2012 German Gems

2012 marked the end for Ingrid Eggers' German Gems Film Festival. As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Eggers said "I gave it long, deep thought...The Bay Guardian gave me a lifetime achievement award. Once you get that, it's time to quit." Apparently, whatever animus existed between Eggers and the managers of her former festival, Berlin and Beyond, has dissipated to the point that she can claim, B&B is "is back on track."

I thank and congratulate Ms. Eggers for her many, fine years of programming excellent German language cinema in San Francisco. I'll miss her programming.

Unfortunately, the 2012 German Gems ran up against a Henri-Georges Clouzot series at the PFA. I was only able to see one film at the day long event at the Castro Theater.

Under Control; documentary; directed by Volker Sattel; German with subtitles; (2011)

The Castro runs previews before some its screenings. In December, I saw a funky, 1970s looking festival trailer for the 2012 German Gems. I'm still not sure what it was all about but if I had to guess, I think it was referencing Under Control which was filmed at various operating and abandoned nuclear power plants in Germany. I think the outfits in the trailer where riffing on the hazmat/radiation protection suits worn by workers at nuclear power plants.

Let me start by stating (or admitting given your viewpoint) that I am an electrical engineer. More accurately I have degrees in electrical engineering; I don't do engineering work anymore. My specialty was power engineering. Although I didn't specialize in nuclear power, my understanding of how a nuclear power plant works is better than the layman or man-on-the-street. With that out of the way, I was fascinated by the imagery in Under Control. Shot on 35 mm and at times, looking like an outtake from 2001: A Space Odyssey , the film beautifully captured the design of nuclear power plants. The effect was similar to what I read about Manufactured Landscapes which I haven't seen.

As the camera panned across control panels, fuel rod storage pools, the interior of containment buildings, etc., I recalled why I became an engineer. I think it is beautiful to see scale models and pipes and cable trays forming geometric patterns. However, I wondered how many in the audience understood what they were looking at. The dialog was minimal at times.

More problematic was the lack of a narrative. The film seemed to take place at several power plants. Some were still in operation, others were shuttered, still another was converted into an amusement park. I wasn't sure which power plant I was looking at. At one point, it seems like there is an emergency like a stuck valve which would lead to a containment breach or nuclear meltdown. The plant is evacuated. I think that would have made the news but I don't recall anything like that. Was it an exercise? Was it staged for the film? I don't know, it was never mentioned again. The fact that they were using 1960s & 70s looking switches and panels (like the original Star Trek) made me scratch my head. Why hadn't they upgraded that equipment and controls?

In essence, the filmmakers go to nuclear power plants and beautifully film the routine processes and tasks the employees must do as well as the equipment and facilities. Then it hops around to employees of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the crumbling ruins of an abandoned plant(s), etc. The overarching theme seems to be that we (or at least Germany) built these plants to control nature - harnessing the energy of the atom for our increasingly energy-intensive lifestyle. Now, 40 or 50 years later, the people are under control of the nuclear plants - operational safeguards and procedures dealing with the nuclear waste control the lives of those who work at or live near these power plants. I found the premise to dubious. Let's not forget the status quo when these plants were built. In Germany, they were burning coal to generate electricity. Who knows how much air pollution was avoided due to these nuclear power plants? Would they be any less "under control" if there was coal plant spewing NOX and SOX emissions and asthma rates were doubled? Society is all about controls which are more restrictive than anything shown in Under Control.

Avoiding a debate on nuclear power, the film seems to wants decry of the constraints imposed by generating nuclear power. The land use, the storage issues, etc. I just didn't find the arguments compelling. Instead, I found the images compelling.

If anything, I was saddened by the demise of nuclear power in Germany. The images in Under Control hearkened back to the days when society confidently "conquered" the environment. Engineers used to design and build big, ambitious projects like dams to tame rivers, long tunnels to defeat mountains, bridges to span the impassable and nuclear power plants to power a nation. Now, lawyers and environmentalists subvert those ambitions. Is it better for society? Perhaps; solar or wind generation brings a host of problems that most people don't consider. Most of these issues are because we can't "control" the output but for me, it's sad too. The enlightened societies won't allow a nuclear power plant to be built or in Germany, even remain in operation because the risk are too high. Society wants renewable power on demand without any risks and at low costs. It makes me recall why I stopped being an engineer...

As you can see, my take Under Control is intensely personal and unique. I liked the film despite its flaws but I can't really recommend it...except to some of my classmates from engineering school.

King of Devil's Island

I remember when the Landmark Clay announced it was closing and the San Francisco Film Society entered into negotiations with Landmark and the owner of the building. The SFFS Executive Director at the time (the late Graham Leggat) mentioned in an interview or perhaps KQED panel discussion that SFFS was in a different position than Landmark Theaters. Being a non-profit, SFFS could count on alternate sources of revenue which Landmark cannot. At the time, it sounded to me like Leggat was essentially saying that even if SFFS lost money while operating the Clay, it would be ok because SFFS doesn't have a profit motive and could subsidize the operation of the Clay through charitable donations, government grants and tax write-offs. I remembered thinking it sounded as if they needed gimmickry to keep the single screen theater open.

Whatever happened to the planned closing of the Clay? Regardless, that formula of non-profit operation of single screen and/or small movie theaters has essentially been used or replicated at the Vogue, the Roxie and most recently, the Balboa. That reminds me of something else. When Gary Meyer announced he was stepping away from the Balboa, he mentioned his desire to spend more time working on the Telluride Film Festival which he described as his "paying gig." Since the San Francisco Neighborhood Theater Foundation announced it is taking over the Balboa, Meyer has seemed re-energized and doesn't seem eager to step away anymore.

The reason I bring any of this up is that whenever I go to the New People/Viz Theater for "regular programming," the audience is just as sparse as when it was operated by New People and programmed with primarily Japanese films. I define "regular programming" as the programming not associated with the SFFS fall festivals (Hong Kong Cinema, Taiwan Film Days, etc.). I keep thinking back to Leggat's comments (albeit he was speaking of the Clay) that SFFS's non-profit status gave it advantages in operating a single screen theater. I think his claim will be put to the test.

§§§

My last venture to New People was to see King of Devil's Island.

King of Devil's Island starring Stellan Skarsgård, Benjamin Helstad & Trond Nilssen; directed by Marius Holst; Norwegian with subtitles; (2010) - Official Website

King of Devil's Island is a mediocre film elevated by strong performances and nice outdoor locations. It's essentially a prison film or more specifically a juvenile delinquency prison film. As such, there must be a child molester. Every film about a boy's reformatory has to have a pedophile, typically a guard. Based on true events and set in the early 1900s, King of Devil's Island is set on Bastoy Island, kind of an Norwegian Alcatraz for boys.

The ever reliable Stellan Skarsgård plays the warden - a no nonsense disciplinarian whose probity is compromised when he diverts funds to be used for the upkeep of the facility and its charges. The warden uses it to make life more comfortable for his new and younger bride who is terribly bored on the island and at other times, alarmed by the behavior and treatment of the boys.

The protagonist of the film is a boy-sailor named Erling (Benjamin Helstad). The boys are assigned prison numbers and Erling is referred to as "C-19" for the rest of the film. Sent to Bastoy for killing someone, Erling seems more of a loner and rebel than sociopath. He quickly deals with attempted bullying and begins to test the boundaries of his confinement. This puts him into conflict with the warden and his proxy, Olav or C-1 who is the trustee for his dormitory. Assigned with showing C-19 the ropes, C-1 fails miserably as the stubborn Erling is determined to escape the island.

Over the course of the film C-1 and C-19 form a friendship. As is de rigueur, they bond over shared, forced punishment. If I recall, it was chopping down trees in freezing cold weather. As the film progresses, C-1 loses respect for the warden as he is blackmailed into covering up the acts of his pedophile guard (nice performance by Kristoffer Joner who bears a resemblance to Tom Skerritt). This leads to the final confrontation between the boys and their overseers which plays out a little like Lord of the Flies.

Helstad is quite convincing as Erling but Trond Nilssen's turn as C-1 is the lynchpin of the film. His scenes with Helstad, Skarsgård and Joner show his character's evolution which is more powerful than C-19's restless frustrations. Magnus Langlete as C-5 also shines as the victim of the pedophile.

There were recurring scenes of a whale at sea which was a story C-1 and C-19 were writing together and also served as a metaphor for Erling. I thought it was a little contrived and the CGI images of the whale looked second rate. Otherwise, King of Devil's Island is serviceable JD film elevated by a strong cast.

Benny & Bogie

The first films I saw in the Bay Area in 2012 were at the Stanford Theater.

To Be or Not To Be starring Jack Benny & Carole Lombard; directed by Ernst Lubitsch; (1942)
Casablanca starring Humphrey Bogart & Ingrid Bergman; with Claude Rains; directed by Michael Curtiz; (1942)

I was curious about To Be or Not To Be because I had never seen Jack Benny in a role except as "himself" which he portrayed in a few films and a long-running television series which I saw in reruns. That's the character that says "Well..." and has Rochester as a chauffeur.

In To Be or Not To Be, Benny plays Joseph Tura, the star actor in a Polish theater troupe. Carole Lombard plays Maria, his wife who is also an actress but jealous and dismissive of her husband's vanity and limelight. She copes by accepting the attention of younger men. A running gag throughout gives the film its title. Maria tells her would be paramour's to come back stage when her husband begins his soliloquy in Hamlet which starts with "To be or not to be..." In each instance, Benny deadpans a look of fury as a the young men stand up (invariably in the center of the 2nd row) and make their way backstage. Benny pulls it off for laughs like a pro.

Set immediately before and during the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, the theater troupe deals with the Nazi blitzkrieg and occupation. Robert Stack shows up as a young Polish aviator who is enamored with Maria. After escaping to London, he returns to stop a Polish double agent from revealing the underground resistance network. That's pretty serious stuff but it's played for laughs as mistaken identities, an actor who masquerades as Hitler and Benny's vanity are all expertly mined for laughs. I guess it is the "Lubitsch Touch."

Sig Ruman, who would gain cinematic immortality as Sgt. Schultz in Stalag 17 (1953), plays a more bumbling Nazi in To Be or Not To Be. He shows a fair amount of comedic skills going head-to-head with Benny in many scenes. Lombard, looking less bombshell than usual, also gets some gags (at Benny's expense frequently).

To Be or Not To Be is clearly Benny's showcase. He gets to dress as a Nazi, Hamlet, a Freudian looking Pole and I'm sure I'm missing some of his disguises. He pulls this off with his normal nonplussed aplomb. However, Joseph Tura is not that different from "Jack Benny." Still, it's hard to dismiss To Be or Not To Be. It was Lombard's last film before dying in an airplane crash. I (and the audience) laughed repeatedly throughout which, let us not forget, is a comedy about the Nazi occupation of Poland.

§§§

There's not much I can add to the volumes written about Casablanca. In fact, I've seen the film so many times that I can recite the dialog and plot intricacies by memory. This time, I did forget that my favorite song of the film until it was played. I'm not referring to "As Time Goes By." No, a few minutes before that iconic scene, Dooley Wilson perform a toe tapping rendition of "Knock on Wood" which features a call and response with the band.

Everyone was there - Peter Lorre as the unctuous Ugarte, Sydney Greenstreet as the venal Ferrari, Conrad Veidt as the odious Major Strasser and whoever the actors are that play the young Bulgarian couple trying to escape Casablanca. For all the praise heaped on Bogart and Bergman and even Paul Henreid as Lazlo which I have always thought was a thankless role, Casablanca's real star is Claude Rains as Captain Renault, the delightfully corrupt police chief of Casablanca.

Like his character, Rains steals every scene that's not nailed down. Every line coming out of his mouth is loaded with humor, cynicism, innuendo and weariness. It was a role of a lifetime for any actor. Unfortunately, Rains lost the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor to Charles Coburn in The More the Merrier, a film I've rarely heard of, much less seen. I'm anxious to see Coburn's performance.

§§§

I've noticed the Stanford does good business. They must pack in 100 to 200 people per screening at a minimum. All the tickets are double features and I notice a number of people leave after the organist finishes but I still think they are doing well. The Stanford is owned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation so their lease and perhaps operations are reduced or subsidized which explains their low admission prices and extremely low concessions prices.

It's a Zoo Out There

In December, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle that Keith Arnold was named general manager of operations at the Castro Theater. The article goes on to state Mr. Arnold's bona fides in the film programming community.

However, the second paragraph caught my attention. "The announcement comes on the heels of blogosphere and social media recently erupting with dark rumors concerning the venerable movie palace's future. Arnold, however, says the truth is something altogether brighter."

Erupting? I did a little "research" into the matter. What did research consist of before Google? It turns out that, in early December, The Petrelis Files reported that the Castro was moving away from film exhibition and converting to a "live performance venue." This conversion was to take place in January 2012. The post cited a confidential source who was later revealed.

Before it was refuted by the Castro Theater, the news "erupted." The most prominent person who reported on the "news" (without verification) was Roger Ebert via Twitter. Since I don't tweet, I was unaware of the controversy until after it had been refuted.

Petrelis updated his original post three times. In Update #2, Petrelis wrote "I've conferred with my source and they stand by the changes reported last night that will eventually take place over the next year or so at the Castro. The source maintains the owner is headed in a live performance direction and stands by the information shared with me."

While the issue was still fresh in some people's mind, Petrelis posted a follow up item. In this post, Petrelis revealed that Bill Longen, "who formerly worked at [the] Castro Theatre in many capacities from programmer to technical director," was the confidential source or "Deep Throat" for the original claim.

Petrelis' post quoted from a communication by Longen to Petrelis. In the portion cited by Petrelis, which is implied to be in its entirety, Longen never states definitively that the theater will switch to "live performance" programming. Longen details meetings he had to convert the Castro to a live performance venue but never states that the owners have decided to do so. Longen closes his communication with a cryptic message which can be interpreted many ways. "I hope this blog has rattled a few heads and caused some rethinking. If it has, then my work is done."

Most of Petrelis' second post read like a political manifesto. He listed 10 ideas for enhancing "the Castro's engagement with its audience." Several of them called on the owners to have open forums or dialogs with the public to explain their plans for the theater, their movies programming plans and their civic engagement. The entire episode smacked of "have you stopped beating your wife?" rhetoric. The tone had kind of a petulant, agitprop, 99% edge.

Petrelis went on to suggest a cannabis smoking area adjacent to the parking lot! Some of his other suggestions were more mainstream. He mentioned the Roxie had a "discount card" which I don't believe exists anymore. He urged the Castro to adopt a similar program which I certainly would benefit from. However, issues ranging from the building's historic landmark status to the economic wisdom of having the audience pick a film to be screened on a slow night, rendered his suggestions both helpful and self-serving.

Given that the San Francisco Silent Film Festival has already announced their 2012 festival will be from July 12 to 15 at the Castro Theater, it seems likely that any conversion will not occur before then...if ever.

§§§

The second film I saw in 2012 was We Bought a Zoo. It was not a film I wanted to see. I was still in Las Vegas visiting my father. It was the last full day I was there and my father wanted to get out of the house so we ran some errands and this film had a screening time and location which suited our schedule.

We Bought a Zoo starring Matt Damon & Scarlett Johansson; with Thomas Haden Church, Colin Ford, Maggie Elizabeth Jones & Elle Fanning; directed by Cameron Crowe; (2011) - Official Website

I don't have much to write about the film. I immediately noticed the preview trailers included an interesting clip of The Three Stooges, the upcoming Farrelly brothers film. It was the first time I'd seen a preview for that film. Rather than a biopic, it seems the Farrelly brothers have put The Three Stooges in present times. In fact, my father surprised me by asking "Isn't that Snookie?" I didn't even think he knew that Jersey Shore existed.

Back to We Bought a Zoo, I can't find fault with the performances but the plot was predictable and formulaic, despite being based on a true story. Colin Ford, as Matt Damon's son, surprised me in a scene where he argues with Damon. Elle Fanning was interesting as a naive girl who is surprisingly forward in pursuing Ford's character. Maggie Elizabeth Jones, 6 or 7 at the time of filming, gets to call John Michael Higgins "a dick." It's always entertaining to see prepubescents using profanity. Actually, Higgins' performance as the deadly serious, uptight zoo inspector was the highlight of an otherwise cloying film. Director Cameron Crowe dialed the mawkishness factor a little too high on this film. Nice soundtrack though.

Logan's Run, Footprints and The Descendants

With this post I close the book on films seen in 2011 and start with films from 2012.

In December, I saw:

Logan's Run starring Michael York & Jenny Agutter; with Farrah Fawcett & Peter Ustinov; directed by Michael Anderson; (1976)
Footprints starring Sybil Temtchine; directed by Steven Peros; (2009) - Official Website

I saw Logan's Run at the Castro and Footprints at the Little Roxie

Logan's Run is a well known film. It's one of those films I missed as a kid which is too bad because in 2011, only a adolescent boy could be interested in the film. Surprisingly, there was no nudity that I recall. Jenny Agutter wore some skimpy outfits but surprisingly little sex for a film which had the reputation among teenage boys as being all that.

The premise is well known. Didn't they do a remake recently? Michael York seems to be playing the role for high camp which I guess it is 35 years later. The special effect have a certain 1970s shabby chic appeal which reminded of the television show Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century. The dialog is cringe worthy at time. Seeing Peter Ustinov and Roscoe Lee Browne (as a robot) perform in the film made me wonder if they were desperate or the produces were paying them boatloads of money. Things were indeed strange in the 70s.

Two questions I have - 1) When Logan 5 (York) is being brain scanned by the computer at the end, he reveals there is no sanctuary. This puts the computer into an infinite loop and eventually overloads the system resulting in the destruction of the domed city. Why? Why does the computer need the existence of sanctuary for itself to exist? 2) What the hell was that carousel stuff? When you aged out, you went on this carousel where people cheered you on as you were zapped by laser. Was there a chance you would survive which was later disproved? I couldn't make heads or tails of the carousel.

Footprints was at times equally head scratching although I had a better sense of what was going on. Extremely low budget, the film starts with a woman (Sybil Temtchine) waking up in Mann's or Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood. She has no memory of her past including her own name. As the film progresses, she meets a number of Hollywood subculture characters - the homeless man, the tour guide operators, the woman who poses for photos dressed as Catwoman, etc.

I won't bother to recount the plot any further. The film has a dreamlike feel which makes it more interesting than it really is. Filmed on and around Hollywood Blvd., it feels like an indie film made for indie filmmakers and Hollywood history buffs. Ultimately, the nameless woman's story is representative of all the young actresses who came to Hollywood and we don't remember them or anything about their lives...the boulevard of broken dreams although technically refers to Sunset Blvd. not Hollywood Blvd.

The film never really captured my interest. The filmmakers seem to be ripping off Chris Rock when the homeless man rants about the less desired locations of black actors footprints in the Chinese Theater's courtyard. Actually, the seem to rip off Tarantino or Kevin Smith as well when the tour opertor goes on a rant about Nick Nolte "taking it up the ass" in The Prince of Tides. This was all in the first 10 minutes so I thought the film was going in one direction when it ended going in another.

§§§

The first film I saw in 2012 was The Descendants. Yes, I saw it second time. I usually don't see films twice in such a short period but I was visiting my father last week. He wanted to see it, it was Senior Tuesday so he got in for $3 and I liked it enough that I thought I could get a better appreciation of the film with a second viewing.

I didn't gain much from a second look. What you see is what you get the first time through. There were no details that I saw during the second viewing which enhanced the film in my estimation. I did notice that Dog The Bounty Hunter was playing with the sound off in the background when Scottie goes over to apologize to the girl for teasing her about her "pubes."

Having watched the credits the first time, I knew that Kaui Hart Hemmings played Matt King's (George Clooney) secretary. Hemmings wrote the novel The Descendants upon which the film is based. I thought she would be older.

So even though I didn't gain added appreciation for The Descendants, neither did the film lose its luster from a second viewing which many films do. My father said it was one of the best films he's seen in quite awhile. I have to agree.

David Lean Double Feature

In December, I stopped by the Stanford Theater to see two films directed by David Lean.

Great Expectations starring John Mills & Valerie Hobson; with Alec Guinness & Jean Simmons; directed by David Lean; (1946)
Brief Encounter starring Celia Johnson & Trevor Howard; directed by David Lean; (1945)

§§§

A few years ago, I saw a stage production of Brief Encounter at ACT. The play mixed footage from the David Lean film as segues between scenes. Director Emma Rice very cleverly incorporated scenes from the film into the live production. I remember being very entertained & impressed by the play.

When I saw Brief Encounter on the calendar this December at the Stanford, I made time in my schedule to go down to Palo Alto to see it. I'm not sure if my familiarity with the film was because I've seen it before or because I saw the play two years ago. Regardless, the film stood on its own merits and provoked an emotional response.

I think as I get older, I become more sentimental. There is not much opportunity for sentimentality in real life so I am more moved by it in fiction than when I was younger and not as cynical. So it was that Brief Encounter's tale of unconsummated love moved me deeply. Bound by social more and her of sense decency, Celia Johnson's Laura is unwilling to cheat on her husband with similarly married Alec (Trevor Howard).

What makes me equally sad is that the plot of Brief Encounter is foreign and anachronistic to so many people today. By today's standards, Laura choice would be considered cowardly or a needless sacrifice. However by the standards of 1945, Laura's choice is, perhaps not brave, but necessarily selfless.

Putting aside my conservative nature in matters of propriety, Brief Encounter is an extremely well made film. I was left as conflicted as Laura - I wanted her to follow her heart but I knew it would make her miserable. Celia Johnson & Trevor Howard give outstanding performances.

§§§

Great Expectations, based on the Charles Dickens novel, left me uninterested. Like Dickens' novels, Great Expectations was full of characters & coincidences which meander at a leisurely pace. It was interesting to see a young Alec Guinness as Pip's roommate Pocket and an even younger Jean Simmons as a young Estella but otherwise I quickly grew bored with the film. Perhaps I was anxious for Brief Encounter to start.

Noir City X and Xmas

Noir City hosted a kick-off event for its 2012 Noir City which the 10th edition. Noir City will run from January 20 to 29 at the Castro Theater.

Noir City Xmas, held on December 14 at the Castro, was emceed by Czar of Noir Eddie Muller. The evening consisted primarily of two Deanna Durbin films:

Lady on a Train starring Deanna Durbin, Ralph Bellamy, David Bruce & Dan Duryea; directed by Charles David; (1945)
Christmas Holiday starring Deanna Durbin & Gene Kelly; directed by Robert Siodmak; (1944)

Other than the films, the biggest announcements were that Angie Dickinson was going to appear in person on January 21, there will be a six film Dashiell Hammett marathon on January 29 and on January 28, Noir City will take over the Swedish American Hall to create an authentic period nightclub/bar/canteen which Muller christened "Everybody Comes to Eddie's."

Muller also declared the late George Kuchar was his mentor and gave a short tribute. I assume Muller took classes under Kuchar at the San Francisco Art Institute where he taught for many years.

§§§

Lady on a Train felt more like The Thin Man than noir but it was nice thriller/comedy. Durbin plays a wealthy debutante from SF who arrives in NY by train. While looking out her window, she sees a murder being committed. Unable to identify the location or identify the victim, the police treat her like a kook so she enlists the help of the world's greatest mystery novel writer (David Bruce). Perpetually with a drink in his hand, a pithy retort on his tongue and suspicious fiancée on his tail, Bruce is an unwilling partner in solving the crime. The two of them encounter wealthy brothers Ralph Bellamy & Dan Duryea; each playing with and against their typical typecast.

More comedy than suspense, I can't find much to fault with Lady on a Train. It wasn't noir and Xmas played little role in the plot but it was a fun little film.

§§§

Christmas Holiday was definitely noir although Xmas played a small role. Told in flashback, Durbin plays a "dancer" in a New Orleans "night club." She is introduced to a soldier who received a Dear John letter just before he was going to fly back to SF to propose to his girlfriend. Bad weather diverts the plane to Las Vegas for Xmas.

Durbin and a reporter/flack (Richard Whorf) fill the GI on her sad story. She was married to a guy (Gene Kelly) who had a gambling problem, bad temper and possible incestuous relations with his mother. Kelly kills a guy over a gambling and gets sent to prison. Durbin, who goes by tow names in the film, is reduced to "dancing" with johns to make a living.

You guessed it - Kelly breaks out of jail and wants to settle the score with his wife although I don't recall exactly what she did to deserve it. I think the fact that she is working in a "night club" is reason enough for the pyschotic Kelly. No need to go beyond there because this was made during the production code.

Durbin does ok in her role, it was interesting to see Kelly play the bad guy, Richard Whorf as the boozy 2nd banana does quite a bit with his limited role and Gale Sondergaard hits a home run as Kelly domineering mother.

Christmas Holiday was a serviceable noir - well made, well acted if not somewhat lacking in flair or panache.