BOOK VS MOVIE: Ship of Fools

All the lonely people, where do they all come from? / All the lonely people, where to they all belong? So the song goes. Many pieces of fiction revolve around the lonely people of this big, bad world. If done poorly, it could be nothing more than cheap melodrama. Done properly, and it can make for quality drama.

So where does Ship of Fools fall? Focusing on the first-class passengers on a ship from Mexico to Europe, it chronicles their stormy pasts and uncertain futures. Set in the years before the start of World War II, it foreshadows the chaos that would consume the world with hate and violence.

Katherine Anne Porter's novel also focuses on other matters like racial and religious differences. A number of characters voice their opinions on the various ethnicities on board (read: they're openly racist) but this was written during a time of social change so Porter gets an exception in this regard. (Hey, literature gets away with a lot of things.)

Being made during the last few years of the Hays Code's existence, Stanley Kramer's adaptation is decidedly more cleaned up in comparison to Porter's novel. (At least with race and religion; it focuses way more on sex.) Boasting an all-star cast (including Vivien Leigh in her last film role), it's sort of like Grand Hotel set at sea. (An odd combination, perhaps, but it's true.)

Which is better? On the one hand, Porter explores the various complex lives of the passengers. (She also writes about prejudice without getting preachy.) But on the other hand, Kramer's film is decidedly easier to follow. (It also has more happier resolves than what Porter wrote.) Both have their triumphs and flaws so it appears there's one possible solution.

What's worth checking out?: The movie.

On the Beach

Years before John Frankenheimer made his "paranoia trilogy", Stanley Kramer had audiences on edge with his film On the Beach. Depicting the aftermath of nuclear war, Kramer provides commentary on an era when everyone was on edge, not knowing which country would push the button first.

Gregory Peck possesses a look of dread throughout On the Beach. That's because Towers lost his family from the radiation. He knows what kind of devastation it can cause. In fact, Peck himself was heavily opposed to nuclear weapons, so perhaps his beliefs were put into his work as Towers.

Ava Gardner plays Moira as a woman who accepts her fate but reluctantly. She drinks her worries away, but new ones emerge from each sip. She is worn out by what has happened and wants it all to end. A far cry from her glamorous roles, don't you think?

The two supporting actors are Anthony Perkins and Fred Astaire. Perkins plays his part with a sense of uncertainty. Like his famous role of Norman Bates, Peter wants to keep his future bright but each passing day makes it appear darker. Astaire is revelatory in his role. Gone are his days with Ginger Rogers, and here is a new stage in his career. His part of Julian displays a depth not many would've imagined as they watched Astaire dance in the years before. And it took him fifteen years afterwards to get nominated?

Like Kramer's other productions, On the Beach contains excellent work from its principal actors. Saying who gave the better performance is hard. That's because Kramer knew how to get great work from his ensemble casts. And the speech Julian gives on the world going crazy with nuclear weaponry is unsettling because it can be applied today, a whole fifty-three years later.

My Rating: *****

BOOK VS MOVIE: Inherit the Wind

There's always something so appealing about courtroom dramas. The points of view can vary from either one of the lawyers, the defendant or even a bystander.

Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's play Inherit the Wind was written during a time when one's ideal and beliefs must match everyone else's. Like Arthur Miller's The Crucible, Inherit the Wind was written during the height of McCarthyism. This of course was when anyone could be accused of being, for lack of a better word, "inhuman".

The writing style of Lawrence and Lee is very straightforward. Through the dialogue, the characters get their points very much across, and this very thing is still in effect for the film.

Stanley Kramer's adaptation, apart from a few minor additions here and there, stays true to the play. It stars Spencer Tracy and Frederic March as opposing lawyers in the re-telling of the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. Both are great in their roles, as with Gene Kelly in an excellent non-musical role. Of the trio, my favorite performances came from Tracy and Kelly mainly for their biting dialogue and their complete disinterest in the Bible.

Inherit the Wind is a great work, both on the page and screen. Lawrence and Lee's writing is fantastic, and Kramer's film garners impressive work from its three big stars. Choosing which is better is next to impossible.

What's worth checking out?: I'd go with both.

Judgment at Nuremberg

As well as the social dramas The Defiant Ones and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Stanley Kramer is also known for the star-studded courtroom drama Judgment at Nuremberg.

Retired American judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) has the task of choosing the fate of four German judges who used their offices to conduct Nazi sterilization and cleansing policies.

There were three performances in Judgment at Nuremberg that really impressed me. First off is Maximilian Schell as the defense attorney. He has dialogue that draws the audience to him. He literally commands the movie when he's on screen, so it's safe to say he rightfully earned that Oscar. The next one is Montgomery Clift as a victim of the Nazis' actions. He's only in the movie for one scene, but he floored me with that scene. The third actor is Burt Lancaster as one of the Germans on trial. He has a great speech towards the end that both deepened my appreciation for him and wondered why he wasn't nominated.

Along with the actors mentioned above, the cast includes Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich and Judy Garland. There's also a pre-Star Trek William Shatner in a supporting role. Even though it's over three hours long, Judgment at Nuremberg enthralls the audience from beginning to end. Kramer provides, pun intended, testimony on one of the most important trials of the 20th century.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Defiant Ones

Throughout the 1950's there have been a number of social dramas released, the most notable one being On the Waterfront. Stanley Kramer was one of the most prolific directors to work on the genre.

After the van transporting them drives off the road, convicts John "Joker" Jackson (Tony Curtis) and Noah Cullen (Sidney Poitier) escape. A chain between them prevents them from going their seperate ways, but that becomes second to their need to survive.

The subject matter may be dated, but the impact it had fifty-two years ago has held up. The performances by Curtis and Poitier are remarkable. Kramer's storytelling flourishes in this. The dialogue is sharp and biting, a remnant of the tensions of those times.

My Rating: *****

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Find the connection between these names. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. Doris Day and Rock Hudson. Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. If you guessed they're all famed actor pairings, you're right. I shall review the last movie the latter did together, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

Joanna "Joey" Drayton (Katharine Houghton) returns from a trip to Hawaii with her new fiance Dr. John Prentice (Sidney Poitier). Both are unsure of what their parents will think of their interracial relationship. Joey's mother Christina (Hepburn) approves, though her father Matt (Tracy) does not.

I really like it, but there was one thing that got on my nerves. It was the character of Joey. She's too damn perky. But apart from that, this is a very good movie. The performances from Poitier, Tracy and Hepburn are sensational.

My Rating: *****