tomsview
Joined Dec 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings751
tomsview's rating
Reviews751
tomsview's rating
There are scenes in this movie that made me glad I only ever saw it on TV. I know if I'd been sitting in a packed theatre back in the day as Francie Nolan finally gives way to her grief or when Jimmy Nolan makes the sickly little girl in the new dress feel like a princess, the lump in my throat would have led to audible gulps.
"A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", based on Betty Smith's novel, is a testament to the power of cinema to move you. Francie Nolan, a young girl growing up in the teaming tenements of Brooklyn in 1912 is torn between her alcoholic father, Johnny, full of charm and unrealistic dreams, and a mother who accepts the realities of their existence, but who seems harder than she really is.
The film was a combination of many talents and a script that caught the essence of a large, complex novel, but especially how a new director helped his cast of actors give performances that seared them into the memory.
"Miracles", is what director Elia Kazan called the casting of James Dunn as Johnny Nolan and Peggy Ann Garner as Francie. Although there were only 16 years between Peggy Ann Garner and Dorothy McGuire playing her mother, Katie, in the novel their ages are given as 11and 29 respectively. Dorothy McGuire was fine. She also brought an ethereal sadness to the role.
However, Kazan added this about his part in realising performances that seemed to go beyond acting, "You can't get it out of them if it's not in them".
In his autobiography, "Elia Kazan: A Life", Kazan admitted he needed technical help on this his first film, but Kazan, with acclaimed stage productions behind him, was the right person to guide the performers in breathing life into Betty Smith's characters.
In that powerful scene where Francie breaks down at her graduation, Kazan wasn't beyond using painful methods; he wanted Peggy Ann Garner to think how she would feel if she lost her own father who was serving in the War (he did return). He also chose James Dunn sensing the actor's drinking problem would add truth to the portrayal of his character.
Time has added another layer of poignancy to Peggy Ann Garner's performance knowing she died aged just 52.
Despite overwhelming praise, Kazan who had seen poverty in the South and in the Tennessee coal fields, worried that the film emerged as "poverty all cleaned up". At a time when he was dealing with rifts in his own family, Betty Smith's novel had touched him deeply, and he could also have been reacting to the pairing down of the novel, some passages of which dealt with sex, adulterous affairs and even child abuse. However, none of that was going into a 1945 movie.
Nevertheless, Kazan praised the "miracles" and all the others. Maybe he was simply too close to a film that many feel is one of the most heart-wrenchingly beautiful ever.
The film was remade in 1974, with just about the same script, but we are conscious of the acting. In Kazan's film, we are only conscious of the characters.
"A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", based on Betty Smith's novel, is a testament to the power of cinema to move you. Francie Nolan, a young girl growing up in the teaming tenements of Brooklyn in 1912 is torn between her alcoholic father, Johnny, full of charm and unrealistic dreams, and a mother who accepts the realities of their existence, but who seems harder than she really is.
The film was a combination of many talents and a script that caught the essence of a large, complex novel, but especially how a new director helped his cast of actors give performances that seared them into the memory.
"Miracles", is what director Elia Kazan called the casting of James Dunn as Johnny Nolan and Peggy Ann Garner as Francie. Although there were only 16 years between Peggy Ann Garner and Dorothy McGuire playing her mother, Katie, in the novel their ages are given as 11and 29 respectively. Dorothy McGuire was fine. She also brought an ethereal sadness to the role.
However, Kazan added this about his part in realising performances that seemed to go beyond acting, "You can't get it out of them if it's not in them".
In his autobiography, "Elia Kazan: A Life", Kazan admitted he needed technical help on this his first film, but Kazan, with acclaimed stage productions behind him, was the right person to guide the performers in breathing life into Betty Smith's characters.
In that powerful scene where Francie breaks down at her graduation, Kazan wasn't beyond using painful methods; he wanted Peggy Ann Garner to think how she would feel if she lost her own father who was serving in the War (he did return). He also chose James Dunn sensing the actor's drinking problem would add truth to the portrayal of his character.
Time has added another layer of poignancy to Peggy Ann Garner's performance knowing she died aged just 52.
Despite overwhelming praise, Kazan who had seen poverty in the South and in the Tennessee coal fields, worried that the film emerged as "poverty all cleaned up". At a time when he was dealing with rifts in his own family, Betty Smith's novel had touched him deeply, and he could also have been reacting to the pairing down of the novel, some passages of which dealt with sex, adulterous affairs and even child abuse. However, none of that was going into a 1945 movie.
Nevertheless, Kazan praised the "miracles" and all the others. Maybe he was simply too close to a film that many feel is one of the most heart-wrenchingly beautiful ever.
The film was remade in 1974, with just about the same script, but we are conscious of the acting. In Kazan's film, we are only conscious of the characters.
I'm amazed at the number of reviews that exhibit disappointment over this movie; they feel that a work of art, the original "Gladiator" has received the tomato soup treatment.
But when you accept that what we have here seems more inspired by the Italian Peplum genre of the 50s and 60s, AKA Sword-and-Sandals movies, it gets its own space; it's Peplum on steroids, spectacular, but Peplum nonetheless; look at the ending.
We should give it a proper Peplum name, "Il figlio do Gladiatore" ("The Son of Gladiator"), a classier companion to classics such as "Il figlio do Spartacus" ("The Son of Spartacus") and "I Dieci gladiatori" ("The Ten Gladiators").
As Paul Mescal as Lucius and Pedro Pascal as Acacius square off, you can almost feel the presence of Steve Reeves, Gordon Scott and Roger Browne in those short-short tunics with bulging thigh muscles and wedge-shaped torsos sorting out the Roman Empire, despite their speech being out of sync and their voices dubbed by guys more used to reading the six o'clock news.
Despite plenty of comment that "Glad II" seems to be swinging off the toga of the original, I think the main reason the first film remains superior is its spiritual quality; Peplum doesn't do spiritual, it does action. Maximus' longing for his lost family and idyllic Spanish estate permeated that earlier film. Richard Harris' ailing Marcus Aurelius also exuded a philosophical detachment that added to the effect. Maximus' wife was a tragic victim while Lucius' missus is an Amazon giving as good as she gets.
Peplum also doesn't do subtlety, but Denzel Washington as Macrinus is the breakaway from the ultra-serious protagonists around him. Not historically accurate? No problem, nothing else is either.
As for Connie Neilson as Lucilla, we marvel at how lightly the last twenty-five years rest on her. For crazy emperor research, Caracalla and Geta, no need to go back further than Jay Robinson in "Demetrius and the Gladiators".
That aside, Ridley Scott, like a Roman impresario back in 211 AD, had to up the ante in the arena. The crowds are getting jaded. Since Ridley put bums back on seats in the Colosseum in 2000, there has been much gladiator action. Ridley must have thrown the toys around when Roland Emmerich's "Those About to Die" mini-series beat him to the punch. Now the sand of the arena isn't enough, it has to be flooded. You can almost hear Ridley telling Roland that he may have the Circus Max and crocodiles, but he's got Ancient Roman LCI's (Landing Craft Infantry), baboons and the midday show featuring a gladiator riding a rhino. Top that!
"Gladiator II" is rocking the box office. So just as the ancients had to constantly be enticed by new novelties, these gladiator movies are doing the same thing to us today.
But when you accept that what we have here seems more inspired by the Italian Peplum genre of the 50s and 60s, AKA Sword-and-Sandals movies, it gets its own space; it's Peplum on steroids, spectacular, but Peplum nonetheless; look at the ending.
We should give it a proper Peplum name, "Il figlio do Gladiatore" ("The Son of Gladiator"), a classier companion to classics such as "Il figlio do Spartacus" ("The Son of Spartacus") and "I Dieci gladiatori" ("The Ten Gladiators").
As Paul Mescal as Lucius and Pedro Pascal as Acacius square off, you can almost feel the presence of Steve Reeves, Gordon Scott and Roger Browne in those short-short tunics with bulging thigh muscles and wedge-shaped torsos sorting out the Roman Empire, despite their speech being out of sync and their voices dubbed by guys more used to reading the six o'clock news.
Despite plenty of comment that "Glad II" seems to be swinging off the toga of the original, I think the main reason the first film remains superior is its spiritual quality; Peplum doesn't do spiritual, it does action. Maximus' longing for his lost family and idyllic Spanish estate permeated that earlier film. Richard Harris' ailing Marcus Aurelius also exuded a philosophical detachment that added to the effect. Maximus' wife was a tragic victim while Lucius' missus is an Amazon giving as good as she gets.
Peplum also doesn't do subtlety, but Denzel Washington as Macrinus is the breakaway from the ultra-serious protagonists around him. Not historically accurate? No problem, nothing else is either.
As for Connie Neilson as Lucilla, we marvel at how lightly the last twenty-five years rest on her. For crazy emperor research, Caracalla and Geta, no need to go back further than Jay Robinson in "Demetrius and the Gladiators".
That aside, Ridley Scott, like a Roman impresario back in 211 AD, had to up the ante in the arena. The crowds are getting jaded. Since Ridley put bums back on seats in the Colosseum in 2000, there has been much gladiator action. Ridley must have thrown the toys around when Roland Emmerich's "Those About to Die" mini-series beat him to the punch. Now the sand of the arena isn't enough, it has to be flooded. You can almost hear Ridley telling Roland that he may have the Circus Max and crocodiles, but he's got Ancient Roman LCI's (Landing Craft Infantry), baboons and the midday show featuring a gladiator riding a rhino. Top that!
"Gladiator II" is rocking the box office. So just as the ancients had to constantly be enticed by new novelties, these gladiator movies are doing the same thing to us today.