The 1971 film Such Good Friends, by Otto Preminger, is like a comic An Unmarried Woman with a sick and dying husband.  The wife of this husband, Julie (Dyan Cannon), firmly and understandably sees her marriage to Richard (Laurence Luckinbill) as a good one.  But then his health starts failing badly before Julie’s obsession with his welfare is supplanted by anguish over the relationship per se.  At first—and at later moments too—the film is a sex comedy, presently turning into a comedy plain and simple: one with pathos.

The script is by Elaine May (using the pseudonym of Esther Dale), adapting a novel by Lois Gould, and there are trenchant, witty lines.  Occasionally, however, the flick is distasteful:  I don’t want to see James Coco in his underwear waiting to be fellated.  Friends, further, can be preposterous. . . Dyan Cannon does not flesh out her character memorably, as do Coco and Ken Howard.  The music, too, sometimes fails to cut it.  I disagree with the internet reviewer who found the film dull, but it is my opinion that, in spite of its several pleasures, Such Good Friends is forgettable.  

The writer Larry Woiwode knows America to be a land that will never truly renounce Christianity both Catholic and Protestant, and this is glowingly reflected in his fiction about the Neumiller family of North Dakota.

Much of this fiction is in the form of short stories like “The Suitor”, whose protagonist, Martin Neumiller, proposes marriage to Alpha Jones.  Martin is a Catholic Christian who receives bad vibes from Alpha’s feisty, drunken father and shortsighted Protestant mother; but the standard attachment to a major institution—i.e. marriage—brings resolution.  The parents are happy their daughter was proposed to.

The incidents in “Marie” take place many years later, after Alpha has passed on and Martin intends to remarry.  Marie is the youngest child of the couple:  she has grown up without a mother and knows she cannot possibly fill the woman’s shoes for the family (“I can’t do anything right”).  Yet, as Marie points out, she is the one who’s alive, she is here, albeit Woiwode demonstrates his firm belief in God by making it seem that Alpha Neumiller is not really a person of the past.  Somehow she lives too, her death not looked at through a nihilistic lens.

Woiwode is a man of faith whose prose is soothingly subtle and gently penetrating.

“The Suitor” and “Marie” can be found in his book The Neumiller Stories.

http://gty.im/159463818

The Nick Searcy (director)-Andrew Klavan (screenwriter) effort, Gosnell—about the infanticide in Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion clinic—has its flaws.  For one thing, Klavan’s dialogue is not masterly (sarcastically:  “You’re a ray of sunshine”).  But the film is intelligent middlebrow drama all the same, technically conventional but also brave and gripping.  More gripping, I would say, in all its ugly clinic scenes than in the courtroom parts which supply the movie’s subtitle:  The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer.  This is especially true when police officers and an assistant D.A. investigate, hardly believing what they see, said clinic.  Dean Cain enacts one of the cops and is commandingly true.  Sarah Jane Morris as the D.A. and Earl Billings as Gosnell are faultless.

Cover of Nothing Sacred

Was there ever a time when American cities gave great adulation to young women dying of something like radium poisoning?  I don’t know, but in the comic (and funny) Nothing Sacred (1937), the Big Apple does so for Vermont girl Hazel—without knowing that Hazel is shamelessly faking.  It is not even known by the newspaper reporter (Frederic March) who wants the scoop and all the crazy hoopla it leads to.

Pauline Kael wrote that “What are generally sentimentalized as ‘the little people’ are the targets” of this film.  So is Hazel, played by a grounded and never-strident Carole Lombard.  Nothing Sacred is short but filler-free, and peppery.  It’s the Billy Wilder pic that Wilder never made; William Wellman—and writer Ben Hecht—did.

Cover of Arguing the World

Joseph Dorman‘s Arguing the World (1998) is a dandy documentary about those who constitute what we universally call the New York Intellectuals, who reached adulthood during the early years of the 20th century.  The men featured are Irving Howe, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer and Irving Kristol.

Because their families were poor, these four gents could and did receive a free education at New York’s City College, albeit they primarily educated themselves there since so many of the profs were mediocre.  A politically radical quartet they became: they were Jews at a time when, the film explains, young Jews were frequently attracted to socialism.  But, except for Howe, they didn’t stay radical.  Their fondness for socialism could not translate into the pro-Communism and even pro-Stalinism that other lefty intellectuals were espousing.  Dorman traces the responses and attitudes of the men to such successive events as the McCarthy hearings, the rise of the New Left, and the Vietnam War protests.

The Partisan Review crowd—this is what they were; they wrote articles for that particular liberal publication.  Diana Trilling appears in the film and says the members of this crowd didn’t know how to behave—“they knew how to think, not how to behave”—but to their credit Bell, et al. found they could not wholly disdain the thinking of the “vulgar” Joe McCarthy.

For his part, Irving Howe calls McCarthy a thug.  A socialist to the end, Howe was also an excellent literary critic, a fact which doesn’t interest Dorman.  What does interest him is that in the Fifties Howe criticized the other Intellectuals for making peace with the status quo, for “conformity,” for renouncing social radicalism.  Irving Kristol wants to know whether Howe was accusing him of “conforming” to the commonly held view that America is a good country, for, after all, Kristol had always had that opinion.

A few years ago I discovered that Kristol commented in a mid-1970s essay of his on how liberalism inevitably makes “a mess of things” before the people vote it out.  Clearly the former radical became anti-Left, and, in point of fact, a conservative.  All four of the men, however, had to encounter the anti-anti-Communism of student rebels of the 1960s, since all four were professors.  Nathan Glazer thought the students were “wrecking the university,” and Bell saw Tom Hayden as “the Richard Nixon of the Left.”  They deplored the New Left’s intellectual superficiality, although in fairness they were offended by the thinking of inexperienced young people, folks no blinder, perhaps, than the Intellectuals themselves when they were young.  Even so, something necessary goes on here.  Dorman interviews the radical Hayden and Todd Gitlin, now middle-aged, and as James Bowman has written, “[Both] those gentlemen together with others of their persuasion are brought before the camera to display for us those endearing qualities which have done so much to create the present state of intellectual totalitarianism that prevails in American academic and intellectual life” (JamesBowman.net).  Yep, that’s today’s academic life for you.  Not nearly as worthy as this documentary.