Last Showdown | When Actors Just Completed The Movie | Under Lens

Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight: Much fabled last performance as maniacal Joker and stories which followed to release of The Dark Knight, rarely an actor literally overshadowed the lead actor by his real life absence. Bruce Wayne saw the real world. Images are revered. Heath Ledger whose claim to fame before Joker came along was his role in eternally romantic Brokeback Mountain. When Joker came by, he was a difficult choice for many film buffs but Heath was able to play that character even better than any predecessor with his determination and reclusiveness. As drug overdose news came by, people were not surprised. Such was Joker’s impression.

 

Balraj Sahni – Garam Hava: Traumatized by his own daughter’s death, one of the finest actors of Hindi Cinema played an intense role of a Muslim trader who is not ready to go to Pakistan. For him, India remains land of dreams and aspirations. Place he calls country. That must be a poignant moment when he played the scene where his on-screen daughter dies as well. Balraj Sahni’s Salim Mirza is one of Indian Cinema’s iconic character who embodies the torment of millions who suffered the birth of nation by means of partition and were forced to keep a strong face. In an alternate world, they too would have cried profusely in the darkest and remotest corner of house.

 

Spencer Tracy – Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner: Known for a likeable personality exuding drama and bravado without gruesomeness, Spencer Tracy, in last leg of his career, chose films which had an everlasting impact on the social dynamics. Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner was one such film. As Matt Drayton he highlights the dilemma of a father who is at crossroads of his own teachings. As an open-minded person he always asked his daughter to treat people as equals irrespective of race and creed. But he never imagined that his daughter can fall in love with someone who is not white. Tracy and Hepburn strongly believed in the civil rights and despite of Tracy’s failing health, they fought his illness and completed the film.

 

 

 

 

 

Inherit The Wind | Monkey Trial | The Critique

How man appeared on world? Like what Bible tells us or what Charles Darwin explored and concluded. Creation versus evolution. Based on a real life incident where John Scopes is arrested in Dayton, Tennesse for teaching evolution, Inherit The Wind questioned prevalent McCarthyism and practices. Inherit The Wind is not very hard hitting. It subtly puts forward a rational point. It doesn’t rely on lengthy speeches. It, rather, tries to provoke grey cells of viewer. It asks that isn’t like all fundamental rights, right to think is equally important?

 

School teacher Cates is caught for teaching Evolution. Teaching Evolution is prohibited. Mediaperson Hornback decides to back Cates for both personal and professional reason. Col. Brady is brought to prosecute Cates. Brady is a highly respected, failed presidential candidate and Biblical scholar. He is doesn’t believe in Evolution and wants to make a point. However, to support cause of Cates, one of his old friends turned rival Henry Drummond decide to defend Cates and Evolution. Since law questions Cates stand, witnesses advocating Evolution are not admissible. Drummond questions the partition between the ideologies and question the literal interpretation of the Book.

 

Spencer Tracy and Fredric March deliver fine performances as competing lawyers. Their mutual admiration for each other as actor and person is visible. Director Stanley Kramer picked another meaningful subject and made a relevant movie. Spencer Tracy and Stanley Kramer teamed up for many projects – remarkable pieces of cinema, Inherit The Wind was first of them. Inherit The Wind works on two levels – at one level it makes a point that with time one need to see beyond existing knowledge and accept the changes in theory, at another level it supports the argument that one has the right to have an opinion and share it with others.

 

Written By: Sujoy Ghosh

Adam's Rib | Delightful | The Critique

This movie happens to feature on every respected list of good movies especially the romantic comedies. The question is why? There is nothing exceptional about it. The story build up is average. The dialogues are way short to be termed as brilliant. Atleast by the standards the era had. Waht makes Adam's Rib such an experience - one word - Chemistry. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn - Hollywood's most successful pair had a face off in court in this courtroom drama cum romantic comedy.

 

Doris tries to kill her husband Warren when he is with his girlfriend. The news gets space in paper. Married lawyer couple Adam and Amanda read it in morning. Adam (Tracy) doesn't approve of Doris' act. Amanda (Hepburn) supports her saying that world is unfair to women. To worsen and augment the argument, Adam and Amanda find themselves as prosecution and defense lawyers in the case. Their neighbour Kip who flirts with Amanda causes more problems for them. What happens when a couple find themselves on two opposite sides of courtroom.

 

The amazing chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn has filled tons of paper with adjectives. This movie is a fine example why they are held with such regard. Together their capabilities multiply. The story develops beautifully. Writers take their time to explore their affection and insecurities. It is one of those movies you can watch many times without fatigue. One of the greatest romances, one of the greatest comedies.

 

Written By: Sujoy Ghosh

Judge Dan Haywood In Judgment at Nuremberg | Actor's Eye

Saw an awesome court room drama recently, “Judgment at Nuremberg”. Crisp script, nice characterization and some wonderful acting clubbed along with some hidden aural and visual hints made it a memorable experience. The story is about trial of four Nazi judges, for war crimes, by an Allies court lead by Americans.

 

Unlike many of the court room dramas I have seen till date, especially the ones from Bollywood which have either the prosecutor or the defense or the victims or some witness in the lead, this one has something new to offer where it deals with the turmoil and confusion of “Your Honour” during a trial.

 

Played by Spencer Tracy, the character, Chief Judge Dan Haywood, visits Germany for the first time and gets to learn about the culture, the people, the circumstances and about “The Germany” before, during and after the “Hitler” era. How Judge Haywood is influenced, is in turmoil and at times confused by the proceedings but yet remains truthful to the call of duty and gives a judgment based on the ultimate truth is what the script deals in. The character is soft at heart , who receives and gets love and respect in the course of time, when he is outside the court and at the same time he is also a person with strong will power and one who is firm about and stands for his decisions whether they please people around him or not. He is humble, he is down to earth and he is polite with ladies and he is also one who knows how to get the “order” right inside the court.

 

Judge Haywood in short has been shown to be the epitome of justice and Spencer Tracy, as usual, has done proper justice with the judge. The elegance through body language, the pride and authority through voice and the confusion through expressions he has depicted all and depicted all very well.  All in all a good character and a good performance in a well scripted and well directed movie makes it a pleasure to watch.

 

Written By: Gaurav Karmakar

Hans Rolfe Monologue Defending Holocaust Criminals | My Take | Under Lens

When wars are fought, there are more than few people responsible. In Judgment at Nuremberg, when Ernst Janning accepts the responsibility of Holocaust and regrets the decisions made by him for the greater purpose, defense attorney Hans Rolfe doesn’t have much to say. It’s a lost battle. But then he delivers one of the finest statements in courtroom drama pictured on silver screen.

Hans Rolfe tries to put pieces in picture in right order. The decisions taken by Judges being tried were wrong if calibrated against the laws established post war. However, they were in accordance with the letters of laws established in Nuremberg with a state policy and ideology in mind. If the spirit or intent behind those decisions has to be taken into account, many more entities should face the trial and that would bring everyone in front of law.

This scene is a masterpiece. Not many monologues have this kind of impact on viewers. When Maximilian Schell raced ahead of Spencer Tracy for Academy Awards, I have a reason to believe that this scene played a very important role in tilting the trophy towards the Austrian actor. Each word is placed beautifully. The sequence of events, as stated by Rolfe, has an impact on the viewer. At some point one might consider giving a waiver to the culprits. He states the facts and puts across the reason why court should be lenient. He becomes a little aggressive and one can see the German pride in his moist eyes. He vents out his anger at the other factors which helped Third Reich and later fought against it.

Maximilian Schell had a tremendous control over his body language. As he speaks, sweat on his temple, anger in his eyes and lump in his throat evokes emotions in audience. He earns respect for his ability to justify a gross wrongdoing to the humanity and at a later point, in a rhetoric condemn this respect is highlighted. In Judgment at Nuremberg,  Maximilian Schell fought against the tide and sailed well.

Written By: Sujoy Ghosh