Tag: Charles McGraw

The Defiant Ones (1958)

Kramer’s film is well-balanced mix of drama and message with two strong performances from the leads

Director: Stanley Kramer

Cast: Sidney Poitier (Noah Cullen), Tony Curtis (John “Joker” Jackson), Theodore Bikel (Sheriff Max Muller), Charles McGraw (Captain Frank Gibbons), Lon Chaney Jnr (Big Sam), King Donovan (Solly), Claude Akins (Mack), Lawrence Dobkin (Editor), Whit Bissell (Lou Gans), Carl Switzer (Angus), Kevin Coughlin (Billy), Cara Williams (Billy’s Mother)

The Defiant Ones is a vintage Stanley Kramer message film, one of his best mixings of serious social issues with entertainment. Two convicts escape from a prison transport, making a run for it while chained together at the wrist. They are thief John “Joker” Jackson (Tony Curtis) and Noah Cullen (Sidney Poitier), imprisoned for standing up to a racist thug. Cullen is Black – and that’s a big issue in the racist world of Southern America. Forced to work together to survive, despite their mutual distrust and outright dislike, slowly the two form a curious bond – all while dodging the dangers of recapture and falling foul to vigilante ‘justice’ from ordinary people.

The message of The Defiant Ones is pretty clear to see, but Kramer’s film manages to avoid laying it on too heavily, mostly letting it be seen in everyday casual prejudice. Starting with Jackson’s constant use of the word “boy” – and his complete failure to understand why Cullen finds this grating. Jackson has already used the n-word the very first time he speaks to Cullen, side-by-side in the prison transport. Most of the police and enthusiastic deputies helping them are itching to release fierce dogs on the escapees (it’s clear why). The hostility Cullen immediately encounters when they are briefly caught by turpentine workers, accelerates with terrifying speed into ropes being flung over lampposts for a lynching (Jackson’s protest, that you can’t lynch a white man, is telling in itself). Even when they encounter a scared child, he jumps to Jackson to protect him from Cullen (he even assumes Jackson must be Cullen’s guard).

The constant repetition of the dangers and assumptions behind racism probably gained added force at the time because they a white man shared some of the chance of being suddenly murdered for looking the wrong way. Part of The Defiant Ones aim is to show through adversity that more connects us than not. This also comes out when the two men talk about their lives. When Jackson bitterly describes his life of working-class drudgery in a hotel, scraping and smiling for tips from the rich, Cullen quickly points out it places him only a mild rung above a Black man who wouldn’t even be allowed in the hotel unless he was holding a mop. Both are firmly wedged on the bottom of the social ladder, part of the film’s suggestion that, prejudice aside, they are natural allies.

Allies is what they become, a relationship that develops smoothly thanks to the skilled playing and excellent chemistry between Poitier and Curtis (both Oscar-nominated). They certainly were put through their paces physically – aside for brief doubles (or dummies) work when they traverse some rapids, pretty much all the difficult stunts (all the more so, since they were chained together) were done by the actors themselves. In particular, an awkward escape from a clay pit was remembered by Curtis as possibly the toughest thing he ever did on a film set. Kramer throws the two stars into a parade of dangerous terrain – wading bogs, fast rivers, climbing awkwardly up and down heights – which adds a narrative energy to his issues-based plot.

Poitier at this time had to carry the burden not only of acting, but also representing a significant share of the American population single-handed. Here, he’s sharper, rougher and more resentful than his reputation suggests. Poitier makes Cullen a no-nonsense fist, someone who refuses to take crap from anyone – least of all Jackson. Frequently he uses singing to express his refusal to knuckle down and be silent, and it’s his strength and resourcefulness that does the most to keep the men moving. If Poitier does have a disadvantage, it’s that Kramer’s film gives him less of a personal journey – it’s the world that must accept Cullen, not vice versa, and rightly-or-wrongly the character is little different from his journey (aside a personal loyalty to Jackson) than he was at the start.

This means, Tony Curtis actually many of the more interesting character beats. If Cullen remains largely unchanged, Jackson progresses from holding thoughtless, knee-jerk assumptions into someone who forms his own opinions and loyalties. It’s very well-drawn by Curtis – who relished the chance to play such a complex character – as he slowly reveals Jackson as a vulnerable, regretful and lonely figure under the bluster. So much so, that his late realisation of where his true loyalties lie – an outburst of anger, expertly delivered by Curtis – feels completely earned, as an expression of all the character depth we’ve watched him develop. Its Curtis’ finest performance.

The Defiant Ones does lose some energy in its later stages. It splits, fairly naturally, into three acts: the convicts alone, the convicts at the turpentine camp and the convicts at the secluded home of a lonely woman (an Oscar-nominated Cara Williams) who takes a shine to Jackson. Each of these acts is, if I’m honest, marginally less compelling than the one before, in a film at its strongest when focused on the relationship between its two stars and their conflict with each other, the elements and the wild terrain. There is something more melodramatically familiar about watching Cullen resentfully face down would-be-lynchers, or Curtis’ flirt with a desperate woman who doesn’t even need to know his name to have the hots for him.

There is good work from the rest of the cast. Cara Williams does manage to make a lot of her quietly siren-like character, with surprising depths of selfishness and cruelty – even if her section is the film’s least narratively intriguing. Lon Chaney Jnr is very good as a work boss, appalled by the racist violence his colleagues are capable with. The police crew following our heroes – oddly soundtracked to a constant barrage of music from their portable radios (the only music in the film) – are little more than narrative tools, but Theodore Bikel (Oscar-nominated) finds a fair bit of humanity in his sheriff.

The Defiant Ones though is strongest with the focus on its two excellent leads, with the constant parade of obstacles and dangers it throws them into powering the film strongly without letting it lapse too much into moralising and preaching. It’s a very good balance of high-brow earnestness, and genuine entertainment, one of Kramer’s most successfully films.

The Killers (1946)

Ava Gardner draws Burt Lancaster into a world of crime in The Killers

Director: Robert Siodmark

Cast: Burt Lancaster (Pete Lund/”Swede” Anderson), Ava Gardner (Kitty Collins), Edmond O’Brien (Jim Rearden), Albert Dekker (“Big Jim” Colfax), Sam Levene (Lt Sam Lubinsky), Vince Barnett (Charleston), Virginia Christine (Lily Harmon Lubinsky), Charles D Brown (Packy Robinson), Jack Lambert (“Dum-Dum” Clarke), Donald MacBride (RS Kenyon), Charles McGraw (Al), William Conrad (Max)

Ernest Hemingway’s short story “The Killers” is 3,000 words of tension and atmosphere, as a pair of hitmen turn up at a diner looking for a former Swedish boxer. They leave and a fellow diner runs to warn the Swede. He meets the news of his impending demise with a stoic acceptance that nothing can be done. That’s basically it. Siodmark’s film consumes the entire content of the source material in the first fifteen minutes. So the film basically expands and explores this set-up. The gripping opening is just our entrée into the film, that will explain to us why the killers are here, who the Swede was and why he needs to die. It makes for a tight, atmospheric and very well-done film noir.

Because there is no doubt that this is a classic film noir. The Swede’s backstory ticks all the boxes you would expect of the genre. Of course, all his troubles are rooted in a Femme Fatale (needless to say his former girlfriend is a saint). There’s a heist gone wrong, double crossing gangsters, a dedicated investigator and a range of locations from seedy nightclubs to rundown hotel rooms. The Swede (Burt Lancaster) is an easily-led handsome man, duped by a beautiful woman. Of course, it all finally leads to a series of shoot-outs, where the wicked are punished for their crimes. In many ways, the script (by Anthony Veillor, heavily polished by John Huston) simply turns the short-story into a familiar piece of genre work. What makes it work is the freshness with which it’s told.

Siodmark is not the biggest name director out there. But he’s a skilled professional and he elevates the material into something with deeper meaning. Perhaps it’s the Hemingway in its DNA, but this story plays like a Greek Tragedy. Fate intervenes at frequent moments, with chance and minor decisions circling back to reveal all. The Swede is a sympathetic heavy, out-of-his-depth, with the fateful flaw of being too trusting. Even the villains are vulnerable figures, while the femme fatale is only doing what she must to try and survive. It’s a neat structure.

And Siodmark shoots it with a beautiful, unobtrusive and pacey smoothness. Nothing in the film draws overt attention to itself, but every moment beautifully combines with those around it to create an absorbing whole. The pace works perfectly, and the film’s structure works very well. Throwing us essentially into the middle of the story increases the mystery – and also means that as we hear the story of each person who knew The Swede, we are constantly invited to rethink and reappraise events and characters we have already met.

It’s a film about the lasting impact of disappointment and disillusionment. Why doesn’t the Swede run a mile when he hears there are killers after him? Because its clear he died inside years ago – the bullet is just a formality. There is a rather touching romanticism to this. This strangely gentle boxer turned thug, who is so smitten by Kitty Collins that he can’t take his eyes off her during their first meeting. Who willing serves jail time for the stolen necklace she’s wearing. Who trashes his hotel and nearly flings himself out of a window when she leaves him. This is a shell of a man. And its not just him. Most of the crooks live out lives of disappointment and fear, while even our investigator seems to have very little in his life beyond chasing down insurance claims. If there is a message in this film, it’s that life is tough.

A lot of that impact comes from the sad-sack vulnerability in Burt Lancaster’s eyes. In his film debut here, Lancaster is at times a little raw. But what he conveys fantastically is the sense of a little boy lost. The Swede always looks out of his depth, dragged from pillar to post by other people, constantly unable to control the situations he finds himself in.

No wonder he’s so easily suckered by Ava Gardner’s gloriously savvy and fiercely determined Kitty – the character with the most drive and determination in the film. She’s smart enough to fool all the characters at least once – and ruthless enough to not give a damn about any of them. Gardner’s performance is spot-on here, with Kitty emerging as possible the most ruthless femme fatale this side of Double Indemnity – with Lancaster as much her gullible patsy as Fred MacMurray was. Gardner’s icy cool is so well done, that it adds even more weight to her performance of a last act switch to desperation, as events finally spiral out of her control.

Carrying most of the narrative is Edmond O’Brien in the slightly thankless role of the investigator piecing it all together. O’Brien however plays the role with a real savvy and drive, as well as with a growing sense of moral outrage – making his role much more than what it could have been (a feed for other characters). The rest of the cast is also very strong.

The Killers isn’t overtly flashy or eye-catching in the way of other films. But it carries with it a large degree of intrigue and more than a dash of hopeless tragedy. With sharp, efficient direction and some fine performances, it’s possibly one of the finest film noirs ever made.

Spartacus (1960)

Kirk Douglas leads the campaign for freedom in Spartacus

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Kirk Douglas (Spartacus), Laurence Olivier (Crassus), Jean Simmons (Varinia), Charles Laughton (Gracchus), Peter Ustinov (Batiatus), Tony Curtis (Antoninus), John Gavin (Julius Caesar), John Dall (Marcus Glabrus), Nina Foch (Helena Glabrus), John Ireland (Crixus), Herbert Lom (Tigranes Levantus), Charles McGraw (Marcellus), Joanna Barnes (Claudia Marius), Woody Strode (Draba), Paul Lambert (Gannicus)

You can’t talk about Spartacus without saying it can you? Did the team working on the film realise that, for all the big names, spectacles and sweeping that the film’s definitive contribution to popular culture would be the sound of a hundred men all claiming to be the slave leader? But it’s the moment you think of more than any other when the film comes up – and there’s not many films that can claim to have contributed such an instantly recognisable moment to our cultural heritage. It’s not the film’s only merit though: this is grand, entertaining, old-school Hollywood epic-film making.

In the last decades of the Roman Republic, Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is a young man born a slave, purchased by gladiator trainer Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to learn how to thrill the crowds and kill his opponents. There he falls in love with slave-girl Varinia (Jean Simmons) and clashes with the regime of the training school. Revolt however stirs when rich nobleman Crassus (Laurence Olivier) arrives at the school and demands a fight to the death of his entertainment – as well as purchasing Varinia. In the aftermath, Spartacus leads a revolt – which grows into a huge army that soons puts all of Rome at risk. But a risk is also an opportunity: certainly it is for Crassus, who sees this as his chance to bring the Republic under his control.

Spartacus is a grand piece of film-making, shot on a huge scale, a labour of love for Kirk Douglas as producer. Upset at being denied the lead role in Ben-Hur, Douglas decided to make his own Roman epic – and to make something even grander than that Oscar-winning epic. Everything was thrown at the screen: grand locations, huge sets, star actors and a sweeping epic score. Alex North’s classically tinged score – with it’s distinctive employment of Roman instruments and echoing of both the intimidating splendour of Rome and the bucolic happiness of the liberated slaves – is proper old-school Hollywood score-making, that helps set the scene for the film’s epic sweep.

And Spartacus is epic – and epic entertainment. While it’s possibly a little too long, it knows when to spice up events with a battle, love scene or bit of political skulduggery. There are multiple story lines going on in this film, and interestingly they don’t all intersect. It’s easy to see Spartacus – and his struggle for freedom – as the real story of the film. But for most of the Roman characters, this is an embarrassment or sub-plot. There is a whole other story happening around the struggle to preserve Roman Republicanism – with Crassus as the face of oppression and his opponent Gracchus the slightly soiled but still vaguely democratic face of the old system. Both plots only rarely come together, and while that of Spartacus captures the heart strings, a lot of the film’s narrative drive is in the Roman conspiracies.

Perhaps this is because in the entire rebellion only Spartacus and Varinia qualify as really having personalities. And those personalities are basically flawless. Spartacus is almost saint-like in his nobility, a guy who never does anything wrong and whose only mistake is trusting others in a shifting world. Douglas does a great job of performing a character who is practically a living legend – and he completely convinces as the sort of leader his people would follow to the end. His relationship with Jean Simmons is also touchingly sweet and innocent – the film is very good at capturing the sense of how stunted the emotional lives of slaves have been, and the powerful joy they can find in the freedom of simple intimacies so many of us take for granted.

But the slaves themselves are frequently (whisper it) rather dull. Many of them might as well be sitting around the camp fires singing Kumbaya. Bar a brief moment at the start, no suggestion of taking vengeance raises its head. The liberated slaves sing, clap hands and gaze with joy. Children play and people frolic in the fields. Tony Curtis – good value as Crassus’ ex-bodyman, a learned man and entertainer of children – stages a magic show, with patter that could have come straight out of a Brooklyn street. Other than him, none of the slaves register as personalities. A tint of darkness, or moments of fury or even dangerous rage against their oppressors would have made a world of difference. But this is a simple film, where the slaves are building a utopia.

That’s probably why the film is more interested in the politics of the Romans. It’s certainly where the big name actors end up. Olivier is at his prowling, imperialist best – a heartless slice of ambition determined to bend events to his will. Against him, Charles Laughton with an impish cheek, a slightly corrupted air, as the man-of-the-people. These two conduct their own political battle of cut-and-thrust that Spartacus barely realises is happening. This manoeuvring is the real dramatic heart of the film, powered by these actors strengths (John Gavin and John Dall as their lieutenants look and sound very plodding against the playful archness of Olivier and Laughton).

That’s partly the point of Dalton Trumbo’s script (Douglas famously broke the Hollywood Blacklist by crediting Trumbo for his work on the film). While Rome plays politics, real people are fighting and dying for liberty – and will eventually find themselves crucified with nothing left but their pride and sense of freedom. It’s that feeling that probably lies behind the enduring love for this film.

It is perhaps Kubrick’s most universally beloved film. Interestingly though, it’s also the one Kubrick was least proud of. It’s true the film lacks much of his personal touch. While directed with flair and skill, parts of it could really have been made by any number of directors (not something you could say, for example, about The Shining or Barry Lyndon). Kubrick often quietly, albeit gently, disowned the film (he said he never knew what to say when people asked him about it). It’s the only Kubrick film where he was a “gun for hire”, subservient to the vision of the producer. His interest you feel is in the smaller moments – moments such as Woody Strode’s excellent cameo as a Gladiator (many of the strongest moments with the slaves in the tyranny of the Gladiator school, where life is meaningless and cheap). Really, it’s Douglas’ film – it’s similarities to The Vikings for example is striking – and while a poor advert for auteurism, it’s still a great advert for entertainment.

Kubrick’s greater interest in human failings and shades of grey perhaps explains why the Romans emerge as the more interesting characters. Spartacus’ lack of flaws were an intense frustration to him. Perhaps that’s why Peter Ustinov (who won an Oscar) is the films stand-out character. As gladiator owner Batiatus, Ustinov is devious, playful, amoral, ambitious, without principle, dryly witty but somehow still has touches of decency. The most colourful character in the piece is also the one most coated with shades of grey.

*It’s an advert for what makes Spartacus lastingly engaging and interesting whenever you watch it – even if the cry of “I’m Spartacus!” and the decency and honour of the slaves is always going to be what stirs the emotions and tugs the heartstrings. Douglas set out to make one of the greatest “sword and sandal” epics. He succeeded.