The Reviewer Reviewed: Have You Seen: "The African Queen" (1951)

"Have You Seen..." by David Thomson is a collection of one page reviews/essays on various movies. Most of them he likes; some he doesn't, and some are of historical or cultural interest only. I own one of Thomson's previous books and he is entertaining to read, but he certainly has all the faults and more of the modern movie critic. That is: discursiveness, biographic inclusions, thinking with a part of the body not his brain, condescension, odd or stupid statements, and so forth. It's really obvious in a book like this.

That's not to say he doesn't make some very shrewd assessments of certain movies, and can coin telling phrases. One review of the book despised his assessment of most American movies as infantile. Well, sorry, a good many are, but I take the point that the English (and Thomson was born there) like to condescend to the Americans. Thomson does this frequently, and I might accept it more readily if the British cinema was better than it is (was).

So I thought I would discuss Thomson's reviews, and show how modern movie critics operate.

First up: "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948)

Seen this, and there's not much to say. It's early TV quality (which is to say, poor production values). The monsters were introduced to help a tired comedy team, and do the job only partially.

Thomson's take:

Biographical inclusion: He says he originally had started with "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", but a friend named Barker warned him it was an inappropriate choice for the first movie. Barker tells him he needs something wilder, something far greater or far sillier. [i.e. less dull and less middlebrow, or people won't buy the book, but he's not prepared to say this.] He claims Barker is delighted with "Abbot & Costello" instead. [i.e. It's all *his* fault]

The 'Say What?' Statement: "Deep down, we know that Bud has abused Lou--it is the secret in their films never quite arrived at."

Does he say what needs to be said? Only obliquely.

Verdict: 1/5 Thomson is not prepared to say the obvious, which is that he enjoys certain crappy movies.

 

2. "Ace in the Hole" (1951)

Seen this, too. It's not a happy film to say the least.

Thomson's take:

Biographical inclusion: This time, it's a biography of Wilder, which is more to the point.

Stupid Rhetorical Question: "Is it a boast of being free of Brackett [Wilder's writing partner], or a kind of self-loathing at the way he got free? Did Wilder want more credit or more of the money?" Self-loathing is definitely involved here, but I don't think for this reason.

Does he say what needs to be said? Yes. "...this [is] a deeply misanthropic film..."

Does he make a good point? Yes. "What is remarkable is that Wilder is uttering these curses from the pulpit of great success."

Verdict: 3/5 You can also say that if Wilder had a reason to be bitter--or more to the point, guilty (his mother died in Auschwitz), he didn't choose a profession awash with the milk of human kindness. If his mother was trapped, he didn't rescue her, either. And could not quite bring himself to exploit her fate (by directing "Schindler's List"). The nasty fate of Tatum is what he feels *he* deserves, perhaps.

 

You see, this is more or less the book I'd like to write; a look at the canon of literature, film and music in a pithy, witty way. I haven't read this one though.

I liked Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein; probably their best film.

 

3. "Act of Violence" (1948)

Thomson's take:

Biographical inclusion: none

Stupid Rhetorical Question: none

Does he say what needs to be said? Yes. "...a tough, tight script, done economically and effectively, doing its damaging bit to present a real Americana, crowded with weak people and desperate compromises."

Does he make a good point? Yes. "...the one person who knows that bad character and bad luck usually prevail."

Verdict: 4/5 He likes the film, and it hasn't had much attention. I think he is too hard on Zinnemann's subsequent career, though I do know what he means. I generally used to roll my eyes when I heard his name, too. However, TCM is showing some of his early stuff, which is quite interesting, and he did documentaries, too. And for every "High Noon" and "The Old Man and the Sea" (the first pretty schematic, the second just plain misfire), there's a "The Nun's Story" or "The Sundowners". So he's worth looking at again.

 

4. "Adam's Rib" (1949)

Thomson's take:

Biographical inclusion: none

Stupid Rhetorical Question: none

Does he say what needs to be said? Yes. "As with "The Philadelphia Story", this could end very badly if Amanda goes another inch too far."

Does he make a good point? Yes. "One reason why Cukor's comedies are so good is that he seldom set out as if he didn't believe in human or dramatic substance."

But(and it's a big but): What is that about it being okay for Holliday to shoot her husband in order to 'defend her home'? It appears that Hepburn could have used temporary insanity. Also, David Wayne is amusing, but I can't see Tracy being sexually jealous of him, just sayin'.

Verdict: 3/5

 

4. "Adaptation" (2002)

Thomson's take:

Biographical inclusion: Thomson tells a boring & self-serving story about this movie, saying it was the last inclusion in the book, and only because two screenwriters, friends of his, wanted it. He makes fun of screenwriters wanting it all and their strong self-regard, ironic words from a notoriously self-indulgent writer.

Stupid Rhetorical Question: none

Does he say what needs to be said? No. He's too busy being condescending to all.

Does he make a good point? No.

Verdict: 0/5

 

4. "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938)

Thomson's take: He does one of those reviews than combine condescension with genuine love of the movie involved.

Biographical inclusion: N/A

Stupid Rhetorical Question: "What is sword fighting but pure fun?"

The 'Say What?' Statement: "Sometimes knowing everyone wants you is enough."

Does he say what needs to be said? It's hard to tell, he's so busy being ashamed of the fact he loves this movie, and as a result throws up clouds of silly verbiage and indirection.

Does he make a good point? Yes, the score is great, as is the direction and the cinematography.

Verdict: 2/5

 

5. "Advise and Consent" (1962)

Thomson's take: He nails this one.

Biographical inclusion: N/A

Stupid Rhetorical Question: N/A

The 'Say What?' Statement: N/A

Does he say what needs to be said? Yeah.

Does he make a good point? "Here is the calm antidaote to the rising hysteria in Frank Capra's Washington films. For whereas his idealism was a brittle front for reaction, self-pity, and a refusal to play ball with politics, so this Otto Preminger film is a cool, ironic portrait of an argumentative chamber set on compromise, bargaining and a final adherence to the virtues of the Code. Democracy is hard work, not righteousness. It is always middling, muddling, and sociable...."

Verdict: 5/5


I've seen this movie, though not for years. Splendid cast, which includes Henry Fonda, Charles Laughton, Walter Pigeon, Don Murray, Lew Ayres, Franchot Tone, Paul Ford, Gene Tierney, Peter Lawford, Burgess Meredith and George Grizzard.

 

5. "The African Queen" (1951)

Thomson's take: He doesn't really give one, other to say that the picture lacks plausibility.

Biographical inclusion: N/A

Stupid Rhetorical Question: N/A

The 'Say What?' Statement: N/A

Does he say what needs to be said? No.

Does he make a good point? No again. He spends a lot of time giving the history of the film's production (as to that: who cares?) and the relationship between Huston and Spiegel (the producer).

Verdict: 0/5

 

I don't know. Plausibility is the least of this movie's problems. Bogart got an Oscar for one of his schtickiest performances. Hepburn is better, but still a little broad. And the movie doesn't have much energy, oddly enough. I think the film itself is pretty wildly overrated.