Old Yorker

  • The Private Life of Henry VIII

    Alexander Korda (1933)

    I expected great things from Charles Laughton in the title role (and wasn’t disappointed).  I didn’t expect Alexander Korda’s film to be so good in other departments too.  An opening title card explains waggishly that Catherine of Aragon won’t put in an appearance – ‘her story is of no particular interest – she was a respectable woman’.  Besides, the huge political significance of the end of Henry’s marriage to Catherine doesn’t accord with the film’s prevailing jaunty spirit; and it’s important to the structure of the screenplay, by Korda’s fellow Hungarian Lajos Bíró and Arthur Wimperis, that The Private Life of Henry VIII is bookended by the beheadings of the two Henry queens to meet that fate, Anne Boleyn and Katherine [sic] Howard.  On both occasions, the crowds are out in force and include a spectator on whom Korda focuses.  Even though this character is unnamed and the actress who plays her (Toni Edgar-Bruce) was uncredited, she’s a telling illustration of the overall approach.

    As the stage is set for Anne’s execution, this well-spoken Tudor lady tells her husband how sorry she feels for the queen then perks up to ask the woman in front of her, ‘Would you mind removing your hat?  We can’t see the block’.   After the deed is done, she enthuses about Anne’s choice of dress.  The spectator’s social manner and turn of phrase are contemporary with 1933.  Her high-speed switches from sentimentality to ghoulish curiosity to frock appreciation mean she’s still recognisable as a particular breed of royalty fanatic.   I noticed at the start that the film originally received an ‘A’ (children to be accompanied by an adult) certificate from the BBFC and that seems right.  There’s some enjoyable broad comedy but Bíró’s and Wimperis’s dialogue is often sophisticated and there are plenty of double entendres.  It’s remarkable how comfortably the film accommodates the events of the story within a consistently comic frame – how it also manages to deploy anachronism and caricature without merely deriding the historical personages on the screen.  By coincidence, I watched the eighty-six-year-old The Private Life of Henry VIII in the same week that Yorgos Lanthimos’s The Favourite opened in British cinemas.  The Korda treatment of historical royal court shenanigans strikes me as the more sophisticated as well as the more likeable of the two.

    The modest timeframe of the film – from 1536 to the mid-1540s – draws attention to how back-loaded Henry’s matrimonial history was.  His marriage to Catherine of Aragon lasted twenty-four years (1509-33); the subsequent five marriages added up to fourteen.   The last of them, to Catherine Parr, began in 1543 and ended with Henry’s death in early 1547.  Charles Laughton is playing Henry from his mid-forties to his mid-fifties.  It no doubt helps that Laughton, thirty-three at the time, was prematurely heavy and the ageing make-up is good.  But this great actor ages beneath the make-up too.  Laughton rings the changes on the sustained childishness of Henry’s boundless egotism to persuasive and brilliantly entertaining effect.  In the early scenes, he’s insolently clever.  Later on, as he declines physically, he’s almost touchingly dependent and vulnerable.  Korda contrasts the king’s responses to the firing of the cannon that confirms his queen’s execution has taken place:  Henry is callously relieved that the wait for Anne Boleyn’s end is over, desolate and upset at the death of Katherine Howard.  Laughton’s development of character in the interim ensures this latter reaction is natural and credible.  His command of voice and gesture are a wonder.  This performance is famous for exuberant gluttonous demolition of roast fowl but watch Laughton too in his last, furtive encounter with a chicken leg when the scolding Catherine Parr has left the room.  The appetite is willing but the digestive apparatus by now pretty weak.   Charles Laughton won the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.  There can have been few wittier or more deserving recipients of the award.

    The project originally developed as a joint starring vehicle for Laughton and his wife Elsa Lanchester, who plays Anne of Cleves.  Then other queens were added to the recipe.  Lanchester is appealing and amusing:  the scene in which Henry and Anne play cards for money and move on to discussing terms of a divorce settlement is a real highlight.  (Anne comes out of both contests ahead.)  Merle Oberon has a nice combination of poise and fear in her brief appearance as Anne Boleyn.  Everley Gregg (best remembered for playing Dolly Messiter in Brief Encounter) is amusing in her even briefer turn as Catherine Parr.  It hardly matters that Wendy Barrie’s Jane Seymour makes little impression – she too isn’t around for long – but Katherine Howard is the queen with the most screen time and Binnie Barnes, though competent, is somewhat bland.  The affair between Katherine and Henry’s adviser Thomas Culpeper sits less comfortably than other parts of the narrative in the tonal scheme and Robert Donat seems uneasy as Culpeper.  The other key Thomases of the court manage to be distinctively amusing without camping things up – Franklin Dyall (Cromwell), Miles Mander (Wriothesley), Laurence Hanray (Cranmer).   John Loder is Anne of Cleves’s inamorato Peynell (yet another Thomas).   The film’s antiquity is reflected in the presence, as the king’s nurse, of the widow of Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree.  She’s even credited as Lady Tree.

    4 January 2019

  • 1985

    Yen Tan (2018)

    The title and the black-and-white cinematography aren’t the only yesteryear aspects of Yen Tan’s 1985.  The whole scenario – a young protagonist, returning to the family home after a lengthy absence, prepares to reveal a dark secret – has an antique flavour too.  The set-up and the nature of the secret also bring to mind Xavier Dolan’s more recent It’s Only the End of the World (2016) but the mood and style of 1985 are more predictable.  The sparse, sensitive piano score by Curtis Heath is an immediate indicator of what’s in store.  After a while, you can practically guess what the next camera movement will be.

    Like Jim Cummings’s Thunder Road, this feature derives from a more imaginatively conceived short film (although both versions of Cummings’s piece are better than either version of Tan’s).  In the nine-minute 1985, available on YouTube, it’s clear virtually from the start that Adrian (Robert Sella) is suffering from AIDS.  The bulk of the film comprises a visit to his home by a sympathetic cosmetician (Lindsay Pulsipher).  She applies make-up to the young man’s face to obscure the telltale Kaposi sarcoma patches before Adrian returns to his mother in Florida.  The film ends with his arrival at an airport; he looks into the camera and says, ‘Hi Mom’.   In the feature version, Adrian (Cory Michael Smith), after three years in New York, comes back to small-town Texas to spend Christmas with his parents (Virginia Madsen and Michael Chiklis) and younger brother Andrew (Aidan Langford).   The film covers the few days Adrian spends in Texas and concludes with his return to New York in spite of now being jobless there.  Adrian has already lost his partneri to AIDS and is himself terminally ill.

    His mother Eileen and father Dale are traditional parents for a gay son.  Eileen dotes on and fusses over Adrian.  Dale is ex-military (a Vietnam vet), blue collar, keen on sport, decidedly unkeen on anything arty-farty.  The dinner table conversation on the first night of Adrian’s stay turns to Andrew’s recent appearance in a school play.  He played the (male) lead in Arsenic and Old Lace, making his mother proud and his father embarrassed.  Andrew, in his early teens, looks all set to be gay too.  Both parents are devout churchgoers.  (The unresolved question of how much Adrian’s childhood faith persists is one of the stronger elements of the story.)  The family situation is, in other words, believable but not freshly insightful:  it’s clear the success of 1985 will depend heavily on how inventively Yen Tan develops the familiar combination of elements.  In the course of the film, both parents have surprises in store for Adrian but they’re sprung mechanically.  They’re not surprises for the audience once the writer-director’s peel-away-the-layers-of-disguise tactics have become obvious – as they soon do.

    Tan seems to want to blur the issues of Adrian’s sexual orientation and medical condition to keep us guessing whether both are still a secret from his family but the film is too unsubtle for this to work.  Dale’s evident discomfort in the presence of his elder son, from the moment he meets him at the airport, is hard to miss yet there’s a long delay before the father reveals, after a few drinks one night, what he already knows.  He was visiting New York a while ago; Adrian said he wasn’t free to meet up but Dale took a cab to his son’s address to check the area out and saw him outside the house kissing another man.  (Talk about a likely story …)  Even though he’s homophobic, Dale wants his son to know that he’ll always be there for him.   Up to this point, Yen Tan’s treatment of the father has been thoroughly negative.  In addition to being a Christian and a Republican, he’s a cheapskate (as the family’s opening of Christmas presents makes clear) and he snores.   From the point at which Dale says something nice to Adrian, all these defects vanish.

    His mother amazes and delights Adrian when she tells him she voted for Walter Mondale rather than Ronald Reagan in the previous year’s presidential election, though she hasn’t dared tell her husband.  A main reason for supporting Mondale, she says, was his support for equal rights.  This seems meant to introduce Eileen’s potential to accept her son’s sexuality but Tan’s screenplay is otherwise vague as to how and when she sees the light.  Early on, she is urging Adrian to renew what she clearly believes was a serious relationship with a local girl called Carly.  Quite late on, when Carly (Jamie Chung) calls at the family home, Eileen promptly excuses herself, as if to allow her and Adrian to get on with romantic business.  Her husband hasn’t told Eileen what he saw in New York because, Dale tells Adrian, it would break her heart.   At one point, Eileen and Adrian are preparing a meal in the kitchen, he cuts himself and, when his mother goes to get a plaster, quickly throws in the waste bin the food he’s been handling.  Eileen notices this when she returns to the kitchen.  She doesn’t comment but it appears to be all that she requires in  order to understand, assimilate and accept what Adrian is keeping from her.  As she drops him off at the airport for his flight back to New York, an emotional Eileen tells her son he can talk to her about things whenever he feels ready to.  Virginia Madsen and Cory Michael Smith play this farewell scene very well but to baffling effect.

    There are relationships and scenes in 1985 that make little or no sense.  On Adrian’s return home, Andrew is barely speaking to him.  From the moment that Adrian mentions a Madonna album (which Dale has forbidden his younger son to own), the brothers are simply the best of friends.   When Adrian first meets up again with Carly, she’s doing stand-up in a club in Houston (this is just to enable a distinctive couple of minutes – it doesn’t connect with anything that follows).  They have a drink; Adrian says he’s had a tough year but Carly doesn’t ask him to expand – it’s  not convenient from Yen Tan’s point of view for her to do so at this stage.  Carly and Adrian go back to her apartment.  She makes a move on him and he tells her ‘I just want to hang out’.   Carly gets very upset and indicates she doesn’t want to see Adrian again.  She seems to have had no inkling that he was gay:  it’s quite unclear what their earlier friendship amounted to – or why, after this exchange, she comes to Adrian’s parents’ home to apologise.  Well, the second thing isn’t really unclear:  Tan now needs someone for Adrian to confide in.

    The oddest sequence occurs when Adrian takes a bath and Eileen chats to him bath-side.   It brings to mind a good, funny scene in Steve Buscemi’s Lonesome Jim except that Tan doesn’t seem to have comic intentions.  Even if Eileen still regards her thirtyish elder son as a little boy, it seems highly unlikely he’d be comfortable for her infantilising side to express itself in this way.  It’s just as well the soap suds in the tub are nearly neck high:  in the very next scene Adrian, in the privacy of his bedroom, opens his bathrobe to the mirror and looks aghast.  The camera reveals the Kaposi patches on his chest in the later scene in which he tells all to Carly.  She instantly gets over her disappointment about not having the physical relationship she clearly wanted with him and confirms, like Dale, that she’ll always be there for Adrian.

    Both siblings have a skin condition – Andrew’s face is usually dotted with blobs of anti-acne cream – but the large age gap between them means things can work out better for the generation-younger brother.  Before he leaves for New York, Adrian makes a tape for Andrew that tells him how to cope with being different.  It might seem surprising that – in 1985 – helpful advice from an AIDS sufferer doesn’t also draw an adolescent’s attention to the advantages of safe sex.  Perhaps – in 2018 – that might be misunderstood as somehow qualifying gay pride.  This is the second film of the month welcome because it gives a lead role to a young actor who has shone in smaller parts.  Cory Michael Smith (Carol, Wonderstruck, Olive Kitteridge on television[1]) doesn’t, though, get the opportunities that  Lakeith Stanfield was offered and seized in Sorry to Bother You.  Smith gives a committed performance but Yen Tan locks him into the role.  Smith has a receding hairline and deep-set eyes.  From the first family meal scene onwards, Tan lights the doomed Adrian to suggest the skull beneath the skin.

    28 December 2018

    [1] I haven’t seen the TV series Gotham, for which Smith is probably more widely known.

Posts navigation