TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: # 272 "THE RIGHT STUFF" (1983)

In 1983, the Academy Awards erroneously provided "Terms of Endearment" with the Best Picture Oscar. Why? Because "The Right Stuff" is a far superior film to the James Brooks' drivel, no matter how well acted.

"The Right Stuff" starts out with Sam Shepard portraying Chuck Yeager trying to break the Sound Barrier. Strangely, he does not get chosen by NASA to be an astronaut.

The rest of the cast is superlative. Scott Glenn as Alan Shepard, Ed Harris as John Glenn, Dennis Quaid as Gordon Cooper and many more. It is a stirring film about courage,exploration,commitment and patriotism with overt jingoism. It projects complex characters where previously there was iconography.  

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #273 "42ND STREET" (1933)

"Sawyer, you're going out a youngster but you've got to come back a star!". Those are the abridged words used by Warner Baxter to inspire Ruby Keeler as she is about to make her stage debut.

"42nd Street" today would seem cliche' ridden, but this is one of the films that created that cliche of big musical production numbers. In 1928, MGM's "The Broadway Melody" won the Best Picture Oscar at the 2nd Annual Academy Awards. 

It was the first musical, but it did not set a trend for the future genre.                                                                 

"42nd Street" was a trend setting musical, that unlike "Broadway Melody" still has many entertaining qualities, however quaint it might seem today. Every musical that followed on film for a generation ultimately owes "42nd Street". It is an essential film in the evolution of sound and music in an industry that had only known sound and music for six years. 

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #274 "THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA" (1925)

Most people have not or will not watch silent films. It is however, a strong bet that most people have witnessed the unmasking of Lon Chaney's Phantom in 1925's "The Phantom of the Opera".

There isn't much to say about this movie. It's the definitive telling. Often filmed, and staged but never equaled. Many of Lon Chaney's films have been lost in a cloud of nitrate dust, but we can still admire this towering performance. 

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #275 "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?" (1962)

It was no great secret of the animosity felt between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, but by 1962 both of their careers and their age respectively compelled both to take the great roles in "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?".

By all accounts, the set for the filming was cordial and polite, likely due to the skills of Director Robert Aldrich.

The two great actresses play sisters living in the same home. Child stars in vaudeville, their lives are forever altered when Crawford is crippled and blame is put on Davis' being drunk behind the wheel.

The plot and the relationship is frankly irrelevant. This is a movie with larger than life women providing tour de force performances. Bette Davis would get few more good roles, including "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte", but Crawford would get roles that were lesser in stature, after quitting the aforementioned Davis vehicle.

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #276 "THE COLOR PURPLE" (1985)

In 1985, "The Color Purple" was nominated for nine Academy Awards, but Steven Spielberg was not nominated for Best Director. Spielberg was still largely envied and this was his first real attempt at drama. 

Alice Walker's novel (I never read it) is of course the basis for the film of the same name. Ultimately, it is a tale of a woman's struggle to overcome a lifetime of abuse, ridicule and misogyny.

Whoopi Goldberg was introduced to the public in this film, ironically in a dramatic role for the comedienne.

Danny Glover is the critical character. It is Glover who is the abusive husband and father, who by hook or crook keeps Goldberg in her place.

Oprah Winfrey, who marries their son Harpo serves as a willful woman who cowtows to no one. That is, until she ends up in jail for confronting the Mayor's wife. Upon leaving prison, the will is lost.

Inevitably, the heroine, gets motivated to change her life for the better. She leaves the house, opens a business and shines.

Danny Glovers' character, however has a quiet moment of redemption, when he makes the effort to reunite Whoopi with her sister, and does it without her being aware of the effort.

This is the closet thing to a John Ford like film that Steven Spielberg ever directed. It has all those qualities down to ambient noise in the background as the camera closes up on its star. The sound of the swinging picket fence as he closes in on Whoopi's face when she finds no letter from her sister in the mailbox. Simple and poignant and effective. 

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #277: "AN AMERICAN IN PARIS"

Gene Kelly is today best and justly remembered for "Singin In the Rain". Ironically, it was released as Gene Kelly was sweeping awards season with #277, "An American In Paris". It would go on to win the Best Picture Oscar for 1951. 

The story is simple. Gene is a former GI who remained in Paris to ply his trade as an artist. His work is noticed by Nina Foch, who clearly has more than his art in mind. Gene, however is conflicted with the obvious financial rewards of his new patron and his love for Parisian gal, Leslie Caron in her first film.

The real star of the film is the carefully choreographed numbers to classic George Gershwin music, a man whose skills are certainly the equal to the great classical composers. It ends in what is supposed to be a ballet like number. Irving Berlin, was convinced that ending a mainstream musical with a lengthy, but physical ballet was a terrible idea and wished them "good luck". But it paid off due to the diligence and talents of Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli.

LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS

It is quite obvious that I am no great fan of Barack Obama's politics or policies. The political disagreements, however do not extend to a personal assessment. He clearly is a devoted husband and father. He projects warmth and compassion, sometimes even in his discussion of policy.

If I thought that Barack Obama was in any way responsible for an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I would not hesitate to be critical, but he is not responsible. If I thought that he had the ability to end the current tragedy with personal skill,knowledge or expertise, I would hold him accountable. He does not possess such skills and therefore must rely on professionals who have dedicated their lives to such matters.

The BP Oil  Spill in the Gulf is an epic tragedy and in almost every respect even President Obama, wielding such power as he does can feel a sense of helplessness. I remember the old deodorant commercial motto, "never let them see you sweat". If the President feels events are beyond his control and helpless to alter it, that's ok, but true leadership never projects impotence in the face of tragedy. That is exactly what our President is projecting, however unintentionally. 

If we cannot cap the well quickly, then the government at every level, must make every effort to try and contain the disaster from spreading. A daunting task to say the least. Many would say a futile gesture. Upwards of 14 million people in the Gulf Region are affected by this disaster and when so many livelihoods are hanging by a thread it is incumbent of those in a leadership position to address the crisis in stark terms.

A President must be a realist, but in our lowest moments as individual,family,community and nation everyone at some point needs to hear a calming voice that reassures us that we shall see through it,endure and prosper yet again. It is exemplified by FDR's declaration at the height of the Depression that "all we have to fear is fear itself". Leaders, even those constrained by real conditions must never fail to project confidence, for it is renewed confidence by the common man that establishes an historic legacy for Presidents such as Roosevelt,Kennedy and Reagan, because they inspired us to believe in ourselves again.      

President Obama has failed to project any sense of true leadership. The people of the Gulf Region have every right to expect his express attention to their plight. He needs to take every available measure to contain the damage and assure us that he will oversee efforts at recovery. If efforts to halt or contain this ecological calamity fail, that's ok, but we as a people also have every right to see that he TRIED. I, like most people relate to failed effort, but we all detest a lack or perceived lack of effort. 

Barack Obama is a gifted man. He has moved and inspired people with rhetorical flourishes that have rarely been equaled. Why, amidst tragedy is his capacity to inspire so noticeably absent? Millions of people are seeing their dreams, their future disappear. Maybe my perspective is clouded by politics, but our President seems to be in a state of remote detachment. This is supported by his failure to comment on historic flooding in Tennessee, besides our present predicament in the Gulf of Mexico.

The President will visit the Gulf this weekend, interrupting his vacation. Meanwhile, the EPA is obstructing designs by the State of Louisiana to contain the damage from the spill. Governor Bobby Jindal is trying to do something  and the Feds hold him back. Absurd.


We don't need the President or any other politician to tell us that BP is responsible. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY. They'll be held to account soon enough. In the meantime is it so much to ask that the gifted oratory that elevated him to the highest elective office in the world express the requisite empathy with an intent to restore faith and confidence? The devil as is said is in the "details", but the details only matter if we are inspired to make the effort. Inspiration requires a voice with innate skills to lead. 

He is not to blame but Barack Obama has demonstrated a capacity to lead,inspire and motivate. He needs to rediscover his voice. He needs to project HOPE, not helplessness. He must be seen to act, rather than project impotence. The country and specifically the people of the Gulf Region need a strong dose of HOPE. Find your voice Mr President because it is moments like this when we look to our President to lead. It's not too late.  
 

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #278-"NOSFERATU" (1922)

F.W. Murnau created in "Nosferatu", the quintissential vampire film. They had wanted of course to make an official film adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", but the estate of the late author would not give their permission. 

Words don't really do justice to the eeriness of the set and cinematography. In the mysterious Max Schreck, we get a great lead performance. Justice to him would be paid by Willem Defoe in "Shadow of the Vampire".

This is a movie to be seen to be appreciated. 

PERSONAL APOLOGIES FOR CHARLIE CRIST

As a good Catholic, I suppose it’s time I made a confession. In the last thirteen years as a resident of Florida, Tampa to be specific I have voted not less than five times for Charlie Crist. Twice in primaries and three times in general elections.


You see, being a native a Philadelphia and a proud consservative, I had become convinced by experience that electability was of the highest priority. In a city where Republicans had not won a head to head city wide election since 1969 it was a simple compromise. That one was race was for Traffic Court, no less.

The concerns of electability for a Philadelphia Conservative should have submitted to a more pleasing electoral reality in my adopted home of Florida. Sadly, old habits died hard. In 1998, a then obscure State Senator from Pinellas County named Charlie Crist was the Republican nominee running against Senator Bob Graham. A suicide mission to be sure. If ever there was a Democrat that I could have “conceivably” voted for, Bob Graham was just that, but nonetheless I voted for the unknown Mr. Crist who lost 2-1 as I knew he would. That vote cast me as an enabler of political suicide.

Then came 2002. Charlie Crist ran as the unendorsed candidate for State Attorney General and easily won the Republican Primary. I gladly voted for him in his big primary victory and promptly again in the general election.

In 2006, instead of running for re election as state Attorney General, he decided to run for the open Governor’s seat. He was unendorsed and there were more conservative primary opponents, but my reflexive electability issues cast its vote in the primary which he easily won. Once again, I promptly voted for him in the general election.

Charlie Crist has been the most popular Florida governor and he could have easily been re elected, but our most opportunistic chief executive decided instead to run for the United States Senate. At first, I thought it was great. With Crist running we would be assured of holding onto the seat. A no brainer.

I had never heard of Marco Rubio and only began to notice as he was progressively gaining in polls with Crist. As I learned more, the more I was impressed. Genuine conservative with passion and conviction. I made up my mind that this time I was not going to vote for Charlie Crist, but Marco Rubio. I still liked Charlie, but had come to prefer Rubio as a genuine budget hawk at a time when our nation needs fiscal attentiveness.

Charlie Crist began with a lead of over thirty points and Rubio was at eight percent. In recent months that has been reversed and Crist is now down by approximately thirty points to Mr. Rubio. Charlie Crist had coasted, assuming he was unassailable. His downfall had more to do with Rubio’s effectively making a case that he rather than Crist is what Florida needs in the Senate.

Charlie Crist is where he is today, headed towards political oblivion precisely because he took the voters for granted. He took his place in the United States Senate in his own mind before the people of this state extended to him such a privelege at the ballot box. He seemed to feel that he was entitled to be a Senator, by a mere willingness to serve. By such presumption, we find his character revealed. Such a presumption clearly demonstrates his desire to serve his ego rather than the interests of the public.

Charlie Crist is going to announce he’ll run as an independent for the United States Senate and drop out of the Republican Primary. It is not going to occur because as Chris Matthews insists, conservatives are engaging in a Stalinesque like purge. It isn’t because moderates are unwelcome.

Charlie Crist is going to run as an independent because at heart he is a coward. Charlie liked being a Republican when he wasn’t being worked hard for a nomination. He liked being a Republican when his detractors supported him in the general elections. For the first time in his life, however, he was faced with a real challenge in the presence of Marco Rubio. He panicked.He attacked. Now that it is obvious he would lose big time in a primary, he bolts.

What does it say of a man who runs in the face of adversity? What does it say when one cannot accept defeat with grace and humility? How should I feel, having voted for such a man five times to see him betray my faith for the grossest of political motives? I’m not naive about politicians. I’m downright realistic, bordering on cynical. We are living in difficult times, but when our conscience is connected and committed, it must reject this most cynical example of political opportunisn represented in Charlie Crist.

Florida and the nation will see through our present quandries, but only if we utterly reject shallow men like Charlie Crist, holding his finger to the wind.

We all knew as kids that twerp in our neighborhood pick up games who threw a fit if he didn’t get his way. He’d ruin everyone’s fun because he was the one that had the bat, the ball or the Nerf football. That kid thought he would get away with it cause he had the means to our good time. If he didn’t get his way, he took the bat,the ball,the Nerf or whatever and walked. But that kid was right. He got his way. We caved, we compromised, because in our mind we needed the bat and ball. THat’s the true face of Charlie Crist . He’s that twerp we all reviled cause he’d throw a fit when we didn’t do it his way or get it his way. Except this isn’t a game and we’re not children anymore. This is about leadership in the United States Senate. Public office is no one’s bat and ball and no one, certainly not Charlie Crist is able to pick it up and take it home with him.

I sincerely apologize for the five times i voted for him. I thought Charlie Crist was a credit to elective public office. I confess a profound error in judgement. My votes helped create his sense of entitlement. This time however I can find absolution with millions of Floridians and send him home without his bat and ball.

TERRORIZING FREE SPEECH

I have long been a fan of South Park. I love the fact that they are absolutely brutal satirists, but balanced in their presentations. As I was watching this weeks' episode, there were several bleeps in the show. The very mention of the name Muhammad was bleeped off the episode and any image of Muhammad was censored with a large black bar labeled "censored". At first like the previous weeks' 200th episode, I thought this was Matt Stone and Trey Parker's efforts to make a point about free speech. After all the episode also suggests Jesus is downloading internet porn and shows Buddha snorting cocaine. Clearly the censored image and mention of the name Muhammad was an artistic license in demonstrating hypocrisy.


I was wrong, as it turns out. Moreover the roughly 35 seconds that was bleeped at the end of the episode was not the mere mention of the name Muhammad, but bleeped out dialogue talking about how we can't allow ourselves to be intimidated into silence. Honest to God.


All of this began in the wake of last week's episode. A Muslim grouped based in New York called "Revolution Muslim" warned that Stone and Parker would suffer the same fate as Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, who was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam after producing a film about how Muslim women are treated in Muslim nations. This may be shocking, but not as shocking that the Department of Homeland Security seems to have ignored the tacit threat of violence.


We, as Americans are indeed fortunate to live in a free nation, one that provides for individual worship without persecution or fear of diminishment in its free exercise. Obviously, as a product of our natural rights of speech and expression, our faith may be equally subject to ridicule and satire. Of course, we are free not to associate with those with whom we find offense. It's not just the American Way, it's an inherent function of our humanity.


Why in recent years have we applied such a brazen double standard regarding the sensitivities of Muslims while tolerating satiric jabs at every other faith? Why is an image or the mention of Muhammad censorable, but not a scene of Buddha snorting coke? Violence, the real and perceived threat of force has resulted in a willing,voluntary abridgement of free speech.


Why should we censor ourselves out of fear? Why does Islam get a pass? Muslims, like all of us can choose with whom they associate, so if offended the options are identical. It means changing the channel. All it takes is a universal remote control for your television.


Islam, as a faith has existed for fourteen hundred years. How is it possible for one episode of an adult cartoon to be perceived as a threat to fourteen centuries of faith? 


This may seem like a trivial matter, but it's not. It's an issue that strikes at our historic foundations as a free nation and a violation of our most fundamental of all natural rights, the right to free speech. Free speech is a natural right because speech is a basic function of humanity, both biologically and in turn socially.


In recent decades, western nations have trumpeted tolerance for all peoples and traditions, but in so doing have incrementally conceded our natural rights and traditions for fear of offending those whose history is seemingly contrary to ours. Tolerance is a noble concept among nations,faiths and cultures if there is mutual respect. Tolerance is fatal however if one side concedes its historic values to the whims or demands of another.


Today, a Danish cartoonist is hiding in fear for his life. Salman Rushdie is still in hiding. What has been our response? Almost universally, it is the cartoonist or the film maker that has been criticized for being provocative. We used to be a society that cherished dissent no matter how offensive because we understood that our fallible nature may not objectively establish a criteria for acceptable expression.


Where is the outrage from prominent journalists and media outlets? There are a handful of reports but no editorializing. Freedom is not exclusively defended by soldiers on the battlefield. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then surely we can deprive our posterity of needless bloodletting by wielding this great weapon in the defense of the principles and values established boldly by our forefathers. 


This nation was not forged into a great republic with a minds' eye towards the reductions of our natural and enumerated rights for fear of terror. Free Speech. Free Expression.Free Association.Free Press.Free Worship and many more. We have a duty to preserve for future generations the unfettered freedoms that  every generation prior has secured for us in the present. When our natural rights are threatened or intimated by those with a subjective definition of blasphemy, it is our moral obligation to stand fast in defense. We must risk being labeled intolerant in our unwillingness to restrain ourselves and others in exercising our right to free speech. If the forces of hate and intolerance can intimidate a major corporate entity like Viacom to edit a cartoon, it becomes easier to intimate the individual.


This isn't just about South Park or whether you enjoy the show as I do or are offended as many have expressed over the years. They have made an effort to expose hypocrisy in the exercise of those rights we all enjoy. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have exhibited true courage in a world that cares more about avoiding conflict than defending right. The response from the fourth estate, the "guardians" of the public good? If you listen carefully you can hear a pin drop. Sad but true.








       

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #279- THE BIG CARNIVAL (1951)

Billy Wilder has written and directed many great motion pictures, however, "The Big Carnival" is clearly his most underrated project, although a notorious flop at the time.

Kirk Douglas is the only star in the cast. He plays a "journalist" exploiting tragedy for headlines. A man in a small western mining town is pinned and cannot be directly resued. Douglas, milks the story for days, grabbing headlines and gaining sympathetic public attention.

The story turns as the coverage becomes a side show. People show up to see it for themselves. Songs are written, shirts are sold, a real human drama diminshed by a combination of voyeurism and profiteering. It becomes all the more intriguing as Douglas  convinces local officials to take the long way to get the man out safely, rather than a shorter route, so the community might continue to reap attention and the economic benefits of a national audience.

A great movie that deserved better than it received in 1951.  

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #280- THRONE OF BLOOD (1957)

Only in the world of film is it possible for Shakespeare's "Macbeth" to find its best version set in Medieval Japan. That is, however the truth of  Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood". This is the first of his work to transplant Shakespeare.

Toshiro Mifune plays the equivalent lead and all the functions of "Macbeth" find their way into the drama. The murder of his lord, thr guilt of the act and the revenge of his kin

It includes witches prophesying the ultimate demise and a forrest moving in for the kill. A great movie. 

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #281-"MEN WHO TREAD ON TIGER'S TAILS" (1946)

Akira Kurosawa has been credited with directing many great films, but this short film (65 minutes) is very good. "Men Who Tread On Tiger's Tails" is ripe with tension.

The plot centers on a prince, along with six loyal warrior servants trying to escape his brother who has set himself as warlord over their late father's lands. 

All of the principle characters are disguised. The prince as a humble servant and his six bodyguards as monks.

The climax comes at a checkpoint at the border. They undergo a trying experience, threatened to have their true identity revealed. A brilliant work to be enjoyed.

WARD WORLD: TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #282-"A SHOT IN THE DARK" (1964)

WARD WORLD: TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #282-"A SHOT IN THE DARK" (1964)

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #282-"A SHOT IN THE DARK" (1964)

Peter Sellers introduced Closseau in "The Pink Panther", but it is this film, "A Shot In the Dark" as the starring character that he stands out from the crowd.

Clousseau is on the trail of a murderer. Herbert Lom appears for the first time as his boss. Elke Sommer is beautiful as the female lead anmd has two tantalizingly funny scenes, one a shower scene, the other at a nudist colony. At the latter Clousseau, trailing her is told he must strip in order to enter the compound. He proceeds to tail her, covered only by a guitar.

George Sanders, as always is great in the roll of straight man confounded by the bizarre behavior of Clousseau.

All and all the best Pink Panther film by far and a genuine classic.

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #283-"THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR" (1941)

Billy Wilder may be a far greater writer than he was a director and he was one of the all time great directors. "The Major and the Minor" is the first film he ever directed and it's quite funny. It might seem quaint today, but as always it still has all of the sexual undertones of a typical Wilder film, although with a lighter touch.

Ginger Rogers stars and was fresh off winning a Best Actress Oscar for her performance in "Kitty Foyle". She can't afford an adult fare for a train, so she tries to disguise herself as a little girl. She doesn't quite fool everyone, notably two conductors.

Fortunately, Ray Milland falls for the act and takes it upon himself to see her through her journey. She falls for him, but can't tell him without blowing her cover. They end up at a military school where every teenage cadet makes their move on her.

This is a very clever, well acted comedy and should not be missed.

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #284-"ALEXANDER NEVSKY" (1938)

Sergei Eisenstein was fearful for his life and tried to prevent his masterpiece "Alexander Nevsky" from being reviewed by Joseph Stalin in 1938. As it turns out Stalin heartily approved and we can witness this great film to this day.

The film was made with sympathetic tones to the Stalinist regime of the day. The villains are traitorous merchants, the heros are the peasants.

The title character is one of the great Russian patriarchs dating to the 13th Century. Nevsky rallies Novgorod, the only free Russian city. He negotiates with the Mongols, who are portrayed as effete.

Nevsky's great challenge is to defeat the onslaught of the Teutonic Knights, a crusading order commissioned to spread the faith. The fateful battle, accurate to history takes place on the frozen Lake Peipus. The film as in history notes the Russian triumph. It also takes shots at Christianity as the born cross of the Teutonic Knights literally falls.

This film was made at a time when Russia was clearly concerned about Nazi Germany. The film which depicts Russians defeating the hordes of Medieval German militarism was an effective piece of propaganda, anticipating future conflict. A true epic.

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #285-"HOLD THAT GHOST" (1942)

Comedies always get short shrift on movie lists, especially slapstick. Arthur Lubin directed "Hold That Ghost", one of the three standout Abbott & Costello films.

Bud,Lou and several other are spending the night at a lodge, allegedly haunted. I won't bother to describe some of the comedy because it never does justice.

This movie involves a moving candle, a figure of speech routine and a extended scene where hapless Lou's bedroom is transformed into a casini gaming room.

The Andrews Sisters have a couple numbers, but overall this is just one of the funnier films ever made.

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #286-"IMITATION OF LIFE"(1934)

John M. Stahl directs the original and best film version of "Imitation of Life". This version is often overlooked given the Lana Turner Technicolor remake. The latter version, released in 1958 at the outset of the civil rights movement hit all the right notes with a receptive audience.

The 1934 black and white version is more subtle, but more powerful in its punch. Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers, both widowed single moms come across each other and form an enduring bond. This friendship becomes a professional one as they are convinced to box up Louise Beavers' pancake formula. That sounds stereotypical, but the stereotyped public image of her character is trumped by her projecting a complex character in simple terms.

Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers form a genuine friendship. The movie however turns on Fredi Washington, who is light skinned enough to pass as white. Passing as white, she enjoys a world free from prejudice and ultimately rejects her mother, whose only wish is for her daughter's happiness, intent on leaving all her worldly success in business to her daughter.

The dramatic conclusion rests upon the heartbreak of her daughter's rejection. Only in witnessing the outpouring of strangers at her mother's passing does her daughter openly emote her true love.

This film was made at a time predating issues like race being addressed head on, but delicately relates the prevailing sentiment. This movie may seem dated to some, but it is quite profound and moving. It is indeed tragic that two fine actresses like Fredi Washington and Louise Beavers never found more work worthy of their acting skills.

PS: I could not find a poster for this movie online with either Louise Beavers or Fredi Washington credited. How about that?

TOP 300 MOVIES OF ALL TIME: #287-"THE NUN'S STORY" (1959)

Directed by Fred Zinneman, "The Nun's Story" is one of the most underrated and overlooked movies of all time. Any film dealing with nuns in the lead were either larky characters like Celeste Holm in "Come To the Stable", or stern like Deborah Kerr in "Black Narcissus".

Audrey Hepburn is well removed from her barely legal character in "Roman Holiday" for which she won an Oscar. Her performance in this as a young woman entering a convent in her native country of Belgium can fairly be regarded as her greatest role and performance.

This film about the life of a religious is genuinely complex in its human interest. She struggles with the rigidity in the life, but remains obedient. Audrey's life takes a positive, but unexpected turn. She is sent to the Congo to work as a nurse in a field hospital. It is in the Congo that she works side by side with the resident doctor, played by Peter Finch.

Peter Finch questions her fidelity to the life she lives and there is clear sexual tension. In a great example of the film's maturity, she remains true to her vows. The hospital work, however does give her freedom and the interaction gives her a real glimpse at how she can help those beyond the walls of a cloister.

Audrey Hepburn, though loving her time helping those in need and clearly fulfilled by the experience is returned to Belgium. It is back in her homeland and the rigors of convent life that conflict with a new world view, inherited from her tenure in the heart of Africa.

Her return to home is shortly thereafter challenged by the Nazi invasion and occupation. Wanting to help her countrymen, she faces a crisis of conscience. She must choose a sequestered life or an active life resisting the wave the has consumed her friends and family on the outside.

Dean Jagger, sympathetically plays her father, who gives her pause before she gives herself to the order. Edith Evans and Peggy Ashcroft play mother superiors respectively in Belgiun and the Congo.

This great story does something rare. It provides an honest, mature appraisal of a religious life, it is real, but lacks the cynicism that often pervades films about religion. This is a movie that stays with you. This really is one to watch.