like her. And then, of course, you sort of sympathise with her (even though she is awful and selfish) as a conga-like of damage and guilt leave her reeling before converting her into an ideal self-sacrificing woman.

Of course you watch Jezebel today and can hardly fail to notice that the greatest wickedness all these Southern gents and dames can possibly imagine is turning up at a ball in the wrong dress. Certainly not the slavery all around them. There is a parade of “yasum” slaves in Jezebel, all of them (like old retainer Cato) perfectly content in their lives of servitude. Pres may get a few loose critiques off about the South, but even those are focused on its economic and political short-sightedness: like everyone he’s paternally fond of his naïve property but wouldn’t imagine giving any of them freedom.

It’s another echo perhaps of Gone with the Wind and not a welcome one. Jezebel settles down for another genteel, Birth of a Nation myth of a sublime South doomed for being too noble. Not even the terror of yellow fever – and, at one point, the shooting of an infected man for fleeing his island ghetto – can get in the way of that feeling, that this way of life is not the problem, even if it does allow the odd bad apple like Julie to pop up.

That’s a more awkward political point, but it’s hard to imagine it crossing the mind of many at the time. And it doesn’t stop an enjoyment of Jezebel as a masterfully executed soap. Wyler’s direction is excellent, the filming wonderful and the actors firing on all cylinders. (Fay Bainter also won an Oscar for her fine performance as Julie’s horrified Aunt). Davis of course reigns supreme in the cinematic equivalent of an airport novel, a big, steamy, sex-fuelled melodrama with a handwringing ending of moral enlightenment delivered with such earnest, underplayed sensitivity by Davis and Wyler that it convinces. A big, brash, hugely enjoyable entertainment.

Breaking Away (1979)

Charming and very witty coming-of-age cycling and friendship tale, told with real wit and zip

Director: Peter Yates

Cast: Dennis Christopher (Dave Stohler), Dennis Quaid (Mike), Daniel Stern (Cyril), Jackie Earle Haley (Moocher), Paul Dooley (Ray Stohler), Barbara Barrie (Evelyn Stohler), Robyn Douglass (Katherine), Hart Bochner (Rod), PJ Soles (Suzy), John Ashton (Roy)

It’s a sports film, coming-of-age film. a romance, a rivalry and a film a father and son. It’s about half-a-dozen things, with a bit of Mendelssohn and Rossini like a garnish on top. All the sort of stuff our hero loves. He’s Italian-culture fixated (because he loves their cycling team) Dave (Dennis Christopher), who sprinkles his conversation with Italian turns of phrase – to the exasperation of car-dealer dad (Paul Dooley) – and spends his days either cycling or shooting the breeze of just-left-high-school drifter pals Mike (Dennis Quaid), Cyril (Daniel Stern) and Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley).

But it’s tough being working-class kids in Bloomington, Indiana when the students of local Indiana University treat you like scum, tarring you with the nickname “cutters” (from the local limestone quarrying industry). After one dust-up too many between boys and students, the University President decides to invite the locals to enter a team into their mini-500 cycling tournament (500 laps of the track, winner takes all). The “cutters” rely on Dave to win it – but will he take part when it might mean exposing to his student girlfriend Katherine (Robyn Douglass) that he’s not an Italian exchange student?

All of this breezily comes together very well in Peter Yates’ hugely enjoyable comedy, with a semi-auto-biographical Oscar-winning script by Steve Teisch. Like the smoothest Peloton, Breaking Away is perfectly stream-lined, fast-paced and builds expertly to an exciting chase finish. Along the way, it balances a host of tones and emotions with a delightfully light touch. It’s a very easy film to sit down and relax in, wonderfully shot in a series of pitch-perfect Bloomington locations, most strikingly a former quarry now converted into a beautiful mini-lake.

That’s the favourite haunt of our four friends, all of them (in their own ways) plucky underdogs with chips on their shoulders. Theirs is a life without obvious opportunities and escape routes from this small-town life, with even the local cutting industry slowly withering away. This is made even worse by seeing the rich kids of the University, their whole life ahead of them, swanning around and their town (and that quarry) as if they own them. (Hart Brochner, later to be a bullet-catching punchline in Die Hard is the perfect face of semi-decent entitlement as the leader of these students).

These four are played by a dazzling collection of actors – it’s a bitter irony that Dennis Christopher is the only one of them that didn’t go onto bigger and better things since he is excellent here. Quaid’s Mike is a bullish former-jock, so worried his best years are already behind him that he swings wildly between throwing himself foolishly into things to prove his manhood and giving up immediately before he can be embarrassed. Stern’s Cyril is a lanky, geeky oddball, constantly awkward in every situation. Haley’s Moocher is a secret-romantic, with a trigger-temper when his shortness is bought up (he’s more than capable of punching out a punch clock after one gag too many about his height).

Christopher though is the star, a playfully impressionable optimist who throws himself into things with gleeful abandon. There are no half-measures with this kid. When he loves Italian cycling, he’ll immerse himself in every part of Italian culture – music, food, language, the lot. It’s rather sweet to see his bouncy delight, indulged by his warmly supportive mother (an Oscar-nominated Barbara Barrie in a lovely heart-felt turn) who cooks endless Italian meals (to the frustration of his father, who wants not all this “zini stuff” but American food “like French fries”).

It’s as playfully sweet as his courtship of Katherine – even if that is founded on a great big whopper (and the film is mature enough to know part of growing-up is owning up to this fib). A perfect expression of the film’s everyday joy is a lovely moment where Dave, serenading Katherine with an Italian aria, enthusiastically throws out his arms only to whack his hand on a lamppost, shrugging off his obvious pain with a fixed grin. It’s a moment that you can counter-balance with the rollicking slap Katherine later gives him and their gentle reconciliation as he sits slumped against a different lamppost.

Yates’ film really captures youthful, idealistic joy – best seen in a marvellous showpiece scene where Dave races a truck (ironically full of Italian goods!) on a freeway, Yates not only shooting with pacey thrill, but letting the classic Italian music soar over the soundtrack as Dave keeps pace at 60mph. This scene is then heartbreakingly contrasted with Dave’s encounter with the Italian cycling team he has hero-worshipped – only to find they are ruthless professionals, who see him an upstart they are happy to cheat of victory. Christopher’s vulnerability here during this crushing moment of disillusionment (and the little-boy-lost reassurance he eventually seeks from his parents) brings a real lump to the throat.

Breaking Away is also about bonds of loyalty. The friends may feud and argue, but they are willing to go to bat for each other without a second thought – whether that’s one of them beaten in a fight or one of them struggling in the quarry waters. The commitment of the four of them to winning the race – wearing shirts that proudly proclaim them as cutters – is a perfectly assembled display of race filmmaking (Yates bought a lot of skills across from Bullitt) that builds towards a well-judged feel-good ending.

What might be the most moving beat in Breaking Away though is the father-son relationship between Dave and his dad. Paul Dooley is excellent (and cheated of an Oscar nomination) as this gruff, old-fashioned man who won’t say what he feels and believes in hard-work, sweat and the homespun American life who can’t wrap his head around his more cultured life. (Dooley is also hilarious in capturing Ray’s used-car-salesman cheapness – never has the word “Refund!” raised such laughter). These two spend half the film barely understanding each other, but still loving each other – and the shift in their growing warmth and support is genuinely very moving. While still leaving us room to say “Bonjour” to a neat closing gag between them.

Breaking Away is unfussy, perfectly formed and incredibly sweet and entertaining. It’s a genuinely, heart-felt, well-meant, feelgood film that balances laughter, warmth and drama perfectly. It’s one of those small-scale treats you long for among blockbusters.

Coal Miner’s Daughter (1980)

Biography of Loretta Lynn, faithful to the official line but sometimes lacking in dramatic interest

Director: Michael Apted

Cast: Sissy Spacey (Loretta Lynn), Tommy Lee Jones (Doolittle Lynn), Beverly D’Angelo (Patsy Cline), Levon Helm (Ted Webb), William Sanderson (Lee Dollarhide), Phyllis Boyens (Clara Ramey Webb), Bob Hannah (Charlie Dick)

Born in poverty, in a Kentucky coal mining community, Loretta Lynn became one of the biggest Country and Western stars in America. Based on her hugely successful biography, Loretta and husband Doolittle were closely involved in this faithful translation of her life story (or at least the official version of it) to the big screen, Lynn handpicking Sissy Spacek to portray her from age 13 to 35. Coal Miner’s Daughter traces her life from teenage marriage to Doolittle (Tommy Lee Jones), to leaving her family home, Doolittle pushing her into performing with her musical talents, through to success with their loving but sometimes tumultuous marriage as a backdrop.

Coal Miner’s Daughter really splits into two halves. The first is an extremely well-observed and respectful portrait of Lynn’s working-class routes among a coal mining community which, while far from perfect, is a community full of honesty and decency despite the odd bad apple. It’s in this half that it feels the heart – and much of the drama – lies. Strangely, once Lynn starts singing (nearly an hour into the film), its second half feels a lot less dramatic, much more of a ticking off of various landmarks in what feels like a mostly uninterrupted march to success (this is despite the odd marital feud, the death of Lynn’s mentor Patsy Cline and a nervous breakdown).

Perhaps that’s because the film hues so closely to the Lynn “official line” that the film ends up feeling very curiously structured. A lot of this is in the portrayal of Lynn and Doolittle’s marriage. I don’t doubt the undoubted strength of this marriage – or the devotion of these two for each other – but, with an outsider’s eye, it’s hard not to feel its presentation here is a little odd. Apted’s film frequently presents it as borderline abusive and toxic relationship, while simultaneously celebrating it as a romance for the ages. The mismatch in tones can be hard to process when watching it, the film setting up narrative zigs before offering up layer and layer of zags.

Loretta Lynn was devoted to her husband, while cryptically saying it was a relationship she fought for. Perhaps today one of the strangest things about it is that Lynn aged herself down by two years (a fiction the film repeats), meaning that here she marries the 22-year-old Doolittle at 13. It’s harder to see this as charming today, instead seeing Doolittle as a borderline groomer. Especially as he caps the wedding night by playfully raping Loretta, who has been wildly unprepared for married life (she seems to not fully understand what has happened to her here, so is pleasantly untraumatized feeling instead guilt at not being good enough at sex for Doolittle’s high standards). Before the marriage of their first child, Doolittle will have: thrown her out of the house as a punishment for her domestic failings; cheated on her; raised his hands against her in an argument (breaking a cardinal promise he made to her dad).

He also merrily breaks the other without a second thought by carrying her hundreds of miles away to start a new life. Under the influence of booze and drink, Doolittle can have a slightly childish, sulky temper – although Lynn herself will give as good as she gets (at one point she breaks his finger by walloping him with her handbag). The two of them frequently seem never quite on the same page at the same time. Alongside this, Doolittle drives his timid wife into performing at bars and honky tonks at least partly to show her off, as much as enjoying hearing her sing.

What’s unusual – and in some ways anticlimactic – in Coal Miner’s Daughter is that these marital negatives remain un-resolved and unengaged with. Perhaps it’s because, not that far down, Doolittle really is proud of his wife and does love her music. He dedicates himself to furthering her career – at least in part so he can share in the rewards – and as she grows in fame, the power subtly swings in the relationship. Now she drags him out of the backseat of a car from a floozy, harshly deals with his bouts of drunkenness, and rejecting his attempts to try and control her image (including repeated demands that she should never wear make-up, because he doesn’t like it).

It’s never quite clear to me what the film wants us to make of all this. Is this Lynn turning the marriage into one of equals? Doolittle being put into his box? A subtle commentary on a relationship that perhaps didn’t always bring out the best. What you end up with – and I’m aware this is way more likely to be an issue today than in 1980 – is a relationship presented with several obvious negatives, continuously celebrated as a force of good. And I get that the Lynn’s themselves saw the marriage that way – but I wonder if a film they were less involved in the making of might have raised a bit more of a critical eye.

You can’t doubt the chemistry between the two actors though. Sissy Spacey won an Oscar for a near-note-perfect capturing of Lynn, and her quirky oddness fits very well for a timid country girl struggling to find her place, even as her spikey self-confidence grows. It’s a very well observed and interesting performance, Spacek also very effectively transitioning from child to adult without jarring. Tommy Lee Jones is also excellent as Doolittle: charming, relaxed, capable of real anger but also of a deep and lasting affection, loyal in his own way even when he’s disloyal. It’s a relaxed, impressive performance that makes a slightly unclear character work.

But the finest parts of the film are in the perfectly observed Kentucky mining community of Lynn’s childhood – far more dramatically interesting that watching her tick off local stations on her way to the Grand Ole Opry. Apted’s documentary experience perfectly captures the casual poverty – bedrooms lined with newspaper, a radio that needs to be turned off because there is no money for batteries, the permanent dirt of the coal dust everywhere, the moonshine. It’s all wonderfully pulled together, and Lynn’s childhood home is one of love and gentleness, helped by very impressive performances from Levon Helm and Phyllis Boyens as her devoted parents (who just about come to terms with her young marriage to a slightly wild man).

It’s a shame that backend of the drama doesn’t capture either the same depth or carry the same dramatic energy, largely because the sort of resolution (or even addressing) of the complexities the film has been displaying never comes. Despite strong performances, Coal Miner’s Daughter eventually feels like it offers little real challenge or exploration of its subject’s self-image.

American Graffiti (1973)

Comforting, nostalgia-tinged film, full of wit and comedy, but without a real sense of insight

Director: George Lucas

Cast: Richard Dreyfuss (Curt), Ron Howard (Steve), Paul Le Mat (John), Charles Martin Smith (Terry the Toad), Candy Clark (Debbie), Mackenzie Phillips (Carol), Cindy Williams (Laurie), Wolfman Jack (Himself), Bo Hopkins (Joe), Harrison Ford (Bob Falfa)

Years before he went a long time ago to a galaxy far, far away, George Lucas went not nearly so far back or away: Modesto, California 11 years earlier for a story seeped in nostalgia about the America he remembered growing up in. Much like Star Wars, studio execs thought this hardly sounded like a film people would pay money to see – only the support of a red-hot Francis Ford Coppola got it the green light. It then became one of the most profitable films ever made, repaying its tiny investment many, many times over – not to mention helping kick-start a nostalgic wave that would also (in a way) help Star Wars become a mega-hit.

Told over the final night of the summer vacation, four late teenage friends go through various coming-of-age quests. Curt (Richard Dreyfuss), having second thoughts about leaving for college, spends the night in a Quixotic quest for a girl who mouthed ‘I love you’ to him from a passing car. Best friend Steve (Ron Howard) is more keen to depart, despite the pleas of his girlfriend (and Curt’s sister) Laurie (Cindy Williams). Their geeky friend Terry (Charles Martin Smith) desperately tries to impress Debbie (Candy Clark) with a borrowed car. And cool kid John (Paul Le Mat), is saddled with 12-year old Carol (Mackenzie Phillips) while fending off a challenge for his drag-racing crown from Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford).

There is an undeniable charm to American Graffiti so it’s not remotely a surprise it was a smash hit – or that, with its warm nostalgia for what felt a simpler, happier time, it helped inspire (among many other things) hit sitcom Happy Days. Lucas made the film after the disappointment of his debut, THX 1138, a chilling piece of dystopian sci-fi unlike anything else he ever made again. His segue into something fun, unchallenging and entertainingly crowd-pleasing as this marked a shift that stretched over the rest of his career: a desire to produce stuff the regular cinema-goer wanted to see.

American Graffiti is brilliantly assembled, cut together with a superb sense of pace by Marica Lucas and Verna Fields as it moves between what is effectively four short films. What’s particularly striking about its well-timed pace is that it never jars that, fundamentally, all four stories are thematically the same: horny young men learn lessons and reach surprising decisions in comic situations that place them out of their comfort zones. It’s further helped by its sharp dialogue – Lucas turned over his storyline to Gloria Katz and Wiliard Huyck to punch it up (as Stars Wars prequels viewers know only too well, dialogue was never Lucas’s strength).

It’s all then extremely well-executed by the cast. Best in show, not surprisingly, is Richard Dreyfuss who rode the wave from here to create one of the most impressive 1970s CVs. Dreyfuss – already nearly 25 when playing this teen – has just the right balance of naïve, dreamy decency and cheeky charm as a young man struggling to leave childhood behind to grow-up. He has a brilliant sense of comic timing for his smart-aleck one-liners, while totally convincing as the sort of romantic kid who wants to believe in love-at-first-sight. From awkwardly covering-up a dime-store theft, to impishly sabotaging a police car, or launching into a romantic plea for help in locating the woman who has stolen his heart with a glance, it’s a stand-out performance.

Ron Howard as the want-away Steve who begins to question his decisions, has less spark not helped that the interplay between him and Cindy Williams’ Laurie makes for the film’s dullest and most earnest pairing (both actors went onto play versions of these characters in Happy Days). Especially since they are contrasted with the comedy of mishaps (failed attempts to get alcohol, car jackings, bungled attempts to tackle thieves) of a very funny Charles Martin Smith (cementing a career of geeks) and Oscar-nominated Candy Clark, funny and very sweet as a cool girl who wants something meaningful from the boys fawning over her. The final pairing has some similarly sparky interplay between Paul Le Mat’s frustrated cool-kid, secretly worried his best days are already behind him and Mackenzie Phillips’ precocious pre-teen.

All this take place in a setting marinated in nostalgia and charm. It is a reassuring, unchallenging and romantic view of a particular era in American cultural history. One before the challenges of counterculture, Watergate and Vietnam. It harkened back to an era where kids had neatly cut-hair and wore plaid-shirts tucked into their trousers; where the most dangerous thing a teenager might do is thumb their nose at bossy cops or bum a bottle of booze. All four of the kids are the sort any girl could bring home to their parents without any concern about how they would be received, and even the film’s nominal bad boy is a stand-up guy with firm principles and loyalty.

In fact, what becomes clear is, unlike films from the likes of Fellini (which partly inspired Lucas) this is without any real introspection at all. Other films – take a look at Last Picture Show – would have looked at this setting and wondered if there are darker elements underpinning small town America. Prejudices, jealousies and the like – or the sort of dark foreshadowing of historical traumas like Vietnam and Nixon being just round the corner. There is none of that there – so little in fact that it’s a little jarring when the film’s on-screen “what happened in next” reveals two of its leads would suffer tragic early deaths, one in Vietnam (it’s also jarring – even at the time – that these on-screen captions tell us nothing at all about the futures of the female characters).

It’s a reminder that Lucas is an entertainer, not a director looking to challenge or explore deeper truths. And, to be fair to him, if he had really allowed American Graffiti more space to acknowledge the darkness to come, or some of the less seemly sides of small-town life, it certainly wouldn’t have become one of the most profitable films of all time. Instead, this is a film that served as a warm hug, a rose-tinted memory of what their childhoods might have been like, when everything was simpler, safer and more straight-forward and the biggest problem you could possibly face was finding the girl you liked and dealing with college. It’s undeniable entertaining, fun and heart-warmingly enjoyable, but it’s also a carefully reassuring view of a far more complex world.

Since You Went Away (1944)

Overlong attempt to make an American Mrs Miniver which can’t sustain its focus over three hours

Director: James Cromwell

Cast: Claudette Colbert (Anne Hilton), Jennifer Jones (Jane Hilton), Joseph Cotton (Lt Tony Willett), Shirley Temple (Bridget Hilton), Monty Woolley (Colonel William G Smollett), Lionel Barrymore (Clergyman), Robert Walker (Corporal William G Smollett II), Hattie McDaniel (Fidelia), Agnes Moorehead (Emily Hawkins), Nazimova (Zofia Koslowska), Albert Basserman (Dr Golden), Keenan Wynn (Lt Solomon)

With America embroiled in the Second World War, David O. Selznick felt it was his duty to do his bit. And what better way than making a movie. So was born Since You Went Away, adapted by Selznick himself from Margaret Buell Wilder’s epistolary novel, about a woman writing letters to her husband while he fights the good fight abroad. It was nothing more or less than Selznick’s attempt to create a Mrs Miniver for America, to bring the tribulations of those left behind to the screen.

Our family is the Hiltons. Over the course of 1943, they wait for news of husband and father Tim as serves abroad. With Tim’s income gone, wife Anne (Claudette Colbert) needs to make economies and bring in a lodger, avuncular retired Colonel Smollett (Monty Woolley). This brings into their lives Smollett’s nephew Bill (Robert Walker), who begins a romance with Anne’s oldest daughter Jane (Jennifer Jones), while her younger daughter Bridget (Shirley Temple) builds a friendship with their lodger. The family is aided by friends, not least Tim’s best friend Tony Willett (Joseph Cotton), the subject of a long-standing crush of Jane’s and is himself in love with Anne. Over the year, the family does everything they can to support the war effort.

There is probably a fine couple of hours in Since You Went Away. Unfortunately, it’s buried in a film so long it sometimes feels like you are living a year in the life in real-time. It’s not helped by the film’s sentimental scope often repeating the same beats over and over again, a soapy message of the overwhelming importance of hearth and home and the unbreakable bonds of love that keep families faithfully together forever (it’s ironic that this paean to duty and fidelity was made while Selznick was breaking up his marriage for an affair with Jones, while she ended her marriage to Robert Walker).

Essentially, the film has made most of its points and observations by the half-way mark, and is reduced to repeating them again in the second half, all accompanied by Max Steiner’s overly insistent score (which won the film’s only Oscar) which hammers home every single emotional point with laboured riffs on songs like No Place Like Home or Come Let Us Adore Him. Much of the drama is undermined by having almost no sense of threat: unlike Mrs Miniver there is zero chance of any of the characters actually being bombed at home but, just like that film, there is also absolutely no chance at all that Anne will be tempted by the heavily suggestive flirtation of Tony.

Instead, there is a slightly cosy air of gentleness under Since You Went Away. We are told the war, and loss of Tim’s salary, has caused hardship for the family – but it’s the sort of hardship that sees a hugely wealthy family adjusting to merely being comfortably well-off. The main concessions seem to be setting up a vegetable patch and taking in a well-paying lodger (who, of course, becomes an honorary family member). Even their Black maid (Hattie McDaniel, in a truly thankless part) is so devoted that she continues to serve them during her time-off from her new job (for no pay). There is never even a suggestion they may need to move from their massive five-bedroomed house or stop moving in their affluent circle.

This circle is represented by Agnes Moorehead, sneering like a suburban witch wrapped in ostentatious furs, who scorns any idea of pulling her weight during the war and crows about how cleverly she’s exploiting rationing loopholes. This is contrasted with the families growing civic duty, embodied by Jennifer Jones’ Jane casting aside her giddy teenage years to devotedly work as a volunteer nurse with war wounded (much to the disgust of Moorehead) and Anne’s shift to training as a welder in a munitions factory. Since You Went Away heavily pushes the angle that everyone must do their bit, hammered home by refugee welder Nazimova who gives a misty eyed reading of the famous Statue of Liberty message.

What Since You Went Away starts to feel like at times is an over-inflated, Little Women-ish drama, with war as a backdrop. There are moments of loss: Tim is reported missing, cause for much stoic resilience and heartbreak and the son of the local store is killed early on. The film has a tragic romance in the form of Jones and Walker’s Smollett Jnr, which goes through a gentle flirtation, playful hay-rolling into an overly empathetic departing train goodbye (expertly parodied in Airplane!), that holds together due to the charm of the actors. But the main message is one of cosy reassurance: it’s a million miles away from the more doubtful The Best Years of Our Lives – there’s no doubt Tim will settle straight back into a world unchanged from that he left behind.

The characters are pretty uniformly predictable and conventional, but are delivered effectively. Colbert, in many ways with a rather dull part, effectively underplays as the endlessly patient, dutiful and calm Anne, bottling up her doubts and fears into her diary. She makes a generous still centre of the film, even if the film doesn’t call for one minute of playfulness for her as an actor. She cedes much of the best ground to Jones (Selznick’s complete control of the film surely played a role in this), who is full of radiant sparkiness, even if her teenage giddiness gets a little wearing. Jones, looking in her twenties, plays the role as if she was in her teens while Shirley Temple, looking in her early teens, plays her like she was still at elementary school. Needless to say, there is no chance of either of these girls causing serious trouble or going off the rails.

Opposite them, Monty Woolley delivers exactly what is required as the outwardly gruff Colonel whose frosty exterior inevitably melts over time. Woolley does bring a lot of depth to Smollett’s quiet grief and playfulness from Smollett’s love-hate relationship with the families pet bulldog. Joseph Cotton just about manages to make Tony charming – charming enough that his hanging around and constantly flirtation with both mother and daughter isn’t too reminiscent of his psychopathic uncle in Shadow of Doubt. (In many ways, Tony is an overly insistent creep).

But the successes of the film are drowned by its absurd length and overly insistent sentimental hammering home of every single point. It does look fabulous – the shadow-laden photography of Lee Garmes and Stanley Cortez adds a great deal of noirish emotional depth – but it’s flatly directed (Cromwell was one of many directors on the project, including Selznick himself) and lacks pace. In trying to present a reassuring celebration of all-American family values, it frequently lets character and drama drift and never presents a plot development that surprises or challenges. It’s no Mrs Miniver.

Boomerang! (1947)

Effective journalistic investigation into a murder case turns into engaging courtroom melodrama

Director: Elia Kazan

Cast: Dana Andrews (State’s Attorney Henry Harvey), Jane Wyatt (Madge Harvey), Lee J Cobb (Chief Harold Robinson), Cara Williams (Irene Nelson), Arthur Kennedy (John Waldron), Sam Levene (Dave Woods), Taylor Holmes (TM Wade), Robert Keith (‘Mac’ McCreery), Ed Begley (Paul Harris), Karl Malden (Lt White)

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a popular priest is gunned down in the street, the killer escaping into the night. The police are baffled. The city turns against the reformist mayor’s administration. Then, after several weeks, there is a lead as twitchy ex-soldier John Waldron (Arthur Kennedy) is dragged in and, after hours-and-hours of interrogation without sleep, signs a confession. But who cares about small details like that, when everyone is sure the police has their man? But State’s Attorney Henry Harvey (Dana Andrews) has doubts – and no pressure from the public or officials will make him build a case against an innocent man.

Based on an actual 1924 murder case, Boomerang! is told with journalistic sharpness by Elia Kazan that smoothly moves from investigative into courtroom drama. Boomerang! was cited by Kazan as when he started to find his voice, establishing a style that would carry him to Oscar-winning success in On the Waterfront and beyond. Shot largely in location (though admittedly in a different Connecticut town than Bridgeport), it’s full of the immediacy of the streets, avoiding sets and forced studio locations. Kazan leans into the journalistic feel, with a voiceover explaining events and an earnest attempt throughout to make it feel like we are watching real events unfold.

It captures people going about their everyday lives: gossiping over laundry, strolling down streets, pounding typewriters in press rooms, gathering in church and shops. This is a film designed to convey a full sense of a real world. That goes as well for reflecting the investigation, which is full of the visceral pounding of pavements and hustling of suspects into police cars as well as the interrogations of the worn-down Waldron, taking place in an inhospitable room where never-ending questions means Waldron’s head has to be literally picked up to continue answering the questions.

The observational strengths of the film’s opening eventually moves into something more straight-forwardly melodramatic, but Kazan’s documentary restraint tries it best to not make this shift too jarring. As Harvey’s doubts grow, he becomes under increasing pressure from officialdom, principally from Ed Begley’s sweaty Paul Harris (who is too noticeably dodgy from the start for his villainy to be anything like a surprise). This is before a series of courtroom dynamics that hue towards the sort of fireworks you find in larger-than-life films than the journalistic reserve Boomerang! starts with.

Which isn’t to say that these courtroom dynamics are not very well-handled, especially by the under-rated Dana Andrews, who brings just the right amount of humanity and dignity to an otherwise stiff-on-paper character of a crusading, too-good-to-be-true attorney. Andrews delivers the courtroom speeches, and the detailed breakdown of the flaws in the police case, with a real quiet passion – just as he brings a nice degree of moral outrage to the bullying attempts to silence him.

Boomerang! provides several opportunities for compelling character actors, many of whom went on to work again for Kazan to great success. Lee J Cobb’s bulldog fierceness is perfect for put-upon police Captain Robinson who lets his determination to prove he can crack the case compromise his judgement. Cobb gives Robinson a powerful sense of authority – there is a wonderful scene where he faces down a would-be lynch mob with little more than growling disapproval. There is also a lovely moment, where he lifts the sleeping Waldron and carries him into his bed with all the care of a loving father. He’s well backed by Karl Malden as an eager-to-please inexperienced cop.

Arthur Kennedy produces one of his expert portraits in weakness as Waldron, an embittered veteran who has found peace offers little more than failure. While never losing track of what makes Waldron suspicious, Kennedy finds a neat line in vulnerability and fear keeps him sympathetic. Opposite him, Cara Williams explodes with righteous fury as a former girlfriend who believes herself wronged, eager to see Waldron condemned. It’s a more interesting role than any other female role in the film, although Jane Wyatt finds some engaging warmth in the dull role of Andrews’ loyal wife.

Boomerang! at heart is a film about the barrel being fine, aside from a few rotten apples. The crime takes place after the old machine politics system has been cast aside by new politicians, not beholden to the system, willing to introduce reforms. And, by and large, they are shown to really mean it – even if, at one point, some express the view that it doesn’t matter if Waldron is guilty or innocent, since winning means the reformists can remain in power. But all the real sins are collected in the hands of Begley’s character: even the police are absolved, despite the fact we watch them essentially brow-beat a man into confessing (a sergeant even suggesting they rough him up a bit to speed things along, which makes you wonder what the system was like for people are not veterans the police captain feels sorry for).

Boomerang! pulls any punches of really exploring systemic flaws, even while it covers an innocent man being bum-rushed into a trial. But then it puts complete faith in the idea that the same system will turn around and do its job by ensuring he is completely absolved – with the only danger from corrupt elected officials, not the blindness of a potential system. It’s a factor Kazan (to be fair) felt the film made too many compromises on – and he’s right. It might tell a scare story, but Boomerang! is fundamentally a reassuring film that is sure everything will turn out right in the end.

The Shootist (1976)

Wayne’s final elegiac Western as a dying gunslinger tries to go out on his own terms

Director: Don Siegel

Cast: John Wayne (JB Brooks), Lauren Bacall (Bond Rogers), Ron Howard (Gillom Rogers), James Stewart (Dr Hostetier), Richard Boone (Sweeney), John Carradine (Beckum), Scatman Crothers (Moses), Richard Lenz (Dobkins), Harry Morgan (Marshall Thibido), Sheree North (Serepta), Hugh O’Brian (Pulford)

It’s 22^nd January 1901 and Queen Victoria has passed. Automobiles are starting to chug down roads, towns filled with electricity, telegraphs and trams, no longer look like the beat-up, dust-bowls the likes of Wyatt Earp policed. It’s a new age and the end of the Wild West. Which also means it’s the end of the gun-toting cowboys, like JB Brooks (John Wayne), who rode freely and grabbed their six-shooters faster than anyone else. Brooks rides into Carson City, his cancer terminal, his life lonely and full of enemies, wanting to live (and die) in his final week on his own terms.

You don’t need to be a psychologist to see more than a few parallels between Brooks and the man playing him, Hollywood legend John Wayne. Wayne himself was struggling with a cancer that claimed his life three years later and you could argue he too had outlived his time. The glory days of the Westerns were gone along with men like John Ford who built it. The Shootist draws huge piles of its elegiac emotion from this – with even more retrospectively added when it turned out to be the star’s swan song.

It’s strange to think Wayne wasn’t even first choice for the role (the producers were worried his health might not last), because he is so perfect for it that the line between Wayne and Brooks seems paper thin. Wayne still has the spark under the weakness of a sickly one who downs laudanum and relies on a cushion to sit comfortably. He’s a vulnerable man, raging quietly against the dying of the light. Lonely, devoid of friends whose entire life’s possessions are wrapped up in a saddle bag. But he’s also dangerous who can still be extraordinarily ruthless. He kills without hesitation when called on and resorts to violent threats (backed with a gun) when he needs to. But he needs to believe there is more to him than this.

Brooks is a man ‘scared of the dark’, quietly terrified about how he will be remembered. He sees himself as a ‘shootist’, a prowling man’s-man who shot when he needed to. What he doesn’t want to be seen as is a ruthless blood-soaked assassin dealing death left-right-and-centre. He humiliates a journalist (the weasily Richard Lenz) who wants a blood-and-guts killer’s story, sending him packing with a gun in his mouth. He turns away a funeral director (John Carradine, a lovely cameo) who offers a free funeral so he can sell tickets to see the dead killer. He’s desperate for some sort of positive legacy.

This overlaps with Wayne who, if he didn’t know this was his final film, surely knew it was probably his final Western. Siegel opens with a montage from Wayne films past (including Red River, Hondo and Rio Bravo) before crashing into a wide-screen, Fordian landscape that sees Wayne swiftly get the better of a would-be robber. Wayne’s performance is, whatever you think of him, undeniably heart-felt. His drawling pain-wracked face, full of fear and frustration, when told his fatal diagnosis by an old friend (an almost equally emotional cameo from that other drawling icon of the Western, James Stewart) is very moving.

You can see Brooks regrets when an old flame (Sheree North) arrives to suggest they marry – and the hurt when it becomes clear she only wants marriage so she can sell his story. The closest thing he has to a friend – Stewart’s doctor – he hasn’t seen for fifteen years (coincidentally the exact length of time since the two actors shot The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance). In fact it becomes clear the people in his life are enemies and rivals. From Richard Boone’s weasily rancher who blames Brooks for his brother’s death to Hugh O’Brian’s suave gambler who wants the chance to take down a legend. Even that’s better than Harry Morgan’s nervous Marshal, who bursts into relieved laughter when he hears cancer is going to take care of Brooks so he doesn’t have to.

In his final week, Brooks finds some sort of connection not based on fear, envy or greed with Lauren Bacall’s (yet another golden-voiced legend) Bond Rogers, a widow with a tearaway son Gillom (Ron Howard), whose initial suspicion of Brooks soften. Bacall is excellent, full of humanity and sharp no-nonsense sincerity that hides a warmth you feel she’s had to crush down over years of holding hearth-and-home together. Brooks and Mrs Rogers form a quiet friendship, based on mutual loneliness, both actors playing beautifully in a series of quiet, sombre but gentle scenes, with Bacall drawing even more humanity from Wayne.

Mrs Rogers’ son, Gillom, becomes the embodiment of Brooks battle for a legacy. Ron Howard makes Gillom a cocky, immature dreamer, exactly the sort of guy who’d lap up the sort of blood-and-guts stories Brooks is worried his life will be turned into. He’s wowed when Brooks – alerted by his pain-ridden body keeping him awake – takes down two would-be assassins. But his mother is terrified that he could lead the wrong sort of life. And, eventually, Brooks himself starts to worry that all he’s doing spending time with him is leading Gillom towards an end like his: lonely and dying in a guest house, surrounded by strangers. It becomes the thematic struggle of the film, which is handled (like the rest) with an unlaboured patience.

It’s all building of course to Brooks deciding to go down on his own terms, clutching a gun not a laudanum bottle. The Shootist ends with a blood-soaked shoot-out that we all suspect its heading to, expertly assembled by Siegel. Siegel’s direction throughout is faultlessly smooth, avoiding all temptation to layer on sentimentality but instead let the sad tiredness of Wayne carry the emotion without loading the deck. It’s a beautifully done, quiet, restrained and perfectly elegiac picture that makes for a perfect final role for John Wayne. A sad, touching film about a strong-willed man fighting a last battle he can’t win, it’s a compelling watch.

Weapons (2025)

Creepy and unsettling horror with a fascinating puzzle-box structure

Director: Zach Cregger

Cast: Julia Garner (Justine Gandy), Josh Brolin (Archer Graff), Alden Ehrenreich (Paul Morgan), Austin Abrams (James), Cary Christopher (Alex Lilly), Toby Huss (Captain Ed Locke), Benedict Wong (Marcus Miller), Amy Madigan (Gladys), Sara Paxton (Erica), Justin Long (Gary), June Diane Raphael (Donna Morgan)

At exactly 2:17am, seventeen young children from the same third-grade class all wake up and run from their houses, their arms trailing behind them like aeroplane wings. The disappearance shatters the local community. Fingers of blame point quickly, most of them at their teacher Justine (Julia Garner). It feels like some bizarre conspiracy, but are there darker forces at play? That mystery will rope in obsessed father Archer (Josh Brolin), troubled cop Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), drug-addict and thief James (Austin Abrams), decent school principle Marcus (Benedict Wong) and the only child from Justine’s class who didn’t disappear, young Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher).

Cregger’s creepy horror movie tells its story from all these character’s perspectives, each section opening like a book’s chapter with their name on the screen. Events re-play from different angles and perspectives and our understanding of events (and their horror!) grows as each person sheds more light on the overall picture. There is a deeply unsettling sense of dread and menace hanging over Weapons, built from the start by an unsettling child narrator who promises us that we are set to see things so unbelievable and ghastly, the authorities covered the whole thing up.

Weapons is influenced by some of the best ensemble dramas – Cregger specifically name-checked Anderson’s Magnolia as an influence – and I also felt it follows very much in the footsteps of Kubrick’s The Shining. It embraces the deeply unsettling dread and horror of quiet menace and the tension of disturbing background events. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t miss out on shattering blood and guts and body horror inspired by Cronenberg and The Thing: when the gore comes in Weapons it’s visceral, gut-wrenching and impossibly bloody.

It taps into everyday fears and horrors then takes them to the nth degree. What parent hasn’t feared the inexplicable disappearance of a child? And when disasters like that happen, people often lash out the suspicious. Poor Justine – a fine performance of outer abrasiveness hiding gentleness and vulnerability by Julia Garner – sticks out like a sore-thumb in this small community. An outsider with a prickly personality and a destructive streak a mile long, a little too fond of vodka (which she buys by the bucketload) and extra-marital sex with married men (which cost her a job at her previous school).

Her stumbling attempts to sympathise with the parents is made worse by the fact she has no clues to offer them. Not helpful (and you can’t help but sympathise with Justine here, as this is a true nightmare set-up) when everyone else is convinced she must know something. Further modern fears are tapped into when Justine faces a campaign of silent intimidation in her home by a faceless persecutor and her car is painted with the word ‘Witch’ (a brilliant little touch making her car instantly recognisable in all the other perspectives that follow).

The loudest voice of this fractured community becomes Archer, played with gruff guilt and fury by James Brolin, pestering the police with his Justine-centred theories and bulldozing other parents for evidence. It’s a dark irony of course that Archer’s paranoid investigations – focused on triangulating a shared route from the direction the children are seen running in doorbell cameras – turns out to be much closer to the truth than the official investigation (but then the police don’t realise they are in a horror movie here, whereas Archer surely starts to think he might be). Similar to Justine, Archer surprises us with his concealed decency and emotional vulnerability, another success in Cregger’s film where greater character depths are constantly revealed.

It works both ways as the more we see of Alden Ehrenreich’s police officer Paul, the less we like him. At first he seems a slightly luckless soul with a gentle heart, but he emerges more and more as a selfish bully who doesn’t think about twice about hurting people around him then worries endlessly about the consequences. Similarly, Austin Abrahm’s drug-addict burglar stumbles far closer to the truth than anyone else – but his interest in it is connected solely to his desire for $50k reward (and it’s hard not to start to think Paul is fairly interested in that as well).

The storyline of these characters unspools in Cregger’s short story structure very effectively, the camera frequently trailing behind each character in a series of tracking shots (this means we often only see the facial reactions when the scene repeats from a different perspective). Cregger’s shies away from jump scares (not that he doesn’t use these quite effectively at several points) in favour of simple shots and draining out sounds to let quiet background moments create dread. Perhaps most chilling of all sees a character sleeping in a car being slowly approached by a mysterious woman, a scene of such sustained but simple tension it will have you twitching in your seat.

To reveal anything of what the secret cause of this horror is would be spoil things considerably – Weapons works best the less you know about it. But it’s not a spoiler to say there are dark forces at play – Weapons clues you in fairly quickly that a creepy house, with newspaper coated windows, is likely to be the centre of what nightmares may come. A big part of this is a performance of crazy off-the-wall freakishness by Amy Madigan, a gift of a role she rips into with gusto, an eccentric presence dripping with unsettling menace, both vicious and then eerily calm. Madigan bites into the role like Hopkins did Lecter, doing terrible things with a calm smile, making threats with calculated menace. Genuinely terrifying, truly memorable.

Weapons opens up a pot of terrifying, unsettling nightmare fuel. From the unnervingly unreal way the children run (arms trailing behind them) to background events that carry real terror. But there are moments of black comedy in here as well: the final sequence is both blood-soaked horror and also darkly hilarious (Cregger using distanced perspective shots to expert effect) and a housebound fight plays like a horror-slapstick. The main success of Weapons is it’s creeping sense of menace, the unsettling thought of horrific dark powers just on the edges of reality, that lack any sense of morality or decency. That what we can’t imagine is even more terrifying than what we can.