Gregory wrote:
An odd thing I've noticed about Hawks is that for every single film he made there's at least one person knowledgeable about Hawks's oeuvre who will value that film extremely highly. It seems to go beyond the much more common practice of half-heartedly sticking up for a reviled film by a great director by saying just that it's not all that terrible or that it had some good moments. An example of this is Glenn Erickson praising Land of the Pharaohs to the skies -- and not really as great camp but as great filmmaking.
I had a professor who vigorously defended
Monkey Business (to my eyes the worst Hawks film), but hated
Bringing Up Baby! I think like Hitchcock or Preminger, Hawks' oeuvre gives different viewers different pleasures. I doubt any two people who've seen the majority of Hawks' work could produce the same Top 5. Even Hawks' weaker films prove to be at very least entertaining (Of the thirty Hawks films I've seen, only
the Thing From Another Planet dragged for me), and that's honestly the only defense I could be able to muster for
Land of the Pharaohs: As ridiculous as it all is, it's undeniably entertaining as hell!
Gregory wrote:
Anyway, domino, what did you like so much about A Song is Born? It's probably as good a time as any to reassess it, what with the new DVD.
I went in very skeptical, so firstly the film had that most unpredictable of pluses in its column-- it exceeded low expectations. But as the film progressed and I realized it wasn't going to be awful, I found myself uncontrollably won over by the film. The switch from grammar to music not only works, it makes more sense than in the original, and the payoffs are more satisfying. I think the secret to enjoying the remake is realizing that unlike the original, it isn't very interested in laughs, so the pacing is different. The two leads of Kaye and Mayo, who are of limited range, function better in the roles than Cooper and Stanwyck (the exception here is Dan Duryea's weasly muscle-man, who
is missed). The actors are very dynamic in the original, but in the remake the roles are more properly flat and subdued. Now, there's something to be said about star performances of course.
Ball of Fire is, as I said, a great film. But the changes made by Hawks in the remake prove to be more satisfying choices on the whole.