|
|
Post by spiderwort on Jan 14, 2018 16:28:52 GMT
Michael Curtiz is famously known for directing his masterpiece, Casablanca, but it sometimes seems that the rest of his 49 year career with 178 directing credits is overlooked - or maybe sometimes people love his films, but just don't realize he directed them.
Besides the unbeatable Casablanca, my other favorite Curtiz films include:
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
White Christmas (1954)
Mildred Pierce (1945)
Young Man With a Horn (1950)
The Sea Wolf (1941)
Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)
Four Daughters (1938)
Romance on the High Seas (1948)
Roughly Speaking (1945)
King Creole (1958)
Side note about Roughly Speaking: It's based upon a memoir by Louise Randall Pierson, mother of Frank Pierson, Oscar winning screenwriter of Dog Day Afternoon and Cool Hand Luke, among others. He's portrayed in the film as a child/young man.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 14, 2018 16:53:52 GMT
Casablanca
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Dodge City
Captain Blood
The Sea Hawk
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jan 14, 2018 17:08:49 GMT
Michael Curtiz is famously known for directing his masterpiece, Casablanca, but it sometimes seems that the rest of his 49 year career with 178 directing credits is overlooked - or maybe sometimes people love his films, but just don't realize he directed them. Besides the unbeatable Casablanca, my other favorite Curtiz films would include: Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
White Christmas (1954)
Mildred Pierce (1945)
Young Man With a Horn (1950)
The Sea Wolf (1941)
Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)
Four Daughters (1938)
Romance on the High Seas (1948)
Roughly Speaking (1945)
King Creole (1958)Side note about Roughly Speaking: It's based upon a memoir by Louise Randall Pierson, mother of Frank Pierson, Oscar winning screenwriter of Dog Day Afternoon and Cool Hand Luke, among others. He's portrayed in the film as a child/young man. I mainly associate him with Warner Brothers movies during the studio era. Am I right here? Spider-- You are right, he is generally overlooked when thinking of the great directors. Yet he was nominated four times and won once: Casablanca (1942). The other three directorial nominations were: Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) Captain Blood (1935) Four Daughters (1938)--these "four daughters" movies became something of series, with basically the same cast members following the Lane sisters from dating through marriage to motherhood. Since you bring it up, I will list a few more of my favorite Curtiz movies: The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936) Bright Leaf (1950)--the second of two movies that pairs Oscar winners Gary Cooper with Patricia Neal. Mildred Pierce (1945) Captains of the Clouds (1942)--Inspired by Churchill's Dunkirk speech.....interesting in light of current movie favorites. The Man in the Net (1959) is interesting in that it was probably Allan Ladd's WORST performance. The Proud Rebel (1958) is among Ladd's best with Olivia de Havilland playing a tough pioneering role. Early Bette Davis movies: The Cabin in the Cotton (1932) 20,000 Years in Sing Sing (1932) |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jan 15, 2018 18:17:43 GMT
Besides the unbeatable Casablanca 1943:
Mystery of the Wax Museum 1933, and it's interesting use of Two-Color Technicolor.
The Kennel Murder Case 1933
Front Page Woman 1935
The Perfect Specimen 1937
The Adventures of Robin Hood 1938, even if it's split with William Keighley.
Angels with Dirty Faces 1938
Dodge City 1939
The Sea Hawk 1940
Yankee Doodle Dandy 1942
This Is the Army 1943
Passage to Marseille 1944
Mildred Pierce 1946
Life with Father 1947
Young Man with a Horn 1950
The Breaking Point 1950
We're No Angels 1955 One of those movies I try to wach every year before Christmas.
The Proud Rebel 1958, I agree with Kiji, since it took me totally by surprice
King Creole 1958
A Breath of Scandal 1960, even if it feels a bit tired and seems to belong to another era.
What one can say about Michael Curtiz is that he certainly was not a "one genre" director.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfromplanetx on Jan 15, 2018 19:45:46 GMT
A marvellous light romantic favourite, highlighted with some wonderful art deco set features is Female (1933) with Ruth Chatterton and George Brent.
William Dieterle was originally assigned to direct but , William Wellman replaced him when Dieterle became seriously ill. Michael Curtiz took over directorial duties when Wellman had to begin College Coach. Curtiz was given sole credit until recently when a contemporary credit was bestowed on Wellman for the part he played...
Shots of Allison's amazing house, that pool ! were apparently filmed at the Ennis House in the Hollywood Hills, which was designed by famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Jan 15, 2018 20:06:36 GMT
A marvellous light romantic favourite, highlighted with some wonderful art deco set features is Female (1933) with Ruth Chatterton and George Brent. Haven't seen this one, planet, but it sounds delightful. And your scenario of how the Hollywood Studio system worked for contract directors is perfect. I'm sure it explains why Curtiz shared a directing credit with William Keighley on The Adventures of Robin Hood. Keighley undoubtedly took over for Curtiz so that he could go off to direct his 5th film that year alone!! Amazing what this man did and how many genres he traversed with such skill. A genius in his own way, I think. And to kijii : Yes, he was a Warner Brothers contract director from 1926 to his final film in 1971. But from 1912 to 1926, he directed dozens of films in Hungary under his birth name, Michael Kertész. |
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Jan 15, 2018 20:26:16 GMT
I've noticed that some directors worked together if needed for health reasons, etc.
For example, Michael Curtiz's directing partner may have been William Keighley, since he directed at least one of the Daughters movies.
Ernest Lubitch had to have Otto Preminger finish his last movie, That Lady in Ermine (1948) though Lubitsh is still the director of record there.
Did Archie Mayo ever co-direct?
I seem to remember his name associated with another director's.
The Adventures of Marco Polo (1938)--- Archie Mayo, John Cromwell (uncredited)
Moontide (1942)--- Archie Mayo, Fritz Lang (uncredited) excellent Lang-type movie with Jean Gabin speaking English.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jan 15, 2018 21:00:11 GMT
Casablanca
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Yankee Doodle Dandy
White Christmas
I've been meaning to see Mildred Pierce for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Jan 15, 2018 21:10:19 GMT
Robin Hood
Captain Blood
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jan 15, 2018 21:41:07 GMT
spiderwort said : or maybe sometimes people love his films, but just don't realize he directed them.
 sheepishly raises wing 
|
|
|
|
Post by neurosturgeon on Jan 15, 2018 22:46:18 GMT
Michael Curtiz has probablyhad more influence on my life for what he did and didn't do.
He directed my favorite movie of all time, "Yankee Doodle Dandy," for which I am extremely grateful. His other films have brought me hours of enjoyment and entertainment.
But it is what he didn't do that has had the greatest effect on my life. In 1947, a young man fresh out of four years in the Navy, was screen tested for a role in the Curtiz directed film, "The Unsuspecteed." Instead of going with a newcomer, Curtiz made the decision to go with an actor with more experience named Ted North, changing his name to Michael North.
About 30 years later, I meet the guy who didn't get the part while working at an NPR affiliated station and we become friends. Five years later, I invite him to share my house. And now 35 years after that, he is holding down the fort while I live in a nursing home with the hope of returning home soon. My friend Jack will be 92 next month.
Needless to say, Jack not getting that part has affected my life. But I also think Curtiz made a huge mistake by not giving Jack the part.😝
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jan 16, 2018 17:56:20 GMT
I've noticed that some directors worked together if needed for health reasons, etc. It's hard to say for sure. In Curtiz's situation, it was probably his scheduling hassles. As for That Lady in Ermine, unless Preminger directed at least half the film, Lubitsch would still have gotten full credit. And as for the uncredited "credits," again I think that's mostly a consequence of scheduling difficulties where the director of credit had to leave and another director stepped in to finish a scene or two. In some cases, also, scenes were re-shot when the original director wasn't available. And then there's the Wizard of Oz situation, where the first director of hire shot scenes, but then was then replaced by another director, who was then replaced by another, and then another (a total of 4, I think), until the final director, Victor Fleming, was settled on and was credited with the whole thing, because he directed more than half of it (those are the DGA rules). Same with Fleming replacing Cukor and Sam Wood on Gone With the Wind. It's a business, we can't forget. A business that luckily also managed to become an art. Michael Curtiz and William Keighley's partnership on The Adventures of Robin Hood 1938 wasn't health issues, but of an artistic kind between Jack Warner and Hal B. Wallis visions of the end product, some so called second unit scenes were actually directed by William Dieterle. The Comancheros 1961, Curtiz's last movie, though was health issues, as John Wayne directed most of the movie, but letting Michael Curtiz stand as sole director as he had high regards for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jan 16, 2018 19:12:48 GMT
Thanks for the thread, spiderwort ! I know you and I (and telegonus ) talked about Curtiz on one of the other movie message-board sites, so if I’m just repeating myself I apologize. Some of my favorite Curtiz pictures, hm? Well, let’s see… Doctor X
Mystery of the Wax Museum
The Kennel Murder Case
Captain Blood
The Walking Dead
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Angels with Dirty Faces
Dodge City
The Sea Hawk
Santa Fe Trail
Casablanca
White Christmas
We’re No Angels
What makes Curtiz so interesting, of course, is the sheer variety of genres in which he worked, and how much he excelled at nearly all of them. He understood early on that movies have to move, and he often paces his pictures quickly and effectively. I could comment on a lack of personal vision, but his talent can’t be denied, and his direction was often excellent. One of my favorites. (With that said, I notice that my choices lean more towards his ‘30s work, for whatever reason.) |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jan 16, 2018 19:25:25 GMT
Oops, just realized you weren’t at that other site, Doghouse6 … Sorry about that, m’friend. Oh, well, thanks for the “like” anyway!  |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jan 16, 2018 20:01:18 GMT
Oops, just realized you weren’t at that other site, Doghouse6 … Sorry about that, m’friend. Oh, well, thanks for the “like” anyway!  And I assumed you were recalling something I no longer did, and simply took your word for it! Gives me an opportunity to add a Curtiz film of which I'm especially fond, Romance On the High Seas, Doris Day's 1948 feature film debut; an alternately droll and wacky marital-discord-mistaken-identity romp in the screwball mode, with musical numbers and opulent Technicolor thrown in. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jan 16, 2018 21:26:46 GMT
Michael Curtiz directed an amazing number of good to great movies and yet he still has no auteur status to speak of. The Walking Dead deserves more respect.
Also, Curtiz had a flair for making movies that were biographies or which told a story that was about essentially one person, his life and (usually) hard times.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Jan 16, 2018 23:42:30 GMT
Gives me an opportunity to add a Curtiz film of which I'm especially fond, Romance On the High Seas, Doris Day's 1948 feature film debut; an alternately droll and wacky marital-discord-mistaken-identity romp in the screwball mode, with musical numbers and opulent Technicolor thrown in. Yes, that's on my favorites list, too. It's a beautifully wrought film, I think, and the music (and her voice) is to die for. Salzmank mentioned a lack of personal vision, and I agree this is a complaint one could make against him to some degree. But that said, he managed to harness all of his efforts in so many genres with a personal integrity that is for me conveyed through the characters he helped his actors create. I take that as an indication of his distinctly personal vision, even in his less stellar efforts. Romance on the High Seas, as silly as it may often be, is quite similar in a fundamental truthfulness to the Four Daughters, for example. It's hard to harness all the virtues of this director, let alone understand how he managed to do everything he did in his career. But a real talent, he was. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Jan 16, 2018 23:53:27 GMT
Michael Curtiz directed an amazing number of good to great movies and yet he still has no auteur status to speak of. The Walking Dead deserves more respect. Also, Curtiz had a flair for making movies that were biographies or which told a story that was about essentially one person, his life and (usually) hard times. I agree telegonus (nice to see you again). And I think in my comments to Doghouse I tried in my own way to address his lack of auteur status, assigning it to him more or less through his rigorous dedication to good character development (and, I'd also have to say, in the best of his films, to a decidedly interesting visual flair; unfortunately that being somewhat inconsistent throughout the years, while his development of good, honest characters is always consistent). What's the difference between him and the other genre master, Howard Hawks, for example? The number of great scripts, in my opinion. For whatever reason Curtiz chose to be the great journeyman studio director in so many genres, taking the next gig whether it was great or not. Who knows what he could have accomplished if everything had been on the same level as Casablanca and a few others? I haven't seen The Walking Dead, but I won't miss it now, the next time I have a chance. Thanks for the recommendation. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jan 17, 2018 15:18:23 GMT
Yes, that's on my favorites list, too. It's a beautifully wrought film, I think, and the music (and her voice) is to die for. Salzmank mentioned a lack of personal vision, and I agree this is a complaint one could make against him to some degree. But that said, he managed to harness all of his efforts in so many genres with a personal integrity that is for me conveyed through the characters he helped his actors create. I take that as an indication of his distinctly personal vision, even in his less stellar efforts. Romance on the High Seas, as silly as it may often be, is quite similar in a fundamental truthfulness to the Four Daughters, for example. It's hard to harness all the virtues of this director, let alone understand how he managed to do everything he did in his career. But a real talent, he was. I should note, Spider, that in commenting on “a lack of personal vision,” I’m not in any way criticizing his talent, which was considerable. Yet (as you noted above) one of his best cross-references is Hawks, and with Hawks there is not only a distinctly Hawksian style (as Curtiz also had some stylistic touches, more German expressionistic in his case) but also a distinctly Hawksian worldview. Hawks shows his way of looking at the world just as pronouncedly in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as in The Big Sleep, or Only Angels Have Wings; scripts, genres, plot lines are all wildly different, but Hawks makes them part of his vision, not the other way around. Curtiz, I suppose, was not particularly interested in that, which is fine but, ultimately, causes the films to seem anonymous. I can identify Curtiz in the ‘30s— Doctor X, The Walking Dead, The Kennel Murder Case, Angels with Dirty Faces, Captain Blood—and he returns to that style at times in the ‘40s ( Casablanca in particular). But Hawks tailored his movies to himself, whereas Curtiz often let the movies tailor his style to themselves—and (as much as I like Curtiz, and as much as he directed some of my favorite movies) that, I think, makes all the difference. I should also note that I think there should be some more studies of Curtiz and his work, and I do love his movies; I think I’m coming off as more critical than I really am. I’m just trying to explain why he may be more neglected than, perhaps, he should. EDIT: Now I have to take a look at Romance on the High Seas! |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Jan 17, 2018 15:49:11 GMT
Salzmank In many ways I can't dispute your comments. But I still maintain that so much of the difference is the consequence of Curtiz's choice to direct everything that came before him instead of picking and choosing. In his American career alone (1926-1961), he directed 110 films, whereas Hawks, from 1926 to 1970, directed only 47 films. As a director, I can tell you without question that that alone would make a profound difference in terms of that "personal vision" people believe Curtiz lacks. But as I said, I see a cohesive integrity to Curtiz's work in terms of character development film to film that for me attests to a kind of personal vision, unique to him whatever genre he was working in. I think it's impossible to define him in any other way, given the volume of his work. Had he done only 43 films, I have a strong suspicion that it would be a different story, but we'll never know. Oh, and I wanted to comment on this: "But Hawks tailored his movies to himself, whereas Curtiz often let the movies tailor his style to themselves." Actually, he did what any good director would do who was directing as many as five films a year: he intentionally adjusted his style to fit the needs of the film; something television directors do all the time. And yet - and yet - as I've said, there's still a character integrity to the films that I think goes right back to him. Essentially, in the end he opted for character over style, unless he was directing a film where style was appropriate, and then, as in those you mentioned, to say nothing of Casablanca and Mildred Pierce, he would so often shine. Anyway, what matters in the end is that he made some wonderful films that made a lot of people happy, and I think that probably pleased him greatly. Thanks for you thoughtful insights, which I do understand. And I hope you enjoy Romance on the High Seas. It's a charmer. For me, anyway.
|
|
