philipmorrison Reviews

Dr. T & the Women (2000)

Compare Dr. T to Altman as a genre

[19 June 2001]

I have seen so many negative reviews of this movie that I must comment. I have noted that most of the negative reviews have come from people who do not know the work of the director, Robert Altman, or from people who know and loathe the work of the same. I consider Altman a genre unto himself. In each movie he does, he creates characters which are too broadly drawn to be believed, so if the viewer is into "realism" s/he is out of luck. I submit that many of the negative reviewers would hate any Altman movie they saw based on lack of "reality"; hence, they might as well disqualify themselves as objective reviewers. For them to say this movie is bad, would be equivalent to my saying any given horror flick, no matter how well made, is bad just because I hate horror flicks. It is unfair criticism.

Given the above, I, a lover of Altman, will attempt to compare Dr. T to two of the best of Altman's milieu, Short Cuts, and Nashville. What I love about Altman's movies is that each character is an archetype, and his movies are a psychological study of what happens when archetypes collide.

In Short Cuts, different sets of archetypes collide to create disaster. I love that movie because the main theme, that disaster occurs when one takes a short cut, is illustrated in several different ways with several different sets of archetypes.

In Nashville, the archetypes are satires of the country-music industry. I don't believe there is any one main theme in Nashville, which is not as satisfying to me as Short Cuts' focus on one theme, but, in Nashville the characters Altman draws are so quirky and interesting that it comes a close second as my favorite Altman movie.

Now, we come to Dr. T. This movie, unlike most of Altman's movies, focuses on one character, Dr. T. The psychological study is how the thinly-drawn female archetypes affect the richly-drawn main character. Dr. T is a guy who loves women, but mistakenly, as the events in the movie point out, puts them on a pedestal. In the short term, he is very popular with women, but, eventually, his attitude catches up with him. His wife descends into a childlike state, because, according to a psychiatrist, she has been pampered too much. His daughters, with whom, he has taken the role of provider and moral compass, in the end, decide that they can make decisions for themselves, and abandon him. And, his love interest does not want to be 'taken care of', thank you. Dr. T remains confused about women even after all of this has happened to him. So much so, that at the end of the movie, when he delivers a baby boy, he rejoices. Finally, someone arrives who will make sense to him.

I didn't like this movie as much as the rest of Altman's because there is so much focus on Dr. T. I would have liked to have seen either more detail in the female characters (which would make this movie more like Nashville in the richly drawn characters), or, alternatively, I would like to see other plotlines which are independent of Dr. T, but which are tied together at the end of the movie to illustrate a similar theme (which would make this movie more like Short Cuts).

But to say this movie is bad just because the characters are unrealistic, is missing the point. That's Altman.

My Man Godfrey (1936)

What we are missing in today's cinema

[16 April 2000]

This movie is my champion for the golden age of movies versus today's cinema. "Godfrey" has pratfalls and funny situations, yes, but, it values a sly remark and character development over the cheaply-gotten laughs which seem to inundate modern comedies.

A case in point is Carlo, the "protege" of the flighty matron of the family. Every time he is attacked by the gruff patriarch, who is rightfully angry at him for leaching off the family's good will, not to mention its money, Carlo utters a sigh so heavy and heavily-acted, that you'd think his dog had died. The mother of the family comes to his defense, admonishing the father 'You must remember that Carlo is sensitive.' Hilarious stuff!

The performance of the character actors in "Godfrey" alone merit several viewings, but the movie also sports "Mr. Urbanity", William Powell. Though I think he is wonderful as "The Thin Man," I often wish he had not done so many sequels, saving his talent for well-written comedies like this one. (By the way, another wonderful comedy of this ilk is "Libeled Lady" with Myrna Loy, who, in my humble opinion is the epitomy of class; these two together make a dazzling combo).

Powell is glorious in this role. Much of the comedy comes from the fact that he is a butler serving those in a social class to which he used to belong (before the stock market crash). They hire him almost as a joke, thinking him beneath the job, when, in reality, he is highly educated, and, from a family equal or higher than they in social status.

Carole Lombard is adorable in her role of the ditzy younger sister who falls for Godfrey and goes to outrageous lengths to win his heart. Much of what she says makes no sense at all, but she is so precious, you can't help loving her anyway.

The actress playing the older sister is great as well as the sophisticated but snobbish socialite who will stop at nothing to get what she wants, and then rationalize that she deserves it just because she was born into high society. She develops a crush on Godfrey as well which makes for interesting conflict in the film.

But, once again, the unsung stars of this film are the writers and director. There is so much humor packed into a single word or even a well-placed pause. All concerned have created an amazing piece of entertainment.

I long for the day when good writing will come back to comedy, but while wading through the drivel that is another inevitable and interminable Jim Carey/Adam Sandler/Chris Farley (they are all inter-changeable to my mind) debacle, I revel in the thought that movies like "Godfrey" have been made in the past, and just might be made again.

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)

More cudos

[28 March 2000]

I wouldn't add anything to what my fellow-reviewers have said except for the fact that this is my favorite movie of all time. I watch it whenever I am depressed about the depths to which humans are capable of going (which is all too often depicted in modern movies). This movie portrays the opposite.

Chipping starts out as a teacher who, because of an introverted personality, has trouble communicating with the students in his charge and with his superiors. Before going on the trip on which he meets his beloved, he is passed over for a promotion as head of a residence hall, despite the fact that he has seniority. He is also made fun of by his students and finds he must revert to a strict form of discipline to keep them in line; he is not a popular teacher as a result. He is at a low ebb, starting to think that he is a failure in life.

Then, on a vacation to continental Europe, he meets the character played by Greer Garson. They have a whirlwind romance, which, in itself, is so enjoyable to watch. He is so clumsy in his advances. And she is amused by him. The actors do a great job of showing the chemistry between the characters.

They eventually get married, which gives "Chips" the confidence he had lacked. His wife makes some suggestions which helps him find the balance of discipline and fun with the students, and he soon comes to love his students as he would his own children, and, in the process, becomes one of the most popular teachers in the school.

One of my favorite aspects of this movie is its idyllic view of marriage. It really shows what marriage "could" be (two people coming together to become stronger as a unit than they would have been separately--another movie of this vintage which portrays the same is "Stars and Stripes, Forever", the biopic of John Phillip Sousa).

Robert Donat's performance, as the other reviewers have noted, is of the highest caliber--ever. And, Greer Garson's role was all too short. Also, of note are Chipping's friend who invites him to Europe and urges him ahead in his romance, and, of course, the various children who come into his life.

Macho men must be careful with this one. If it doesn't make you cry, nothing will. It may be best to take your girlfriend with you so that she can see your sensitive side.

Surviving Picasso (1996)

A revealing character study

[1 November 1999]

I liked this movie quite a bit. It is not a very flattering portrait of the master, but it gives one insight into his art. Anthony Hopkins gives a convincing portrayal of the bad and the good qualities of the man. He had a charming playfulness about him which the women in his life fell for despite themselves and the knowledge of his reputation. Of course, his dark side was his maniacal desire for control of his women's lives, even after the romantic sides of their relationship had long since died. My question about those women is why they went out of their way to get into a relationship with him, knowing he had already ruined the lives of others. Francoise, the main character, thought herself strong enough to stave off any emotional harm he could do her, but when you get into a romantic relationship with someone, your reason disappears. Nobody's strong enough to not be hurt by someone they are emotionally involved with. The trick is to meet only the people who you feel reasonably sure will not do you harm. One would think an intelligent woman like Francoise would know that. If this were a piece of fiction, I would find it hard to believe, but given that the movie is based on fact.... This knowledge added a great deal to the intrigue of the movie, and a great deal of depth to the characters.

The acting is first-rate. I've seen a few of the other movies in which Natascha McElHone has acted, but those parts were not large enough to show her range. I was extremely impressed. She has a very expressive face, capable of portraying an entire pallet of emotions, and, most importantly, she is obviously an intelligent woman, capable of convincingly playing an intellectual. Of course, the fact that she is elegantly drop-dead gorgeous has not colored my emotions about her performance one bit.

Hopkins as usual does a brilliant job. I have never seen him express ebullience as he does here. He does a good job of showing how charming Picasso could be, supplying some motivation for why women fell for him, knowing his infamous past.

Seeing this movie lent new meaning to some of his paintings which I have seen recently. There is a portrait of Dorra Marr (sp?) in the Belissario Hotel in Las Vegas. One half of it portrays a happy woman, the other half is tinged with sadness. I now know the story behind this painting, making it all the more memorable. Like the first reviewer, I'm not a big fan of Picasso, but knowing what lies behind some of his paintings will add interest in the future.