Better...better...

...better than the last time.

Yup.  I'm on the fourth in a row that I wrote about last year...and I...I didn't like this one - at all - the first time I watched it, which was last year, when I was trying to get through the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).  That was a clever link...

Speaking of, wanna see the list as it currently stands?  Here's a link.  There are some columns in this I've neglected, but I'm a-gettin' there.

Film 80

80.  "The African Queen" (AFI Rank #65)

I still don't get the populist appeal of this film.  It's got star quality, for sure, but beyond that, it's a romantic comedy which takes place in a boat floating down a river in Africa.   It doesn't solve any great problems.  It doesn't present any great storytelling.  It doesn't have a great deal of tension.  It doesn't have much drama.  It doesn't have much comedy.  It doesn't have much plot.

Am I starting this negatively?  I am, aren't I?   I said I liked it better this time, and I'm going off on its problems - which means that I REALLY hated it last time.  I didn't hate it this time.  I actually kinda liked it.  I also liked "Notting Hill," but I wouldn't call that a great piece of cinema.

Since I'm a pretty smart guy, and since I think I am capable of understanding lots of things, I think I'm going to shoot this review towards the positive, as a method of, oh, I don't know, trying to justify why this film is on this list.  Maybe by the time I'm done I'll have some epiphany.  I doubt it.

As an aside...do you ever click on the links to the films' IMDB pages I put in every post?  It's that link in the title above.  If you do...check out the poster art for a bunch of these old time films.  They are so...WRONG.  Of particular interest (and comedy) to me are this one, "On The Waterfront" (with its RED MENACE); "Gone With The Wind," "Psycho," "All About Eve (which is JUST BARELY FOR LIKE 5 SECONDS about women and their men)," "The Maltese Falcon," and "Casablanca."  The last two kill me.  Bogart never has a gun that he doesn't take off someone else in "The Maltese Falcon," and he barely appears in his trench coat in "Casablanca."

Have you guessed that I'm filling space yet?

Might as well get on with this.  Last time I wrote about this, I complained that the soundtrack was out of sync in the opening scene with the church.  I was wrong.  Katharine Hepburn just can't sing.  That's not the filmmaker's fault.  John Huston directed this film, and it stars the aforementioned Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart as Rose and Charlie, respectively.  The basic plot of the story is this:  Hepburn and her brother are missionaries from England living in Africa just as World War I breaks out.  Their village is besieged by the Germans, it is burned to the ground, and the natives are herded off to become forced labor/soldiers in the German cause.  Bogart plays Charlie Allnut, the local delivery boy/mailman who pilots his small steamboat, the "African Queen" up and down the river.  He visits Rose and her brother just before the Germans arrive, then returns a couple of days later when the war has started to check on their well-being.  By this time, Rose's brother has succumbed to some illness, and she is alone.  She and Charlie bury her brother, then she and Charlie escape to the river, aboard the "Queen."  As they pull into safe harbor, Rose convinces him that their duty, as citizens of the British Empire (Charlie is Canadian) is to take his boat down river and destroy a lake-running German boat, the "Louisa" which is preventing the British from gaining a foothold in the area.  Charlie has plenty of explosives on board the ship, and cylinders from which to construct makeshift torpedoes.  Besides the river presenting animal challenges such as crocodiles, hippos, bugs, and perhaps most memorably, leeches, there are also areas of rapids...and a waterfall that sneaks up on them.  Oh, and they have to float right past a German fort.  It ain't exactly a safe journey, and for some reason, Charlie agrees to it.  At first, it's a ruse of sorts, but as time goes on, Charlie warms to the idea...and to Rose.  They eventually make it to the lake, where the "Queen" sinks, never accomplishing its goal of sinking the German warship.  Charlie and Rose are taken prisoner and about to be hung, when the "Louisa" slams right into the floating (albeit upside-down) remnants of the "African Queen."  The ship explodes, Charlie and Rose escape, and we get a German, swimming in the water, making a WACKY salute at his superior officer.  Hilarious.

So.  All of that happens.  Compelling?  Not really.  Actually, it's pretty boring.  We see crocodiles jump into the water, but they are never really a threat.  We see Bogart make fun of a much more dangerous animal, the hippopotamus, with no consequences.  Floating past the German fort just presents the opportunity for our protagonists to be shot at, but they don't do anything clever to get away, they just eventually float out of range.  The Germans don't do anything to counter it...so...yeah.  Boring.  I suppose the hardships of the river eventually catch up with Charlie and Rose at the end, as they happen upon some water that they can't navigate, as it is stuffed with reeds.  This sequence is a little tense...but it ends just fine.

Here's the deal.  What makes this film appealing is the chemistry between Hepburn and Bogart.  As Rose begins to encounter danger, and especially learns to conquer it, we see her spinster, virginal self move aside.  We see real sexual desire/pleasure overtake her, especially after she steers the "Queen" through a series of rapids.  Charlie, a drunkard bachelor who obviously cares very little for his own well-being, begins to fall for this new Rose, and we see him...clean up his act.  Remember Danny and Sandy in "Grease?"  Yeah, it's like that.  Again, this is not exactly new territory.  Maybe at the time it was, but I don't think that in 1951 any of this was particularly new.  The chemistry between the actors is strong, however, and we get the feeling that they genuinely like each other  That part works.  I also love Bogart's departure from his normal reserved style.  The hippo scene is actually quite charming, if unsatisfying.  I really wanted the goddamned hippos to attack the fucker for making fun of them.  I wanted some drama.  I've got Bogart and John Huston.  Give me somethin'.  One thing:  I expect Charlie and Rose, at some point, to be singing something about the "African Queen" a la "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang."  Of course, nothing like that happens, but I expect it.

I suppose I can also say that it is amazing that this film was filmed where it was.  It's a beautiful travelogue of Africa, and the nature scenes are quite stirring.  John Huston got that part right.  I can't, for the life of me, imagine why he directed this story, however.  It doesn't feel true with what I know of the man.  Maybe I don't know enough.  I don't know.  I just know that this seems like a sledgehammer trying to swat a fly.  Maybe that's it.  Maybe that's why this is so revered.  It's because while it may be boiler-plate rom-com, it's in the hands of some masters.  Is that it?  Is that the appeal?

Also thrilling (although clearly models) are the scenes where the river is too powerful for the "Queen."  Yes, the boat and its passengers survive them all with aplomb, but they are thrilling.  I've been in boats when water made things way more tough than I was prepared to deal with, and there is a rush to getting through it.  One particular night was a night where we watched a storm front roll in as we were a mile north of our takeout and in our kayaks.  Chasing the water back was exhilarating, even in 4 foot swells, and dangerous as hell.  Good story.  We're sitting in Belmont Harbor, looking at the skies to the north and trying to decide if we should turn and go back to Diversey Harbor.  Suddenly, one of the group's kayak starts beeping as his emergency weather radio goes off.  We then see the front move it.  Yeah, we hightailed it back, and it was terrifying, but I get what Rose was saying when she talked about the physical thrill she felt.

There.  I told a personal story.  How about that?

I'm not going to tell you to rush out and watch "The African Queen."  I can't.  This year, however, I'm not so sure I'd recommend avoiding it.  That's the most honest way I can put it.  I didn't hate it this time.  I kinda liked it.  I just don't see it as "GREAT."

Ebert didn't include this in his "Great Movies" series.  He does seem to like it, though, and does quite a bit of criticism in this essay, which is about the film's appeal to audiences.  It's here.  I say nothing.  Bullshit.  Roger says a lot of what I do.