TIM MAKES ANGELA READ: Hands in the Dark (1932)

 

Hands in the Dark, by Walter Gibson (using the house name Maxwell Grant). First published in the May 1932 issue of The Shadow Magazine. 

TIM SAYS:

There are two distinct versions of the Shadow--the one who appeared in the original pulp magazines beginning in 1931 and the protagonist from the radio show that premiered in 1937. The latter was supposedly based on the pulp character, but was different enough to be essentially a new character. 

Both characters are awesome in their own ways and I was introduced to both of them about the same time in my teens. I ended up owning an LP that contained two episodes of the radio show (which I saw at a record store and whined about until my Mom bought it) and a paperback reprint of one of the pulp stories, which I bought off the book rack at Winn Dixie, probably with paper route money.

Over the years, I've read scores of the Shadow stories, but that paperback--reprinting the 1932 story "Hands in the Dark"--will always be one of my favorites simply because it was my first. It begins with a bang--a kidnapping followed by a murder. This is all part of a plot to obtain an obscure clue that will lead to a fortune in stolen loot.

(That clue, by the way, is featured on the magazine cover above. I don't remember figuring it out the first time I read the book and I've always wondered if I would get it if I were to read the novel for the first time as an adult.)

Soon, the Shadow is on the trail of the gang of villains who are responsible for all this intrigue and violence. The plot moves switfly and logically, with spurts of violent action seeded throughout the story. Towards the end, there's a wonderful confrontation between the Shadow and the surviving crooks in a dark attic, followed by a gunfight when a remaining killer is trapped in a railroad car as he shoots it out with the cops. 

"Hands in the Dark" is a great example of the best of pulp fiction--a strong story with a clever plot and exciting action.

And, of course, it stars the Shadow, who is 100% pure awesomeness, with an awesome outer coating and an awesome filling in the middle and with awesome sprinkles on the top.

cover art by Jim Steranko

ANGELA SAYS:

The little I know about the Shadow is from the 1994 movie starring Alec Baldwin. I have been told that it's a mashup of different incarnations of the Shadow and not the “proper pulp magazine version.” Overall, I enjoyed the look and feel of the movie so I wasn't sure what to expect from the novel. As it turned out, I enjoyed it. The mystery was well crafted and I enjoyed following each step along the way. While a series of minor characters are used to move the story along and provide the next clue, each one is given enough development that their murder, or attempted murder, generated anger at the callous mobsters and sympathy for that character.

It proves that chapters of background information is not necessary to create a three dimensional character that readers care about. Series' written by different authors under house names can be hit or miss, but generally, they lasted because most of the writers turned out well developed stories that fit into the universe. I often tease Tim that; while his Goodreads list may have 200+ books for a year, 90% or more are under 200 pages. But there is some truth to his argument that a well crafted, tightly written story doesn't need to be any longer. Many of today's authors turn out books of 300-400 pages, but the stories often aren't as well constructed and developed.

I had some criticisms of this book, though. The conversation when Moose Shargin was warning Wing Toy of the abilities of the Shadow and dangers of facing off against him was rife with cliches. I don't know if gangsters in the early 30s really talked like that, but it felt contrived to me. Also, Toy says the gas for the trap would kill, but later he said it just knocked out the victim; the killing came later. Lastly, three different minor characters pulled guns on the gangsters and all three failed to make use of their advantage. Granted, they were all elderly, and at least one was nearly blind, but I felt like yelling “Either pull the trigger or don't pull out the gun”. At least two of them would likely have survived if they had done so.

Finally, I'm torn about the Shadow himself. In this book, at least, he almost feels like a minor character. Granted, he is orchestrating a lot behind the scenes and is often listening in the shadows (pardon the pun). But I'm not sure if it's just a judicious use of an almost mystical character or the uncertainty of how to best use and develop him. Perhaps I should read further stories to see how he is used across several novels. (Shh, don't tell Tim; I can't set the precedent that he's right about such things).

SPECIAL BONUS: A video Tim made on how the character of the Shadow was created:

 

ANGELA MAKES TIM WATCH: Sabrina (1995)

 

SABRINA (1995), starring Harrison Ford & Julia Ormond. Written by Barbara Benedeck & David Rayfiel. Directed by Sydney Pollack.

TIM SAYS:

Well, this version of the movie doesn't include Humphrey Bogart, Harrison Ford is not playing either Han Solo or Indiana Jones and it's not in black-and-white. All these things should be unforgiveable. But, though the 1995 film does not hold up very well when compared to the 1955 original, it is (as one critic wrote) "a pleasant diversion."

Aside from what I mentioned above, the movie has a few other points against it. It's 20 minutes longer than the original (and seems to be a little longer) without needing to be. And it depends too much on drama while dropping much of the comedy that gave the original its charm. 

But the cast does their jobs well and the movie's big denoument scene (in which Linus is forced to admit he loves Sabrina and follows her to Paris) is arguably done a little better. And the part of David's fiance is more fleshed out here and more important to the plot than in the original. 

All this allows it to make up a few points, but the original is definitely the superior film. If only Harrison Ford had been allowed to use a blaster or a bull whip at some point. That would have saved it for sure. 

ANGELA SAYS:

I’m torn on this one. I like things about both versions of the movie so it’s hard to pick a true winner.

Original

PROS

1. Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart – need I say more?

2. The script does a better job of showing Sabrina’s teenage, over the top, despair at David’s inattention

3. Hepburn’s fashion display is much more “Paris”

CONS

1. Hepburn doesn’t look frumpy at the beginning – just younger. I don’t know if it’s the studio’s aversion to making their stars ugly, but I didn’t see much transformation between the New York and Paris Sabrina’s

2. Elizabeth Tyson is just a place holder, with no personality or development to make us really believe she’s enough to reform David Larrabee

3. The “take charge” David in the dénouement doesn’t feel believable

4. Bogart (53 to Hepburn’s 24), just looks too old to be accepted as a valid love interest. Although the black and white film somewhat softens the extremes.

Remake

PROS

1. Ormand is much more believable as the frumpy ugly duckling who transforms into a swan. The makeup and costuming at the beginning makes the transformation much more believable.

2. David Larrabee is a more fleshed out character than the original. I can believe Elizabeth Tyson is capable of reining in David’s excesses, and she won’t put up with his playboy ways

3. This version of David is much more believable in the dénouement;I can accept he’s secretly kept up with the business. Even though he isn’t likely to be up to the day to day running of the company; he seems able to fill in, with the help of his mother and the rest of the staff. I can believe that the two brother’s will have a much better relationship when Linus returns

CONS

1. Ford and Ormand just aren’t the same as Hepburn and Bogey.

2. The extended Paris scenes where Sabrina “finds” herself are too long and unnecessary. It slows the pace of the movie and doesn’t have the charm of cooking school Sabrina in the original.

3. The age difference between Ford (53) and Ormand (30) isn’t quite as wide, but it still looks “off” on screen.

4. And, for Tim, there isn’t a bullwhip or blaster in sight.

Overall, I’d say the original 1954 film edges out the remake, but only just. There is a lighthearted, ethereal charm to it that is missing in the later one. I don’t know if it’s the black and white aspect, but it just has more of a fairy tale feel. I can see it beginning “once upon a time…….. and see Cinderella set in modern times.

ANGELA MADE TIM WATCH: Sabrina (1954)

 

SABRINA (1995), starring Humprhey Bogart & Audrey Hepburn. Written by Billy Wilder, Ernest Lehman & Samuel A. Taylor. Directed by Billy Wilder.

ANGELA SAYS: 

Neither of us were ready for sleep and Tim was scrolling through the TMC on demand movies and we decided to watch Sabrina. We've both seen it before, but it's been awhile and it had three great things going for it: black and white, Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. There isn't much that will beat that combination in this house (except maybe Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy).

 

Hepburn was believable as the somewhat frumpy, star struck daughter of the family chauffeur who transformed into an elegant and beautiful adult. Unfortunately, she still hasn't outgrown the infatuation with the younger son of the manor house. William Holden was perfect as the playboy (David Larrabee) with three ex wives who hasn't worked a day in his life. Bogart plays the workaholic older brother (Linus Larrabee) who picks up the pieces after his brother's affairs fail, mostly by paying off the unacceptable women.

 

When David fixates on the adult Sabrina, threatening to disrupt the marriage/merger that Linus has manipulated, Linus decides to manage the situation. The obvious happens and the couple fall in love, despite some twists and turns along the way.

 

Ben Mankowicz (TMC host) mentioned that Cary Grant was the first, and (in his opinion) better choice for Linus Larrabee. I disagree. While it's true that you wouldn't normally expect Bogart to play the lead in a romantic comedy, I think he is much more believable as the workaholic brother. Grant is much too suave and debonair. The surprising love affair between Linus and Sabrina would have had no impact and failed as a twist for the first audiences.

Overall, a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours during the Christmas weekend.

TIM SAYS:

There were a couple of crime movies and Film Noirs on demand, but I can never get Angela to watch any of those. My goal of  Angela and I being inspired to enter into a life of crime, eventually double-crossing each other and coming to tragic, violent ends remains a distant dream. 

It does seem a shame to put Humphrey Bogart in a movie and not give him an opportunity to shoot Conried Veidt or Barton MacLane. But Bogie is indeed great in the role, as is everyone else. This includes the supporting cast, especially John Williams as Sabrina's dad, who obviously loves his daughter but is convinced that she won't be happy if she tries to cross class lines.

The script is clever and funny and I did enjoy seeing Sabrina once again. I'm not sure I completely buy the plot twist at the end, since the 30-year difference in age between Audrey and Bogie is a bit extreme.  And, to be fair to the movie, the characters Audrey and Bogie were playing did require there to be a gap in their ages.  

Angela mentions that Bogie fits the role better than Cary Grant would have, since it would have been too obvious from the beginning that Grant would be a love interest. I can't argue that, but at the same time, it would have been fun to see Grant play the workaholic businessman.

And, I suppose the part of me that wishes that there had been a gun battle between Bogie and William Holden is just being silly. 

ANGELA MADE TIM WATCH: Daddy Long Legs (1955)

 

DADDY LONG LEGS (1955), starring Fred Astaire and Leslie Caron. Written by Henry and Phoebe Ephron. Directed by Jean Negulesco. 

TIM SAYS:

It is obvious almost right from the beginning of the film that this has to be judged on its own merits. Though it takes the bare bones of the plot from the novel, several major changes to the story structure and characters essentially make it a different story.

For instance, the movie set in the then-contemporary 1950s, Judy is now from a French orphanage and we find out right away that Jervis is her sponsor (though it is still a secret from her). 

And this is fine, because it's a fun movie. The dance sequences are magnificent and (in every case) also serve to further either the plot or character development. Both Astaire and Caron exude their usual charm in their roles and both seem to be having fun (though in real life, Astaire was mourning the death of his wife, so perhaps he wasn't having all that much fun). 

As Judy, Caron doesn't have the same "Anne of Green Gables" vibe that book-Judy had, but she is still smart and vivacious. 

I also liked the supporting cast, especially Fred Clark as Jervis' assistant and Thelma Ritter as his secretary. The script succeeds in giving them all three-dimensional personalities.

ANGELA SAYS:

If you read the book before you watch the movie, please note, the book clearly inspires the movie more than anything else. The feel of the book is rural, quiet and content. The feel of the movie is urbane, sophisticated and splashy. This is just an observation, but an important one if you have read the book.

Jervis Pendleton (Fred Astaire) is presented, not as a playboy in the traditional sense, but as a swinging New York bachelor. Without the book's foundation of philanthropic orphanage trustee, Hollywood had to create a reason for him to send an orphan to college. Their rather ham-handed approach was to send him on a government mission to France where he stumbles across an orphanage after his car runs off the road. The orphanage just happens to have a beautiful, former ward, who is now a teacher. Pendleton sees Julie Andre (Leslie Caron) teaching the children and is enchanted with her, arranging for her to attend college in the United States. Fast forward two years and Pendleton's majordomo forces him to read the thick stack of letters that has accumulated from Andre. This sets off the events that leads to the inevitable conclusion.

The movie was amusing and Caron's depiction of a bemused and confused Frenchwoman coming to the US for college was charming. As this cast would suggest, the movie is a dance musical and the routines fit the plot well. There isn't the feel that they are just shoved in somewhere to allow the actors to show off their abilities. 

BONUS: the fantasy scene of Astaire as a dancing Texas cowboy is hilarious. 

The supporting cast is excellent, and even the minor characters are given enough to work with that they feel fleshed out and real. And the finale, when Julie learns the truth, is believable and doesn't feel contrived.

Some minor critiques.

• There is no real explanation of why an orphan girl, from an out of the way institute in the backwater of France would speak perfect English. Like many things Hollywood does, you just have to accept it and move on.

• I know the ages of the actors rarely has a real influence on the ages of the characters they play, but I really dislike Hollywood's insistence of casting leading men who are old enough to be the father; sometimes even grandfather, of the leading lady. It's disconcerting at best and creepy at worst.

I love old movies, partly for the fact that they rarely fail entirely and make me regret the time I spent watching them. And this is far from a fail; it's a fun movie and well worth a couple of hours of your time.

ANGELA MADE TIM READ: "Daddy-Long-Legs," by Jean Webster

 

TIM SAYS:

Since Angela and I became a couple (not counting the approximately one year period in which we were apparently dating without my being aware of it), she has commanded that I read Jane Austin novels, Anne of Green Gables and the Little House on the Prairie books. I've enjoyed them all--which is just another example of why she is The Perfect Wife.

So when she next handed me a copy of the 1912 novel Daddy-Long-Legs, I figured I would enjoy it as well. And, in fact, I did enjoy it.

It's an epistolary novel, collecting the letters of 17-year-old Jerusha (Judy) Abbott, who had grown up in an orphanage, but now has acquired a mentor who is paying her way through college.

The mentor insists on remaining anonymous. He's a trustee of the orphanage, but Judy only caught a single, brief glimpse of him. Told to write him regularly (with no expectation of the letters ever being answered), she dubs him "Daddy-Long-Legs."

Judy is a fun character--someone who reminds me a lot of Anne Shirley from Anne of Green Gables. Her letters are fun, sometimes jumping from one topic to another and sometimes rambling on a bit, but always full of humor and emotions we can relate to. Judy slowly builds up her own image of Daddy-Long-Legs and a one-sided but still very real sense of a father-daughter relationship builds.

I thought the ending, which includes an important revelation and a change from a father-daughter story into a love story, was a bit abrupt and not completely satisfying. But overall, the novel was a lot of fun to read and, as I've said, yet another indication that Angela is indeed The Perfect Wife.

ANGELA SAYS:

I read Daddy Long Legs as a young adult and remember enjoying it. So when I saw it on my bookshelf a couple of weeks ago; I thought it would be a good one for this blog. And BONUS, there is a movie version we could review also.

I found the book mostly how I remembered it. The letters and drawings are more juvenile than I recalled (which makes sense, because I was much younger when I read it then). But the zingers included in this one sided conversation are still amusing as an adult. I can understand, and sympathize with, a young girl's response to some heavy handed tactics used by an absent guardian. And I can also see the growing jealousy on the part of that absent guardian.

 

I agree with Tim, that the ending was a bit abrupt. I don't agree that he should have kept his role secret forever, but there wasn't much of a transition from guardian to fiance. Perhaps another few letters easing us into the knowledge would have improved the book.

 

Addendum,

 I discovered there is a sequel to Daddy Long Legs about Judy's college roommate, Dear Enemy. It is also an epistolary style book, and I found it to be even funnier and more witty. I would highly recommend you read both.

TIM MADE ANGELA WATCH: Father Goose (1964)

 

FATHER GOOSE (1964), starring Cary Grant & Leslie Caron. Written by Peter Stone and Frank Tarloff. Directed by Ralph Nelson

ANGELA SAYS:

This one didn't live up to my expectations. I found the first part of the movie very funny as Commander Houghton manipulated Eckland (Cary Grant) into becoming a reluctant coast watcher in the early days of WWII. The interactions between the two is hilarious, and the frustration of Lt. Stebbings as he tries to insist on proper radio protocol and code names is a good side joke. The first real issue I had with the movie was the small launch Eckland took to pick up his replacement. Once it was overloaded with another adult and seven children, of assorted sizes, there wouldn't have been any question about it's being swamped and sunk in the wake of the larger ships.

Once the school girls and Freneau (Leslie Caron) appeared on the scene it felt like a different movie. I felt like it became the typical “orphans sent to the inappropriate uncle movie”. They took over the island and refused to listen to Eckland, granted, they cleaned up and organized the hut. But Freneau refused to listen to anything Eckland said, even when it made sense. It felt like Eckland was the only one who was aware a war was on and the Japanese were coming any day. The children, especially the younger ones, get a pass here, but Freneau should have been much more careful with, and aware of, what the girls were doing.

Lastly, the romance felt contrived. It was like someone said, “Oh, this is supposed to be a ROMANTIC comedy, these two have to fall in love and get married.” I got much more of a brother/sister chemistry between Grant and Caron than a romantic couple. Even the “romantic” moments of the movie felt disjointed.

Overall, not one of my favorites. But (and it's a big but) no time spent with Cary Grant is ever wasted. He is one of my favorite classic-era stars.

TIM SAYS:

Angela is being too hard on the movie. For instance, the point that the dingy was overloaded when Eckland brought the ladies to the island was made in the movie and we see them frantically bailing out water to keep from sinking. Yes, there is an excellent chance they would have sunk in real life, but that would have been a pretty abrupt and depressinging ending. And Catherine not listening to Eckland even when he was giving them reasonable instructions (such as "Stay off the beach") fits her character and shows that she needed just as much character growth as he did. She was initially stuck up enough to automatically dismiss anything the "filthy beast" said.

Also, for a movie that is a broad comedy, I enjoyed that there were subtle examples of character growth, such as Eckland gradually beginning to do his job as a coast watcher without needing to be bribed with whiskey first.

The romance was indeed contrived, but it was hilarious--especially the wedding. I'm sure Angela would agree that our own wedding would have been infinitely more interesting if we had held the ceremony in a seedy hut in the South Pacific while being strafed by a Japanese Zero. That's everyone's dream wedding, by golly!

So for me, the romance gets a pass due to Rule of Funny, even if it fails to be romantic in any real-life sense. It is, after all, a comedy. 

Tim Makes Angela Watch: The Frisco Kid (1979)

 

The Frisco Kid (1979) Starring Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford. Directed by Robert Aldrich. Written by Michael Elias and Frank Shaw

TIM SAYS:

A very funny movie that seeds its humor with great characterizations and real emotion. In 1850, a Polish rabbi is sent to oversee the Jewish community in San Francisco. Landing by ship in Philadelphia, he has quite the oddysey treking across the nation, much of it in the company of a bank robber who becomes his loyal friend. The unlikely friendship the two form is the backbone of the movie, with the clever script and strong performances making us believe that they could indeed become friends.

What impresses me the most is that Avram (played by Gene Wilder) is the source of most of the movie's humor, but the laughs are generated in such a way that we never think of him as merely a clown. That he is a thoroughly decent and kindhearted man and a man of extreme faith is always obvious to us throughout the film. We laugh with the film without ever laughing at anyone.

ANGELA SAYS:

At first this movie seemed to have an odd combination of stars and setting. I don't think of either Harrison Ford or Gene Wilder as western hero types, but they both worked in this film. Ford played a thief with a heart of gold (in the prostitute with the heart of gold vein that is common in many westerns). At first Wilder seemed to be playing the obligatory gullible tinhorn that gets fooled by every schemer and conman within fifty miles. But it soon becomes apparent that Rabbi Avram isn't really that foolish; he just prefers to look for the good in people first.

At the beginning of the movie we see the Rabbinical council deciding who to send to San Francisco and Avram isn't at the bottom of their list; he isn't even on the list. But the head of the council overrules them and sends Avram anyway. One wonders if he just wanted to get this problem child out of his hair (Avram graduated 87th out of 88 students) or if he saw something in Avram. Because the one adjective to describe Rabbi Avram is persistence. He IS going to get to San Francisco; despite thieves who steal his money, no sense of direction whatsoever, and a “partner” who robs a bank along the way. Avram WILL get there. No matter the problems; he just keeps putting one foot in front of the other.

Tommy (Ford's character) feels sorry for Avram; afraid he would wind up back east or wandering in circles forever so he takes the Rabbi under his wing and guides him across the American prairie. We quickly come to see that Tommy isn't the hardened robber he tries to be because he refuses to leave Avram along the way, despite some provocation. Ford and Wilder are great as the unlikely friends, buddy movie duo and play well off of each other.

Each has a crisis of faith toward the end of the movie. Tommy learns that friendship is worth the problems it can create and the outlaw path isn't really what he wants. Avram learns that life can give you situations where there is no good solution, and it takes more than training to be a man of God.

The character development and friendship was believable and the religious people (Jewish and Amish primarily) were given the respect they deserve for their beliefs and not shown as kooks, simpletons or superstitious; something lacking in many modern movies. Although I would have preferred a movie with much cleaner language (initially some was justified to depict the gap between the two characters; in my opinion, it went too far and became unnecessary); I loved it.