Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A DOUBLE LIFE has developed a mystique among film fans for two reasons: the plot idea of an actor getting so wrapped up into a role (here Othello) as to pick up the great flaw of that character and put it into his life; and that this is the film that won Ronald Colman the Academy Award (as well as the Golden Globe) as best actor. Let's take the second point first.

Is Anthony John Colman's greatest role, or even his signature role? I have my doubts on either level - but it is among his best known roles. Most of his career, Ronald Colman played decent gentlemen, frequently in dangerous or atypical situations. He is Bulldog Drummond (cleaned up in the Goldwyn production not to be an arrogant racist) fighting crime. He is Raffles, the great cricket player and even greater burglar, trying to pull off his best burglary to save a friend's honor. He is Robert Conway, the great imperial political figure, who is kidnapped and brought to that paradise on earth, Shangri-La. He is Dick Heldar, manfully going to his death after he learns his masterpiece has been destroyed and knowing he is now blind and useless as an artist. I can add Sidney Carton and Rudolf Rassendyll to this list. But here he is not heroic. In fact he is unconsciously villainous - he murders one person and nearly kills two others. It does not matter that he is obviously mentally ill - his behavior here is anti-social.

To me Colman should have gotten the Oscar for Heldar, or Carton, or Conway - all more typical of his acting roles. But the Academy has a long tradition of picking atypical roles for awarding it's treasure to it's leading members. Colman's Anthony John is a very good performance, and at one point truly scary. When alone with Signe Hasso in her home, she at the top of a staircase and him at the base, they have an argument. She demands that "Tony" leave, saying she won't see him. He stares at her, his face oddly hardening in a way he never used before, and he says, "Oh, no you won't!" He starts moving upstairs, frightening Hasso, and she runs into her room. He stops himself and leaves. It actually is the real highpoint of his performance - even more than his assaulting of Hasso on stage, or of Edmond O'Brien, or his killing of Shelley Winters. It showed his blind fury. For that moment it was (to me) an Oscar-worthy performance. But it is only that moment. I'm glad he was recognized for the role, but he should have gotten the award for a more consistent performance.

His actual performance in the Shakespearian role of Othello is not great, but bearable. Too frequently he lets the dialog roll off his tongue in a kind of forced singing style (one wonders if that was due to the coaching of Walter Hampden, who probably knew how to handle the role properly, or a reaction to it). Nowadays "Othello" is played by an African American actor more frequently than a white one. Paul Robeson's brilliant performance in the role set that new tradition firmly into place. But the three best known movie performances of the part are those of Colman, Orson Welles in his movie of OTHELLO, and Laurence Olivier in his movie of his play production of OTHELLO. All three white actors did the role in black face. My personal favorite of the three is Welles, who seems the most subtle. But even watching Welles' fine film version makes me angry that Robeson never got to put his performance (with Jose Ferrer as Iago) on film.

Now the first question - can an actor get that wrapped up in a role? I heard different things about this. Some actors have admitted taking a role home with them from the theater or movie set. Others have found a role they have to be stimulating, influencing them on a new cause of action regarding their lives or some aspect of life. But actually I have never heard of anyone who turned homicidal as the result of a role. It seems a melodramatic, hackneyed idea.

As a matter of fact it was not a new idea in 1947 with Cukor, Kanin, and Gordon. In 1944 a "B" feature, THE BRIGHTON STRANGLER, starring John Loder, had used a similar plot about an actor who is playing an infamous "Jack the Ripper" type, and who starts committing those type of killings after an accident affects his mind. There was an earlier movie in the 1930s, in which an actor playing Othello gets jealous of his wife (I think the title was MEN ARE NOT GODS, but I'm not sure). But due to Colman's name and career, and Cukor's directing, it is A DOUBLE LIFE that people think of when they recall this plot idea. It even reached comedy (finally) on an episode of CHEERS, where Diane Chambers is helping an ex-convict who may have acting talent, and they put on OTHELLO at the bar, just after he sees her with Sam Malone kissing. Only Diane is aware of the personality problem of the ex-convict, and can't delay the production long enough (she tries to start a discussion into the history and symbolism of the play).

The cast of A DOUBLE LIFE was first rate, and Cukor's direction was as sure as ever. So the film is definitely worth watching. But despite giving Colman an interestingly different role, it was not his best work on the screen.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It's so rare to find a literary work adequately translated to the screen that I may have rated this film higher than it deserves, but not by much. As a long-time student of Vonnegut's works, I have no hesitation in recommending the film to his readers, at least to those that love him as I do. The casting is inspired: Nolte is understated in triumph, bewildered in defeat, decisive in judgment. Sheryl Lee is luscious throughout, but her handling of the treacherous Resi and her tragic crescendo almost makes you forget her beauty. Alan Arkin delivers a totally lovable, but equally treacherous, Soviet spy.

Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.

Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.

Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts).
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of "riding giants," but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.

In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is "Never surf/dive/swim by yourself." He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left.

In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world.

This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is!