PAYMENT ON DEMAND (1951)

 

When discussing a major movie star like Bette Davis, no title in her filmography can be called minor or insignificant. Laborious, plodding, and tedious, perhaps, but not insignificant. PAYMENT ON DEMAND is significant because it was the first film Miss Davis made after leaving Warner Brothers, ending an eighteen-year tenure at that studio. Her career had been spectacular, earning her two Academy Awards for Best Actress and five more nominations. She had several years of apprenticeship in B movies and a famous court battle with the studio along the way, but through hard work and determination, not to mention an amazing talent, she had become probably the most distinguished actress in Hollywood. From the late 1930s and into the mid-1940s, she had one successful film after another. In the late 1940s, however, she began to struggle. When studio head Jack Warner assigned her to BEYOND THE FOREST in 1949, a film she desperately did not want to do, she asked for her release when the film was finished.

For her first film as an independent actress, Davis returned to RKO Radio Pictures, the studio where she had made OF HUMAN BONDAGE in 1934, in a role that showed the world what a powerful talent she was. As the cold, manipulative Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers, she brought forth an intensity that shocked audiences and won her critical accolades. Her new RKO assignment would be quite different.

Davis plays Joyce Ramsey, a San Francisco socialite who is married to a successful attorney, David Ramsey (Barry Sullivan). They have two grown daughters. Joyce became a dedicated social climber when she married David, who was then struggling to get his law practice started in partnership with his friend, Bob Townsend (Kent Taylor). When a businessman comes to the law office requesting Bob to handle the patent for his new product, Joyce, who is working as the secretary, convinces the man to hire David instead, lying about his experience with patents. When David and Bob learn of her deception, Bob leaves the firm and the two friends are estranged. 

Joyce's social ambitions and control over her husband's life and career cause a strain in their marriage. When their children are grown, he asks for a divorce and moves out of their house. Joyce hires a detective and learns that David has a mistress, Eileen Benson (Frances Dee). Joyce asks for David's entire fortune as a divorce settlement, threatening to sue him and cause a scandal over his infidelity.

When she goes on a long vacation, Joyce comes to understand what her life would be like as a wealthy divorcee. She begins seeing a charming, attractive man (John Sutton), only to find out he's married and looking for a mistress who has money. She also visits a fellow social climber, now divorced and living a miserable life as an alcoholic and getting her kicks from a young gigolo. When Joyce and David are reunited at the wedding of one of their daughters, she regrets the mistakes she made, and David asks her for a reconciliation. While Joyce wants nothing more than to be with her husband that night, she asks him to wait a few days to make sure he really wants to come back to her. David walks away with a happy smile on his face, indicating that he already knows what his decision is going to be.

This is pure soap opera from start to finish, although that isn't problematic. Soap operas can be loads of fun, if done correctly, but that isn't the case here. The story is told in a series of flashbacks as Joyce looks back over the beginning of her marriage, the birth of her children, and the conflicts with David that led to their unhappiness. Though the movie is only 90 minutes long, it seems much longer. There is absolutely no romantic or sexual chemistry whatsoever between Davis and Sullivan. Watching these two people interact makes one wonder what possibly caused them to get married in the first place and, in later years, how they can stand to be in the same room with each other. Barry Sullivan tries to bring some life and believability to his character, but it's an uphill battle, as the role is poorly written and doesn't give him much to work with. As for Davis, by this point in her career, she had settled into an almost regal acting persona where all of her characters seemed to be the same. They may have had different names and been involved in different plots, but all of them were played in the same imperious manner and delivering their dialogue in the same clipped speaking voice that had become the actress's trademark sound. Now, for those of us who love Bette Davis, it's enjoyable to watch her in this persona. So, I'm not complaining.

The most amazing thing about PAYMENT ON DEMAND, which originally had the title THE STORY OF A DIVORCE, is what came after. Before the film was finished, Miss Davis was contacted by Daryl Zanuck, the head of 20th Century-Fox, who was in a panic. Claudette Colbert was contracted to star in the new film ALL ABOUT EVE but had broken her back. Zanuck needed a replacement right away. When Davis read the script, she was thrilled and signed on immediately. Maybe it was the incredible script, or the marvelous character of Margo Channing, or the brilliant direction of Joseph Mankiewicz, but the Bette Davis who starred in ALL ABOUT EVE had dropped the regal persona and regained all of her power and former intensity. OK, maybe Margo did have her regal moments, but they worked perfectly in the context of the character. Davis gave one of her most legendary and courageous performances. RKO withheld the release of PAYMENT ON DEMAND until February 1951, leading everyone to believe it was made after EVE.

Some interesting young performers show up in PAYMENT ON DEMAND. Peggie Castle and Betty Lynn play the two daughters, and Richard Andrson appears briefly. Natalie Schafer, always a welcome and charming presence, appears as a society lady. One of the biggest treats is actor John Sutton, a gentleman whose dignified demeanor and distinctive voice add quality to any role he plays. Speaking of quality, Otto Kruger is featured in a small role. There is also a brief appearance by a tiny little girl named B.D. Sherry, playing the part of one of Davis's daughters as a child. You might call this typecasting, as little Miss Sherry is the actress's real-life daughter. The child didn't go on to have an acting career, but she did become a writer of sorts. But that's a blog post for another time.

NIAGARA (1953)

 

NIAGARA stands out from the many Films Noir of the era. First and foremost, it was made primarily to promote Marilyn Monroe, the fastest rising star at Twentieth Century-Fox. Miss Monroe had been serving a long apprenticeship in Hollywood since the late 1940's, finally beginning to gain notice in supporting roles in Fox films such as ALL ABOUT EVE and THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, both in 1950. When NIAGARA was released in January of 1953, she had reached top stardom and followed with HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES in the same year.

The film also is one of the few Noirs to be shot in color instead of Black & White. Director Henry Hathaway and cinematographer Joe McDonald were able to inject many Noirish moments into the film, with the contrast of light and shadows, while still showcasing the impressive grandeur of Niagara Falls. The location footage of the Falls is so breathtaking that it almost works as a travelogue for this very popular honeymoon destination. One of the best aspects of the film is that it exists as a loving time capsule of a Niagara Falls area that no doubt has gone through many drastic changes.

The story has two married couples' lives intersecting while they're staying at a tourist cabin resort. Polly and Ray Cutler (Jean Peters and Casey Adams) are on a belated honeymoon, having been married for about a year. Rose and George Loomis (Monroe and Joseph Cotten) have also been married for a while. George has been suffering from mental problems following his service in WW2, and has just been released from a veteran's hospital. He is deeply jealous of his attractive young wife and suspects she might be cheating with another man. His suspicions turn out to be true. 

Rose has indeed been seeing another man, Ted Patrick (Richard Allan). The two plan to kill George and make it look like an accident or possible suicide. Rose is duplicitous not only with her husband, but with the Cutlers and everyone else. She taunts her husband, trying to upset him in order to make everyone believe he's unstable and dangerous. Rose and Ted move forward with their plan, but fate intervenes and our femme fatale soon becomes a victim.

The film opens with an extended look at the Falls and then shows a troubled George Loomis walking alone in the early morning, the watery mist soaking through his clothes. Then we are introduced to Rose as she lies awake in her bed in the cabin. Miss Monroe, actress and star, is fully made up, with bright red lipstick and every blonde hair in place. Naturally, every woman looks like this when she wakes up in the morning! When Rose hears George coming back into the cabin, she feigns sleep, giving him a contemptuous look. It must be said that this is the one and only time that Monroe was given the chance to play an evil character, and she makes the most of it. The studio made sure that the majority of her roles during her career were comedic, the only other exceptions being DON'T BOTHER TO KNOCK (1952) and her last film, THE MISFITS (1961). She was able to show some depth of character in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE and Fritz Lang's CLASH BY NIGHT (1952), but nothing was ever seen of her like in NIAGARA. The studio's narrow attitude towards their luminous star is a great loss to the cinema. Monroe had tremendous potential as a dramatic actress.

The most fascinating aspect of Rose is that she manages to gain the sympathy of the viewer, in spite of her murderous intentions. Rose/Marilyn is such an overwhelming image of female sexuality and desire that it almost seems right that she should find the sexual satisfaction that is her due. And if she can't find that satisfaction with her damaged husband, then why not with a young, virile lover? As the plot begins to twist and cast Rose as a victim, she becomes even more sympathetic, leading the viewer into that Noirish perversity where the lines between good and evil become confused.

While it's true that other people exist in this story, such as the aforementioned Cutlers, all getting involved and reciting appropriate dialogue at appropriate times, no one and nothing else seem terribly necessary when the film presents us with Miss Monroe in a slinky pink dress. When this monumental moment occurs, we are transported to another dimension, a dimension where dialogue, plot points, and even acting simply don't matter. Monroe in that pink dress is an Event, one that needs no other context or explanation. There is a legend concerning actress Monroe, one that was repeated by several of her colleagues, that she only came to life and became truly beautiful when she went in front of the camera. There is a brief moment in NIAGARA, during the pink dress segment, when the light flashes across her face, as seen in the photograph above. As the light caresses her face, Marilyn's lips are parted, almost as if she were receiving that life-giving light as a sacrament, a gift of love. It happens so fast, you almost miss it. But it's one of her most memorable images.

And NIAGARA is one of her most memorable and important films. There is much to see in this movie, including an exciting climax featuring energetic performances by Joseph Cotten and Jean Peters. But even though Miss Peters is also a leading lady with perhaps more screen time than Marilyn, this is Marilyn's show all the way, as Twentieth Century-Fox intended. The theatrical trailer says it all: 

Niagara and Marilyn Monroe...the two most electrifying sights in the world.

Niagara (1953) Trailer #1

THE INVITE (2026)

 

After reading a very positive review of this film, I found myself compelled to shake off the cobwebs and once again venture out to my local multiplex to lay down some cash for the struggling film industry. This was my first trip to a theater since seeing BACKROOMS a few months ago. BACKROOMS is an incredible film, one which I definitely want to see again before it leaves the theater. But if I were to attempt to write about it, I'm afraid my brain would explode. I'll leave that existential masterpiece to the folks who understand existentialism and have less fragile brains.

THE INVITE is classified as a comedy, and the review I read compared it to WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966). I agree with both descriptions, and I think that George and Martha would definitely get more than a few laughs out of this new film. Of course, they also might be slightly jealous over the uncensored language they weren't allowed to use in the ancient world of 1966.

The storyline is rather uncomplicated. An unhappy married couple, Joe and Angela (Seth Rogen and Olivia Wilde), invite their upstairs neighbors, Hawk and Pina (Edward Norton and Penelope Cruz) to their apartment for dinner. We get a few details about the lives of our host couple in the first part of the movie: Joe used to be a musician in a band that had one hit and then broke up. He now teaches music at a school in San Francisco. He and Angela inherited their apartment from Joe's family, and the couple have a twelve-year-old daughter. Joe has back trouble and feels he has failed in life. Angela doesn't work and is obsessive about decorating and spending too much money. Their marriage is a mess. They bicker. Incessantly.

Details regarding the lives of Hawk and Pina don't come forth until later in the movie. At first, we only learn that they are relatively new neighbors, Joe finds them irritating, and he and Angela are forced to listen to their loud, aggressive sex life at three in the morning, because their bedrooms are right on top of each other. Joe wants to bring the subject up and ask them to tone it down a little, but Angela is actually intrigued by what appears to be Pina's obvious enjoyment of her nocturnal activities.

What ensues after Hawk and Pina arrive is much too good to give away with spoilers. I would hate to cheat anyone of the exchanges of dialogue, the awkwardness between these two very different married couples, or the surprises that come forth as they begin to relax (sort of) and get to know each other. I will say, however, that any similarity to VIRGINIA WOOLF soon goes right out the window. This isn't about a psychologically damaged older couple spending a torturous night with a doomed younger couple, with a devastating secret revealed at the end. In this film, we have a couple coming to the end of a marriage and encountering another couple with an entirely different approach to relationships and sex. The script is a hot mix of satire and painful truth, much of it spoken fast and furiously by these four talented actors. And the ending? Forget it; I ain't talking.

Olivia Wilde directed the film, and the excellent screenplay was written by Will McCormack and Rashida Jones. All things considered, this was another positive movie-going experience. I think I'm getting spoiled. Very highly recommended! 

DEAD RINGER (1964)

 

It's been another very slow month on my blog. In spite of my resolve to get some creative juices flowing and put a little effort into writing about films on some kind of regular schedule, I seem to have failed miserably. Not that there haven't been many false starts. All sorts of brilliant ideas pop into my head, only to dissipate after the first paragraph. Maybe the universe is trying to tell me that I need to write reviews consisting of just one fact-filled, emotionally charged, extremely erudite paragraph and leave it at that. 

So, since my writer's block has reached toxic levels, let me try something a little bit different. Here is a video I made for my Youtube channel several years ago when some of my friends and I were doing a series called Movies From A-Z. Actually, we did this project more than once and it was great fun, giving all of us a chance to talk about favorite films and compare ideas. This video gave me the pleasure of talking about Miss Bette Davis, with a brief mention of Miss Joan Crawford. Enjoy the video!

MOVIES FROM A-Z 2019 DEAD RINGER (1964)

NOTES FROM THE MOVIE ROOM June 10, 2026

 

🎬 I achieved a cinematic milestone of sorts this evening while watching the 1969 film MARLOWE, starring James Garner as the venerable detective. I was browsing through my local Barnes & Noble and saw the Arrow Video Blu-ray release of the film, which I had never seen. As much as I keep trying to avoid blind buys, I couldn't help myself with this one. It's always fun to discover a film from the 60s and get the chance to immerse myself in the atmosphere of that sacred decade. Garner's supporting cast included Gayle Hunnicut, Rita Moreno, Sharon Farrell, Carroll O'Conner and Kenneth Tobey. Not a bad film, even though I had a hard time following the plot. It was based on the Raymond Chandler novel The Little Sister, which I had read a few years ago, but that didn't help me very much. Still, it was quite colorful and enjoyable. And the film provided an especially great showcase for the gorgeous Miss Moreno, playing a burlesque dancer and seriously getting into her role, skimpy costumes, sexy dance moves, and all.

So, what was the cinematic milestone, you may well ask? This was the first time I ever saw the legendary Bruce Lee in a movie. OK, I know...I know. Blasphemy, right? Hey listen, I've been totally honest about being cinematically challenged. I just never got around to seeing this man in any of his films or TV shows that he made during his short life. Or if I did see him at one time or another, I've completely forgotten. He made quite an impression in MARLOWE as a character named Winslowe Wong, who entered the private detective's life for nefarious reasons and proceeded to kick and chop his way through a series of walls, doors, windows and basically destroying every set he walked into. In the film's most memorable scene, he has Marlowe cornered on the ledge of a high-rise office building. When it looks like Marlowe is done for, Mr. Wong gets somewhat over excited with one of his strenuous kicks and ends up flying right off of the building. What an exit! A star was born!!

I didn't know much about Bruce Lee, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. His filmography goes all the way back to 1941. MARLOWE was his first Hollywood film appearance, and he served as the action director as well. He previously served as action director on THE WRECKING CREW. Martial arts flicks aren't my thing, but he added something really special to this movie. 

He almost steals the film from Rita Moreno. Almost.

STREAMLINING MY COLLECTION: THE JOURNEY CONTINUES

 

This is my most recent take-to-Goodwill pile. The effort to streamline my collection is an ongoing process. This is a combination of films I picked up as blind buys, some from dollar stores, as well as quite a few films I enjoyed once or twice, but probably would never watch again. I'm giving away the Gunsmoke and Rifleman DVDs because I recently bought both shows in complete collections. My bootleg DVD of Looking For Mr. Goodbar was recently replaced with a Blu-ray edition. So, the collection keeps growing even as I try to streamline. The Pink Panther is a movie I saw when it first came to theaters, and I thought it was hilarious at the age of twelve. Now, I don't find it the least bit funny. I still haven't packed these up yet, so I may change my mind about one or two of them. Or ten or fifteen. Or... Oh, what we fanatics go through!!

(RE)READING JAMES LEO HERLIHY'S MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1965): A PERSONAL REFLECTION

 

I was seventeen when I read this novel for the first time, either late in 1968 or early in 1969. The film adaptation was in progress, so my paperback copy was one of those Soon-to-be-a-Major-Motion-Picture editions. This dark, downbeat story had a profound effect on me, and I was eager to see the film version, which was released in May 1969. When I saw it, I was disappointed. The movie, impressive as it was, didn't bring the novel to life for me. Most importantly, Jon Voight's portrayal of the title character did not ring true for me. He was not Joe Buck. Not for me.

Over the years, I saw the film a few times, eventually owning it on home video. As my memory of, and attachment to the novel gradually faded away, I was able to appreciate and enjoy the film on its own merits, including the performance of Jon Voight. And I thoroughly enjoyed Glenn Frankel's book: Shooting Midnight Cowboy: Art, Sex, Loneliness, Liberation and the Making of a Dark Classic, published in 2020 and reviewed on this blog. 

Recently, I've started revisiting favorite books that I read years ago, not only to refresh my memories, but to see how my perceptions may have changed with time. My old copy of Midnight Cowboy disappeared decades ago, so I sent away for another one and read it in two days. There were many details I had forgotten, but I quickly got caught up in the story and started to remember. Now, I don't know if I cried at the end of the book when I was seventeen. At seventy-five, I did. Walking alongside Joe Buck once again, from Texas to New York City, and riding with him on that bus going to Florida, I shared his alienation and loneliness, and it broke my heart all over again.

After finishing the book, I rewatched the film. While I still like the film for so many reasons, my gut feeling is that James Leo Herlihy's novel has yet to be adapted to the screen, as there is so much that has been left out. The novel begins where the film begins, with Joe getting himself ready to say goodbye to his life in Texas and get on that bus to New York City. But then it looks backwards into Joe's past, telling us about his childhood and young adulthood. We learn quite a bit about his life in Albuquerque with his grandmother, Sally Buck, and what kind of woman she was, how she gave him a home and provided for his basic needs. We also learn that she was never really there for Joe emotionally and wasn't terribly interested in his education or his development as a young man. When Joe drifted away from going to school at a very young age, she didn't think it was important enough for her to be bothered with. She gave him no proper guidance, allowing him to spend his days alone just watching television. She would periodically go off with some new boyfriend, leaving young Joe alone to fend for himself. We learn something about his sexual awakening, mainly with a troubled girl named Annie, and how that relationship led to tragedy. In the film, these crucial chapters of Joe's life are only alluded to in brief flashbacks. 

We also learn about Joe being drafted into the Army, his profound reaction to the death of his grandmother, and his decision to start a new life in Houston. This is where Joe meets and befriends a young male hustler named Perry. While Joe is happy to have a friend to talk to, Perry wants something more. When Joe doesn't return Perry's interest, it leads to a dark, violent encounter that changes Joe's life. It is also during this encounter that we find out where Joe got the idea of going to New York to hustle rich, frustrated women, a fact that isn't mentioned in the film. This is where the first half of the book comes to a close.

Joe is described in the novel as a well-built, blonde, boyish young guy with a toothy smile, almost bucktoothed. This vision fits Jon Voight fairly well, I have to admit. Voight is certainly a talented actor with a considerable emotional range, an actor whose feelings show on his face, especially in his eyes. My frustration with the film is not so much about Voight's casting, but rather with how the character of Joe Buck is written and presented on the screen. 

In the novel, Joe moves through the world with a cocky strut and the outward attitude that goes with it, reflections of both his natural self and the image he tries to present. Voight brings this aspect of the character to the screen perfectly. But even though the script allows us to see Joe's sensitive, vulnerable side, there is little attempt to reveal the desperate loneliness and disconnection he has felt throughout his life:

He had gone about always, even in the most familiar places of his life, with a slight frown of uneasiness, his head cocked for some clue to the mystery of the language he heard spoken, but which was clearly not his own, walking softly as if unsure of the very ground of this peculiar planet. And now, thinking it all over carefully but inexpertly, there seemed to him to have been from the very beginning a campaign afoot to make him aware always and always and always of his own alien status. And the awful conclusion he reached was that nearly everyone he knew or had ever know was part of this conspiracy. Even the many persons with whom he had enjoyed a certain sexual popularity--especially these persons--had refused any contact with his other aspects. They took their pleasure and they ran like the wind, no doubt laughing about the earnestness with which he had gone about gratifying them.

...there was an awareness entering him too momentous to acknowledge: he was a nothing person, a person of no time and no place and no worth to anyone at all.

Maybe it would be impossible to express this kind of sadness and alienation in any film. I'm not even sure if screenwriter Waldo Salt and director John Schlesinger wanted to dig this deep into Joe Buck's interior life. Their expansion of the story, which is marvelously creative, made New York City another important character in the film, and it was from this character, this chaotic, overwhelming environment, that Joe felt profound alienation. 

With the introduction of Dustin Hoffman as Rico "Ratso" Rizzo, the streetwise con man who insinuates himself into Joe's life, the film gives us the most colorful character, and, arguably, the dominant character, in the screen adaptation. While Hoffman is older than the Rico in the novel, who is in his early twenties, his portrayal is so incredible, so singular, that I find no fault in it whatsoever. The novel gives us some background of Rico's life, but I'm not sure such exposition would have added anything important to the film. Rico's energetic presence helps to move the film along from one situation to the next while the relationship between these two unlikely co-conspirators grows into friendship. Both novel and film end the same way, with Rico's death, leaving Joe alone on that bus.

I guess my vision for a film version of this novel would be much more fatalistic. Black & White. Very little music. It would have to use as much of the first half of the book as possible, making it a longer film. But, as I said earlier, maybe it couldn't be done. Maybe it shouldn't be done. It's possible that James Leo Herlihy's vision of the tragic Joe Buck would be too much to bear if faithfully adapted for the screen, for the author wasn't just describing the desperate loneliness of one character in a novel. He was trying to make us see the loneliness felt by most men. Perhaps all men:

At first glance these young men may appear to loiter in packs, for often they occupy one table or group around a single parking meter, but chances are they are as unconnected to one another as they are to the prairies and cities and rivers of their homeland. You will find in the eyes and demeanor of these persons a kind of restless sadness that is probably incurable; they seem to be suffering some nameless common loss, as if something of worth had been snatched from them with such shocking irrevocability that they have forgotten even what it was.