Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Freaking Me, That's Who

It seems bad to say now, but I never liked Elizabeth Taylor. You know how sometimes in life you just meet someone and you don't know why, but you take an instant dislike to them? Elizabeth Taylor is the cinematic equivalent of that for me.

By the time I was born, Elizabeth Taylor was already a legend, having been in movies since she was a small child, the product of her mother's lost ambitions to be an actress. She somehow made the transition from child star to ingenue to leading lady to freaking movie boss, succeeding where so many other actresses got lost along the way. Indeed, I knew her more for her charitable works, eight marriages and perfume by the time I got around to knowing who she was.

The eight marriages gave me a reason to dislike her. By now, we all know of the Fisher-Taylor-Reynolds affair subsequently followed by the Taylor-Burton-Fisher affair. The first movie I seriously watched Elizabeth Taylor in was Cleopatra and it's easy to dislike her in that movie. I mean, every guy that likes her ends up dead by shanking. It's so easy to see her as a siren luring men to their downfall, certainly some of the evidence supports that. But take the marriage to her third husband, Mike Todd and his sudden death in an airplane accident during the making of Cat On A Hot Tin Roof.



I'm sorry, it's just hard to hate a woman that's playing with a duck. Oh my God, did you see that outfit? How cool does she look? Why can't I look like that while I play with a duck while Edward R. Murrow interviews me? Oh, right. The tragedy of Mike Todd's death spurred Elizabeth on to one of her greatest performances, one I've covered already, in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof.



I started to turn. Hell, this is tragic. You're married to Paul Newman and he's a depressed alcoholic with a weird fixation on his dead friend, so you can't even enjoy being married to Paul Newman. TRAGIC. I've started to think differently about the Eddie Fisher thing, too, like I'm pretty sure that Eddie Fisher could be the scumbag in that instance. Just a theory.

Yet, as quickly as Elizabeth Taylor could make you feel sympathy, she could scare the hell out of you. I am talking about Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, probably the finest performance of a career full of fine performances and definitely the best collaboration between her and Richard Burton. If you don't know the story by now, it's this a young couple visits a university professor and his wife (Burton and Taylor) for an evening and finds out that you never know what's going on in people's marriages and sometimes you don't freaking want to.



This movie scares the hell out of me. I caution you to watch it, but do not start after midnight, intriguing as Taylor and Burton are in this movie, I had to turn it off just so I could be sure that I slept. It is a fantastic film, that perplexes you and keeps you guessing and I am seriously not ruining the ending here. Last Christmas, Turner Classic played this movie and I couldn't believe it. Worst Christmas Programming Ever. This movie is the opposite of a Merry Christmas. It might be better for Festivus, sometime during the Airing of Grievances. Accounts of their time on the set of this film differ. Director Mike Nichols insisted that they fought, but it was all in fun. Colleagues insisted that they weren't kidding, again, you never know what's going on in other people's marriages. Don't ask. Yet everyone asked, Liz and Dick were the thing, in their day making Brangelina look lame and uncool. When did Brad Pitt ever buy Angelina a 241 carat diamond?



Or what about the La Peregrina Pearl? Other owners include Mary Tudor, you know FROM HISTORY.



I mean, come on, Brad, step it up.

Their relationship, collaboration and two marriages would come to define both of them. I think about the tragedy of their relationship, that they loved each other desperately, hopelessly, but ultimately were not very good for each other.

So, what more can I say about Elizabeth Taylor? I hated her, then I kind of started to feel bad for her and she scared the hell out of me. Now I'm feeling bad for hating her as so often happens in life. Farewell, Elizabeth, I hardly knew ye and I get the feeling I never quite will. I guess that's just how it's got to be.

And from Turner Classic, a tribute from Paul Newman. See? I'm not entirely off topic.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: When Time Ran Out, 1980

Paul Versus The Volcano

When I realized there was a Paul Newman movie that I hadn't heard of that was brought to us by Irwin Allen, the producer behind that crapfest The Towering Inferno, I didn't hold out much hope for it. And I was right. Hooray for lowered expectations!



We start out with Jacqueline Bisset and William Holden on a plane. William proposes to Jacqueline, but turns out she's hung up on Paul. William says that Paul's not the marrying kind. Okay, really, dude, that's your argument? Simple question, people, would you rather be William Holden's wife or Paul Newman's long term girlfriend that he can't quite commit to? Thought so. The fact that this is the central character conflict that the film holds on to exemplifies what's wrong with this movie.

It's like this: it's Dallas in a Hawaii with a volcano. Paul Newman is even playing Ray Krebs. There's no life in his performance at all leaving me to stare at the damn cowboy hat he wears for the first part of the film. This is not his finest hour, it could be his worst hour. It feels like he keeps falling back on tricks in this one, like, hey, just trying to make a living here. Which, okay, but it's so much more disappointing when it's Paul Newman because he could do so much better. Obviously not with this craptacular story which he was contractually obligated to do, but you know, with a higher class of volcano movie. I would go on, saying how much is wrong with this movie, like Jacqueline Bisset's horrible haircut, but it's pointless because it's like trying to understand why the Dallas Mavericks don't have an NBA Championship, they were crap from the start.

So, am I wrong? Is this movie so awful it's good or is it just awful? Let me know in the comments section!

The Paul Newman Retrospective: The Silver Chalice, 1954

In a way, I like Biblical epics because I like epics. I like sitting there for three or four hours and immersing myself in a film. However, there begins to be a problem when those three or four hours are not done well. I'm not even talking about how in Cleopatra you can't help noticing Richard Burton is wearing a miniskirt or how it may confound you in The Ten Commandments when the Hebrews start making a golden cow to worship. I mean, God JUST saved them. How did they think that parting the Red Sea thing happened? Or Ben Hur, why is Charlton Heston not pissed off that his girlfriend let him think his wife and sister were dead when they were just lepers? I could go on for hours. The Silver Chalice is amazing in that everything from beginning to end is awful. I would say Paul Newman was good in a bad film, but that's like saying Kobe Bryant got forty points and the Lakers still lost. It's just pointless.



How did our boy get mixed up in this nonsense? Two words: studio system. Paul was a new contract player at Warner Bros and new contract players did not go around saying that they didn't want to be a party to a huge pile of crap. Anyway, guess we better get around to the story since we kind of have to. Paul is a sculptor who was like a slave, then he wasn't, then he was a slave again because Romans are bad. He gets commissioned to make a cover for the Holy Grail, which I never saw in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The grail gets lost, Paul has to go to Rome to look for it and at some point he marries Pier Angeli for reasons I don't get. I mean, I get why she's in it, that's obvious. Meanwhile, there's a crazy magician running around saying he's like Jesus. And that guy is played by Jack Palance. So, really you should be watching City Slickers instead of this crap. There's a baby cow in that movie.

What's bad? Just the costumes, the set design, the dialogue, the story, the pacing... Just everything. I mean, the artwork on that poster is bad. Is this a movie about the Holy Grail or a Harlequin novel? Much to his credit, when this movie was going to be on TV, Paul Newman took out an ad in Variety apologizing for it and telling people not to watch it. It's that bad. So, I mean if you have some time to waste and you and some friends want to mock this movie, you should do that, or you can take my advice and not watch this movie, okay? I'm just trying to save you some time.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: Hud, 1963

This is going to sound bad. Hud is a really good movie and I don't like it, so this entry will be shorter than others. Can you guess why I don't like it? One, a lot of bad things happen to cows, none of whom are turned into steaks or brisket, which I feel is the highest calling of a cow, not that I want to see it happen because, well, I'm a coward. Bad things also happen to some Texas Longhorns and I don't want to see that happen because that's my school mascot. Hook 'em! Then very closely is the fact that in this film Paul Newman plays the titular bad guy and he is damn good at it.



So, there's Hud, his dad, Homer, his nephew, Lonnie and the maid Alma. Basically, Hud butts heads with his dad over his dead brother and some diseased cattle and the fact that Hud is a jerk. No, really. He wants to sell the diseased cattle to someone else and tries to rape the maid, who is later like, "You should have just asked." Okay then.Your Oscar trivia for the day is that Patricia Neal actually won an Oscar for the part of Alma and oh, yeah, Paul lost again. Lonnie is constantly torn between his grandfather's ethics and Hud's charm. Eventually he chooses ethics. Oh, well.



So, here is the classic example of Paul Newman being a character actor trapped in a leading man's body. He is such a jerk in this movie, but audiences still loved him, despite his desire to break the conventions of cinema and leading man roles, which he did get to do, but it was like it never got acknowledged. The film takes no detours to having Hud become a good guy, he just doesn't. The likeability factor could not have been really surprising to the filmmakers, take a look at the poster, they had to know people were coming to see Paul Newman and they probably didn't care what he did. Oh, well, Paul, I guess you can't get everything.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: Slap Shot, 1977

I came to a conclusion last night. The 1970s were full of fantastic films about losers. The Sting is basically about a couple of losers, as much as Robert Redford and Paul Newman can be losers. Animal House, huge bunch of losers. The Jerk for crying out loud! Here we have another such film, about a serious group of losers, again directed by George Roy Hill and starring Paul Newman called Slap Shot.

Take the premise: a down and out minor league hockey team. The loser league of the loser of American sports. Sorry, hockey fans, but you know it. Paul plays Reggie Dunlop, the aging captain and coach of the Charlestown Chiefs. Reggie is the ultimate loser, we have the standard estranged wife thing (which of course confounds the brain), but more importantly all that Reggie knows is hockey and he doesn't seem to be very good at it.



Problems arise when the Charlestown mill announces it's closing and soon the team will fold. Desperate to hang on to the only life he's ever known, Reggie spins a yarn about the team being sold to a town in Florida. At the time, he starts a strategy that is basically beating people up and inciting opponents to violence, which is, let's face it, the best part of hockey. Inspired by this film, I've tried to get the San Antonio Spurs to implement a similar strategy in the NBA Playoffs to no avail. They have talent and standards which the Chiefs certainly do not. The new strategy and lies breathe life into the team and their fan base grows as they inspire vitriol in every city they travel to. The Chiefs make it all the way to the finals or some sort of minor league championship. Armed with this news, Reggie goes and seeks out the team's owner to find it is a woman who could sell the team, but would rather fold the team in order to get a tax break. He returns to the game, knowing he's doomed, ready to play it straight which is a miscalculation because the other team has a roster made up of the felons of minor league hockey. They get beaten up and suffer, then go in during half time and the manager of the team reveals that the stands are full of NHL scouts, ready to give them contracts. So, they quickly decide to revert to the strategy of beating people up. I really don't want to ruin the ending for you on this one. It does hold with my theory of loser endings.

Anyway, this film has some incredible use of profanity, not that it's shocking, it's just so profuse that it borders on absurd. The supporting cast is incredible, each managing to shine in their own moments throughout the film. The only actor who doesn't take my interest is Michael Ontkean as Ned Braden, who for most of the film has the thankless job of playing the straight man. He pales in comparison to the rest of the motley crew. Take the Hanson brothers, who must be some of the most bizarre characters in the history of cinema.



Slap Shot isn't a film that feels driven by Dunlop. He seems to be sailing with no direction, tossed from side to side by the events of his world. He tries to get ahead but never quite manages it, which makes the film all the more charming. Newman is somehow perfect as a hockey loser, even though that right off the bat doesn't inspire confidence. I've said before that he's not comfortable in light comedy, but he was perfect for this sort of absurdist cynical comedy. He does so well saying so little in this film, not getting all the comic highlights of the film, but somehow is its soul. I think it's not a film you can quite get on the first try, which immediately makes it a hard sell and to some extent you do need a working knowledge of seventies comedy. It's a great sports movie, it's got to be the best hockey movie ever, although I have to admit, I don't really seek out a lot of hockey movies.

So, what do you think of the 1970s being the era of the loser? In the mean time, you should just watch this clip of cars playing hockey from Top Gear. Please note the subtle tribute to this film.


Top Gear - Suzuki Swift Ice Hockey by joeyjack

Ignore This

NAEFE9FBJGV6

The Paul Newman Retrospective: The Sting, 1973

Welcome once again to the Paul Newman Retrospective and to the second part of our Robert Redford back to back. This time we have the film that actually won Best Picture of 1973, instead of me lamenting that it didn't.

Confession time: I have a hard time understanding what's going on in this movie. In fact, the first time I watched it I based my understanding entirely on the King of the Hill Episode that's a take off on this film, "The Substitute Spanish Prisoner." I don't have any clips but if you go to Netflix, it's on Instant Viewing under Season 6. I was trying to find some and found an article by a guy who said The Sting wasn't that great because he saw a King of the Hill episode with that same premise. You idiot! It's a reference, you moron! Get your facts straight! Then I found another post on his blog that said Paul Newman would have never had a career if James Dean hadn't died and I decided this guy was a total freaking idiot. Sacrilege. So, let's discuss The Sting, another George Roy Hill film, another Newman-Redford partnership. Comparisons to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are inevitable. Take the trailer even: "This time they might get away with it." I have to say, though, the characters here are different, deeply cynical and world-weary.

Robert Redford plays Johnny Hooker, a small time grifter who works with Luther, played by Robert Earl Jones. If you're wondering why Luther is vaguely familiar, it's because he's James Earl Jones' dad, but apparently they didn't see much of each other. Anyway, they grift some money that really belongs to Irish gangster, Doyle Lonnegan, who is just no damn fun. Also played by Robert Shaw who insisted he get his name before the title along with Newman and Redford. Really, Robert? You think you're as important as Newman and Redford? Anyway, Luther tells Hooker to look up Gondorff so he can learn the big con. Hooker doesn't want to, but is forced to when Lonnegan's thugs kill Luther.

Hooker finds Henry Gondorff living in a brothel with a carousel, which somehow Paul Newman makes seem cool, like why doesn't everyone live in brothels with carousels? Anyway, Hooker wants revenge on Lonnegan and convinces Gondorff to help him. What follows is an extremely elaborate plot and unlike the Ocean's Trilogy, you don't end up feeling cheated at the end. I'm mostly thinking of Ocean's Twelve. Did that piss off anyone else? If Tess looks like Julia Roberts, why doesn't Danny just walk around with George Clooney's credit cards instead of trying to rob casinos?

The other thing is that this is a decidedly unique film. It's broken into segments separated by title cards that look like Saturday Evening Post covers. The soundtrack is all ragtime music and you will end up with "The Entertainer" stuck in your head after you watch this movie. I don't think that movies get a chance to be this unique now. You don't even see Paul Newman for the first segment. Imagine a movie without the the headliner in it for the first part. Also, Redford seems much more self assured in this one probably owing to his elevation in status following the success of Butch and Sundance.

I also love the world that the film takes place in, with a whole other world of con artists and thieves. Oh, let's face it: George Clooney and Brad Pitt wish they were Paul Newman and Robert Redford in this movie. I wonder if Steven Soderbergh wishes he were George Roy Hill. That does seem unlikely. I just don't know any other film quite like this one, which is no doubt why it won Best Picture. It also set the standard for all caper movies to follow. As I have alluded, there have been many imitators, but not successful. I wish I could explain it better, but I just can't. It has something to do with the chemistry of Newman, Redford and Hill combining to make the perfect con movie. So, go watch it.

So, am I wrong? Did the end of Ocean's Twelve make sense to you? Or how about this, which is better Butch Cassidy or The Sting? What do you think another Newman-Redford collaboration would have looked like? Tell all in the comments.

The Paul Newman Restrospective: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969

In the first season of 30 Rock, there is this classic exchange between Liz Lemon and Jenna Maroney which outlines the debate we will be having over the next two editions of the Paul Newman retrospective:

Jenna: Paul Newman or Robert Redford?
Liz: I’ve told you a thousand times, Newman. Because I enjoy his salad dressings and lemonade.
Jenna: Okay. Brad Pitt or George Clooney?


Once upon a time, there were two leading men called Paul Newman and Robert Redford. They would unite with director George Roy Hill for two films that would become classics of American cinema. One of them would go on to age extremely well and create a line of salad dressings. The other would go on to show us he really should have worn sunscreen and found a film festival that would start out independent, then go all commercial.

Butch and Sundance are two thieves in the American west living the dream. They rob banks and trains, they have a gang, visit prostitutes and go for bicycle rides. Then one day, they get hunted by a lawman names Lefors and nothing is the same. The two men have to flee to Bolivia, where they find it hard to rob banks, then find it hard to go straight and then find that eventually you will get shot robbing banks.

This film has one classic scene after another, so just indulge me.

This is where we learn about the rules of a knife fight:


This is where we learn about jumping off cliffs:


And this is where we learn about riding bicycles:


I swear that is a scene you could only get away with in the 1970s. All of a sudden, there's Burt Bacharach and Paul Newman's riding a bicycle and why? I was relieved to watch an interview with Richard Zanuck, who was the head of 20th Century Fox at the time, who related a story about when he first showed the film to the Board of Fox, who basically were like, "What's with that scene with the bicycle?" Okay, so it wasn't just me.

What is important is that this is the perfect film for 1969. The tone is just right, echoing the American discontent at the time without intentionally going cynical, just truthful. Take for instance one of the central ironies of the film: that Butch and Sundance never killed a man until they went straight. It's remarkable. Take the ending, which as I understand it House tried to murder a couple of weeks ago, hence why I stopped watching House like three years ago. That's neither here nor there...



I don't know what that bit tagged on the end is. Take that ending. This movie would suck if somehow Butch and Sundance got out, if we were subjected to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Down Under. It never would have worked. William Goldman said the theme of the film was that times change and if you want to survive, you should change with them. Butch and Sundance can't, won't, remain a relic of a wild past that is fast disappearing in the face of the future. We wouldn't love them if they did change and when they die, we don't feel cheated. It just seems right.

So, what did you think of this movie? By the way, it was nominated for Best Picture and lost to Midnight Cowboy. William Goldman did win for Best Screenplay. So, tell me if you disagree with me, did you understand the bicycle scene? Also, be sure to put your pitches for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Rob Monaco in the comments section.




Another legacy of this film is a philanthropic one. Paul Newman took the name of the gang in the film and founded Hole In The Wall Camps, which is a place where seriously ill children come to act like kids who aren't sick for a short time of the year. Here's an old PSA with Paul and I feel compelled to put a link to them to donate if you are so moved. I suck at making the links work, though, so if you could just copy and paste the address in your browser.

https://www.holeinthewallcamps.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=425

The Paul Newman Retrospective: Sweet Bird of Youth, 1962

Welcome once again to the Paul Newman Retrospective. Sweet Bird of Youth is an adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play, just like Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, only not as good. That being said, you can guess that there were some changes from Broadway to Hollywood, so let's just get that out there. The play ends with Chance Wayne's character being castrated and Heavenly Finley gets a venereal disease. Question, how does a character get castrated onstage? These things will not be happening in Hollywood in 1962. What I do love about Tennessee Williams is the hint of truth of the south in them. Take this story for instance, the corrupt southern governor who attempts to converge politics and morality. Yeah. Also, take the names Chance and Heavenly. What more white trash names could we have come up with? If anybody was going to get mixed up in the plot of this film, it would be two characters named Chance and Heavenly. I think this trailer makes note of the fact.



You know, I think it probably means something when we have Paul Newman with his shirt off in the trailer. They had to get the audience in somehow.

So, let's get to the story. Paul Newman plays Chance Wayne a gigolo/actor/ne'er do well. He is driving around his latest client/patroness Alexandra del Lago played by Geraldine Page, a movie star and drinker/pot smoker. Chance is driving her and they stop in his hometown of St. Cloud where he hopes to regain what he lost along with his youth, his sweetheart, Heavenly Finley.

Heavenly's father is Boss Finley, played by Ed Begley in an Academy Award winning performance. He deserves it, he's a pretty good jackass. Interestingly, a lot of the cast of this film stayed in tact from its run on Broadway. Paul Newman originated the role of Chance Wayne alongside Geraldine Page. Madeleine Sherwood, Sister Woman from Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, plays Miss Lucy. Rip Torn is Finley Jr. The two notable deviations are Mildred Dunnock plays Aunt Nonnie and Shirley Knight who plays Heavenly Finley. I can't find anything to really like about Shirley Knight's performance even though she got an Oscar nomination. She just seems not there and maybe she's supposed to be not there, but it really hampers the ending.


Okay, I find myself extremely mixed up about this film. When I first saw it, I really liked it. I liked and still like the interplay between past and present, the way that the past is such a huge part of these characters, it haunts them. I like the way it seems to say that what you love the most can in fact be what tortures you the most. I haven't seen this as a play, although apparently Nicole Kidman and James Franco are going to do a revival of this on Broadway. Yet when I read about the play, it seems as if this thing got gutted. They couldn't have venereal disease or castration- not that I really want to see Paul Newman get castrated- so they did the abortion plot and beat Paul Newman up some and then out of nowhere, Heavenly suddenly has the guts to stand up to her father and we have a happy ending. I just don't find her transformation very believable and I think I let it slide past me the first time because I was like, "Of course she should run off with Paul Newman. She should have done that two hours ago. What the hell took so long?"

Geraldine Page is fantastic in this part, though. She plays a fading actress who feels like her time in the spotlight has run out. She has this great scene where she's on the phone with Walter Winchell where she discovers she's not through, and she goes from has been to somebody in record time. Her changes in mood and disposition are believable, she does the crazy actress thing quite well. Also, Madeleine Sherwood is such a joy to watch in this movie. Her Miss Lucy is flawless and I love her as the governor's mistress with a heart of gold. She really pulls off southerner not just in accent, but in affect and it couldn't have been easy because she was actually Canadian. Also, you would probably never realize she was Sister Woman in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof if you weren't looking at the credits. She is just so transformed.

So, what does this play bring from Broadway? The stars. Something about youth and beauty, but instead of saying you can't recapture it, this movie somehow says you can. Anyway, my new handbook, Shaun Levy's Paul Newman: A Life says that the actors were forbidden from talking about this movie to the press. There's a hint. So, I think I've somehow talked myself out of liking this movie. I guess it's okay as a melodrama, something Douglas Sirk might have directed, but otherwise it kind of seems to suck. There are good moments to distract you, but the overall effect just feels lacking.

Okay, so what did you think? Am I too hard on the adaptation? Would you have wanted to see Paul Newman castrated? Do you think this story takes place in Florida or does the combination of corruption and oil spell Louisiana to you? Anyway, let me know all in the comments section.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: Another Brick In The Wall: Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, 1958

You have no idea how I have been dying to use that title! See it's a pun, right? And yet it actually kind of fits. Because this film is all about deciding if you should conform to what people expect from you. I'm not sure what Pink Floyd: The Wall is about.



Welcome to the fifth edition of the Paul Newman Retrospective. Today we'll be dealing with Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, the first film for which Paul Newman received an Academy Award Nomination and his first appearance in the world of Tennessee Williams with whom he was also friends. That does not mean Tennessee liked this film at all, in fact he told people not to see it. The obvious reason is that since his play dealt with homosexuality, most of that had to be done away with because of the Production Code and you've seen Mad Men, right? I think maybe he was too dismissive, though. Even though they had to take the homosexual storyline out (not like it's totally out, though, it does seem weird for a while that Brick is so hung up about this) they did leave us with a protagonist struggling to find any meaning in life that to him seems to be too often lived dishonestly.



The great dilemma in this film is that the part of Maggie The Cat is played by Elizabeth Taylor, who makes me want to spit blood. It's not even her fault, I think, I just usually don't like her, but I do like her in this performance. It's rendered all the more impressive by the fact that Elizabeth Taylor's husband, Mike Todd, died in a plane accident during filming. Her performance in this is so flawless in spite of that. Now, for you Hollywood history buffs, that was the catalyst of the Taylor-Fisher-Reynolds Affair, soon to be followed by the Taylor-Burton-Fisher Affair. I was watching Oprah with Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher recently and it occurred to me that if I was Elizabeth Taylor and I was going to steal another woman's husband while I made this movie, I would make a play for Paul Newman and not Eddie Fisher. That would make much more sense. People would understand that. Anyway...

The supporting parts are filled out by Burl Ives as Big Daddy, who also sings "Holly Jolly Christmas." Big Mama played by Judith Anderson, Brick's brother Gooper played by Jack Carson (Where are these people getting these names?) and his wife, the perpetually procreating, Sister Woman, played by Madeleine Sherwood, who also appears in another Newman-Williams effort, Sweet Bird of Youth.

We start out in a scene on a high school athletic field where Brick attempts to jump the high hurdles while drunk and breaks his ankle. By the way, has anyone else noticed that the best Paul Newman movies seem to start with a long scene with Newman alone somewhere? Cool Hand Luke, this one, I know there are others. Next, we're back at the Pollitt family home where everyone has gathered to celebrate Big Daddy's birthday. Brick doesn't seem to care about the whole proceeding except where he's going to get his next drink from. Maggie laments the connivings of Gooper and Sister Woman to get their hands on the Pollitt fortune, Brick's lack of interest in it as well as the decline in their love life. Who can blame her, really? Anyway, Big Daddy comes home from a clinic thinking he has a bill of clean health. The family doctor informs Gooper and subsequently Brick that Big Daddy is going to die. Brick's instinct is to bail, which is symptomatic of his larger problem.

Much of the guts in this film derives from the confrontations between Brick and Big Daddy. Big Daddy wants Brick to inherit his empire, Brick doesn't want to. Big Daddy wants to know why Brick drinks and Brick doesn't want to talk about it. Most of it comes down to something called mendacity.



Big Daddy makes Maggie say what happened to Brick's friend, Skipper. It comes down to Brick failing his friend since it is clearly not what happened in the play and even I thought we were getting a little convoluted at this juncture. Big Daddy tries to get brick to face the truth about that and their confrontation leads to Brick spitting out to Big Daddy that he is going to die. It's the first time we see both of them exhibiting vulnerability. This becomes a turning point for father and son, as they're both forced to confront the truth about their lives. As this happens, Sister Woman and Gooper try to talk Big Mama into giving them control of Big Daddy's interests. Maggie stays in the fray there, fighting for position. Big Daddy and Brick come to a similar conclusion, that even if life is fraught with mendacity, it had better be lived than not. Big Daddy seemingly resolves to live out the rest of his days and Brick is going to stop using alcohol to hide from his problems. Meanwhile, Maggie says she is pregnant which is patently untrue, but it really pisses off Sister Woman, everyone else seems to know it's not true, but enters it in the "Who the hell cares?" column. This is ultimately what I like best about the film, we didn't quite get the happy ending, but we're happy enough, as happy as we can be.

What else about this film? It's beautifully shot, even if it's small. The whole thing takes period over a single night. I feel like we get a sense of the heat in the film, even though I can't put my finger on it. Also, this movie has the most monstrous collection of child actors ever and a great line about the Cotton Bowl that I couldn't quite work in here, so you will have to watch the movie. They were going to originally film it in black and white, since most films with an artistic bent were shot in black and white at the time, but director Richard Brooks decided that was crazy given Elizabeth Taylor's eyes and Paul Newman's eyes. Good call. It is obviously different than the play, but I don't think it suffers for it. You just have to look upon it as something separate. I think it becomes about something else, about facing life rather than isolating yourself from it.

So, does the Production Code suck? Would you have liked a real adaptation of Tennessee Williams' play better? Would you have gone for Eddie Fisher, too? If so, why? Will you listen to "Holly Jolly Christmas" differently next time? Do those kids in the meat grinder bother you too? Explain all in the comments section.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: From The Terrace, 1960

Welcome to the fourth edition of the Paul Newman Retrospective and the second part of the first Joanne Woodward back-to-back. This is as promised the crappy one. From The Terrace is just plain inexplicable. Paul plays Alfred who returns to his prominent parents from World War II to find that his mother is an alcoholic wreck and his father is still a jerk. Instead of taking on the family business, he and a pal are going to start an aircraft company. Alfred marries a rich girl Mary St. John (Joanne) who was going to marry a doctor and then things start going south. The aircraft company goes bust and Alfred gets a job working at some firm that's just like Mad Men, except no advertising and no Joan. Basically, I've noticed that I've said "It's like Mad Men" to come to terms with any workplace in New York in the 1950s or 1960s lately. Oh, and Mary starts sleeping with that doctor guy which is inexplicable. Just why? Alfred starts falling for this other girl he met on a business trip but won't act on it. At this point, I start losing interest because the movie broke with reality and there's a lot of crap about social standing and mores, business versus personal life, stuff they would never bother with on Mad Men. And this goes on for like two and a half hours.

So, this movie is awful. Paul Newman can't even save it. I can't think of anything that I really like about this movie and I can't even figure out how it got made. Or how Ernest Lehman wrote this crap. Yes, the guy who brought you The Sweet Smell of Success and Sabrina wrote this crap. Apparently, this is based on a novel and the film just has about half of the novel. I can only assume the entertaining stuff was in the other half. This movie is so bad, I can't even find a real trailer on YouTube. I know, fail, but no more than this film. I've got nothing to say. If you do, or you know why this movie doesn't suck, please share in the comments section. No, seriously.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: A New Kind of Love, 1963

Welcome to the third edition of the Paul Newman Retrospective. Obviously, one of the best known things about Paul Newman is his long marriage to actress, Joanne Woodward. They collaborated on a few projects together and this is one of my personal favorites and incidentally the first part of the first Joanne Woodward back-to-back. let me clarify. There are ten Newman-Woodward films and I don't want to bore you by doing them all in a row. So, my plan is to take one Woodward-Newman film from the good column, one from the bad and do them as a back-to-back. For those of you unfamiliar with basketball parlance, I will be doing two entries, one after the other.

So, let me start with a story about how this picture came to be taken from the pages of Shaun Levy's Paul Newman: A Life. Joanne Woodward read the script and loved it. She showed it to Paul and he said, "Well, I don't think it's fun. I don't think it's anything." Then Joanne said she had the idea that they could do the movie together to which Paul said, "No, you do it and I'll watch and clap soundlessly from the wings." Joanne, to Paul's recollection, because I'll give her the benefit of the doubt even though I feel this would be justified said, "You son of a bitch!... Here I've made my career subservient to yours, I've raised your family and not only my children, but your children from another marriage... and now when I ask you to make a movie with me, you tell me there's nothing in it for you!" Paul, apparently not being an idiot, decided to make the movie. Well done, Joanne.

A New Kind of Love is the story of a woman named Samantha, played by Woodward, who steals fashion designs from all the big designers to sell them in a cheaper department store. Samantha is thoroughly engrossed in her work, with no time or tolerance for love. Newman plays Steve Sherman, a newspaper columnist whose affair with the boss' wife gets him sent to Paris. Samantha is travelling to Paris with her colleagues, Leena, played by Thelma Ritter and Joe Bergner, played by George Tobias, so they can steal designs from the French fashion houses. They have the traditional meet-cute on the plane where Steve jokes around and Samantha gives him the number for Alcoholics Anonymous.

Steve hangs around in Paris, womanizing, columnizing and Samantha gets to work with the aid of Felicienne Courbeau played by Eva Gabor. This starts a subplot where Joe and Felicienne start a courtship much to Leena's chagrin. The best part of this is that instead of that turning into a catfight, the two women become friends, chagrined that they like each other. By the way, this movie has the essentials for a movie set in Paris and made in the 1950s or 1960s: one of the Gabors and Maurice Chevalier. One day, Samantha drinks too much, can't sleep and realizes that everyone in Paris is having fun and falling in love except her. She goes for a makeover and becomes quite the fashion plate. So much so that Steve meets her and mistakes her for a high class call girl. She doesn't try to dissuade him from this, in fact leading him on by sharing false tales of her romantic escapades within this great sports motif the movie uses. I could try to explain it, but you should just watch the movie. Two problems: Samantha is falling for Steve and doesn't know how long she can keep lying to him or how she can possibly get out of this. Secondly, Steve is falling for Samantha and doesn't like the idea of the woman he loves being a prostitute because as the Narcoleptic Argentinean in Moulin Rouge told us, "Never fall in love with a woman who sells herself. It always ends bad!" (Hey, they go to the Moulin Rouge in this movie,too.)Steve drags Samantha to the Cathedral of Notre Dame, to try and save her soul and she runs out screaming. It is brilliant. Later, Steve tracks Samantha down to her hotel where he meets Joe and Leena who explain that Samantha is not, in fact, a prostitute, which makes him angry. He tries to entrap her by going to her and offering to pay her for a night's services. She shocks him by accepting the terms. He eggs her on, taking her back to her apartment and thinking she'll crack before anything happens. Steve would be wrong in this instance, because you may recall, Steve is played by Paul Newman. So, we have that scene because I couldn't find the trailer. I know, fail.



Steve exposes Samantha and she explains that she was just going to sleep with him and not actually take the money, which he doesn't think is a big improvement. Okay, how is that fair? It resolves, as you may guess, happily.

Anyway, Paul Newman was never as comfortable in light comedy as he was in other projects and this is an instance of that. He's just too good an actor to be content doing the kind of fluff best left to, I don't know, Ashton Kutcher? Yeah, that works. Though I think if you put Ashton Kutcher opposite Joanne Woodward in the film, it would probably ruin it. Joanne Woodward is brilliant, though, and I'm so glad that she had the foresight to see the potential in this project. I find it remarkably fresh after a lifetime spent watching romantic comedies. It's got everything: Paris, fashion, makeover, a woman with a job, way before Sex and the City caught on to the formula. What do you think? Does this belong in my good column? Was the film ahead of its time? is the fashion awesome? Or am I completely wrong? Let me know in the comments.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? The Towering Inferno: 1974

Welcome to the second edition of The Paul Newman Retrospective. As promised, I won't shy away from the crap films and this is the first one. This film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture. ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING ME???! Luckily, The Godfather Part II came out that year and obviously that won, but the fact that it was even nominated frightens me. Just so you know, I'm not even bothering to learn the names of the characters in this movie, so I'm just going to refer to them with the names of the actors playing them.

So, The Towering Inferno. The screenplay was adapted from two novels about giant buildings that burn down so there is your first sign about the quality of the story. My first sign that this movie wouldn't go well? There's a long helicopter ride during the credits. Anytime, there's a long helicopter ride at the start of a movie everyone is doomed. Also, that's how MASH starts. So, in this film Paul Newman plays the architect of the world's tallest building. He gets off the helicopter somehow managing not to look ridiculous in a deep orange henley. He meets up with the building's owner, William Holden, where we learn Paul wants to retire from making stupid buildings, but he puts it differently. Anyway, he meets up with his lady friend, Faye Dunaway and you can guess what happens. Still, Faye is having problems deciding if she wants to take the promotion at her job or go off to the country somewhere. I was wondering what the hell her problem was until I thought Paul was talking about going to Montana. Gee, Paul, Montana? We couldn't just live wherever Steve Jobs lives, I could commute and you could stay home with the imaginary kids? If you think I thought that too far through, then you are obviously overestimating the amount of intellect required to watch this movie.

Not that there aren't plenty of plots. There's something about a deaf mom and some kids. Robert Wagner tries to run faster than fire. Fred Astaire tries to con a lady and O.J. Simpson rescues a cat. Yes. O.J. Simpson rescues a cat. Oh, and the priest from the Thornbirds buys some cheap wires which make the building catch on fire.

Then, there's Steve McQueen. When the building ineveitably catches fire, fire chief Steve comes to stop it. Good luck. More interesting than the plot of this film is the behind the scenes bitch fest that Steve McQueen had over the size of his part versus Paul Newman. He wanted billing over Paul Newman. Okay?? They settled on diagonal billing so it was like they both had top billing. Also, Steve was mad Paul had twelve more lines than him. Really, Steve, really? And then he had to carry Scott Newman in a scene. Scott Newman plays a fireman, one of his few roles. If you're wondering why you haven't heard about Scott Newman, it's because he very sadly died of a drug overdose in 1978. I know, way for me to bring down the mood. Anyway, if you're bored watching this movie by the time Steve McQueen shows up, I found it entertaining to finish all of Paul Newman's lines to Steve with the word "bitch."

I won't bore you with the other four million things that go wrong with this building and rescuing the people in the building. Let me just tell you how they decide to put out the fire: THEY BLOW UP THE WATER TANKS ON THE TOP FLOOR. First, how can that possibly work? Second, why are the water tanks on the top floor of the tallest building in the world? Does that make any sense?



Per my mom, I'd like you to note the level of badass with which Paul and Steve confront a giant wall of water that could drown them. They're like, "Oh, I'm just a little wet."

Normally, I would try not to give you a video someone made off YouTube, but the song in this film "We May Never Love Like This Again" by Maureen McGovern did win the Academy Award for Best Song that year, so I feel I must share it with you as an example of music in 1970s disaster cinema. Also, this video saves you the trouble of watching the film and I do what I can for my readers. Also, the lyrics are right there at the bottom, so sing and sway and wave your lighters/cell phones.



So, Roger Ebert says this movie does not suck. Therefore, I ask you, have I gotten it wrong? Is this in fact a good movie? Were you worried about that cat O.J. saved too? Did Paul Newman make Steve McQueen his bitch? Tell me any and all of your thoughts about this movie in the comments section. Also, whose brilliant idea was it to build the world's tallest building in San Francisco, the most eathquake-y city on Earth?

Presenting The Paul Newman Retrospective: A Failure to Communicate: Cool Hand Luke, 1967

Well, the Oscars ended and I decided that I liked having a theme. I just finished reading Shaun Levy's Paul Newman: A Life and I thought, "Hey, the Paul Newman Retrospective!"

Here's the deal: I am going to cover every Paul Newman movie I can, even the crap ones, which sometimes in the 1970s he just did a movie because it wouldn't interfere with race season, so he made some crap. Okay? Even Paul has his faults. There is one exception to this though and that is Quintet. All I know about Quintet is that it takes place in some post apocalyptic future where people kill each other because they're bored and it was directed by Robert Altman. I do not do doomsday/post-apocalyptic scenarios because I will not sleep for a week. Also, movies where the aliens invade or say they're here to be our friends. If I had met the Vulcans in First Contact, let's just say it probably would have gone differently. So, I intend to alternate posts between good Paul Newman and crappy Paul Newman. So, I'll take you from his debut in The Silver Chalice to Cars. Yes, I watched Cars.



I thought no place would be better to start than Cool Hand Luke. Two disclaimers. One, the first time I saw it, I did not have a clue what was going on. Two, it is one of my favorite movies.

The story is about Lucas Jackson, who we see in a very bizarre scene at the beginning of the film drunkenly cutting the heads off of parking meters. He can't really answer why he's doing this. He gets sentenced to two years in a prison chain gang. We quickly realize that Luke is unable to deal with any authority from the prison boss to the prisoner structure.



It's not that Luke is stupid, he just seems unable to bend to any rules, even in the interest of self preservation. We get the feeling that he wishes he could just obey rules like other people. Take this scene where he fights the prison leader Dragline and impresses the other prisoners even though he loses, but he never can give up.



Luke becomes a hero to the prisoners through this and a series of other escapades including the famous 50 eggs scene.



Or when he encourages the other prisoners to finish their work early simply to confound the guards.



In these small ways, Luke achieves victories against the system and the man, but these are short-lived. Problems arise when Luke's mother dies. Yeah, like being in a chain gang wasn't bad enough. The prison boss decides to put him in the box instead of running the risk that he will try to escape. Unfortunately, this makes Luke want to escape. And escape he does. This makes him even more of a hero, he sends back a picture of himself with two attractive women. Luke is finally returned to the prison, where the guards endeavour to break his spirit through hopeless tasks and merciless beatings. When he finally collapses and begs them for mercy, the effect is devastating. You feel like Luke has died and you're not quite certain what sort of creature you're looking at. The film carries on with the new, broken Luke and just when it seems like all hope is lost, Luke makes another escape, this time with Dragline. They split up and Luke takes refuge in a church for what is my favorite scene in a movie full of great scenes.



It strikes me as a favorite because it is so universal. Who hasn't asked God or the Universe if you would rather see it that way, what the hell is the deal here? Paul Newman manages to pull this scene off in a way that draws us in, doesn't seem so theatrical and doesn't come off as hokey as the scene could easily do if in the hands of a lesser actor.

Things don't end up well for Luke, like so many literary Christ figures before him. The film concludes with the other prisoners remembering Luke and his exploits, which is what my grandmother claims is the important part of the story. I'm not entirely sure, but it may well center around the theme of defiance in the face of an uncaring world, the uselessness of rebellion. As the prison boss asserts, most of us get used to our chains. Luke doesn't. He can't, so the world destroys him.

shockingly, this movie didn't have a Best Picture nomination. George Kennedy did win a Best Supporting Actor nomination and once again, Paul Newman got nominated for an Oscar but didn't get one. It does have one of the most famous lines in all of cinema, though.



Strother Martin the actor who plays the warden saw the line as something his character would have absorbed with the intellectualizing of the penal system. To me, it feels like such a real line, that could come straight out of the mouth of any southern sheriff.

This is not an easy film, maybe one better watched with some Cliffs Notes. In my mind, that's probably why the film didn't get the recognition it deserved when it came out. On the inane note, two years on a chain gang for vandalism? Are you kidding me? What crappy lawyer did Luke have? Were there no women on that jury? What the hell? Also, if you watch the Special Features on the DVD, you can listen to the other actors tell how they asked Paul Newman how he had a six pack and say things like, "Of course, we didn't call it a six pack back then..." I'm not even kidding.

So, what do you think? Is Paul Newman supposed to be Jesus in this film? Did he really have a great six pack? What do we know about "the man"? Let me know in the comments section!