writers_reign
Despite solid competition from Scott Fitzgerald and Irwin Shaw John O'Hara was the indisputable Master of the American short story in the twentieth century. In a career spanning just over forty years (1928-1970)he could skewer a person/situation in 750 to 1,000 words as his earliest New Yorker stories demonstrate. During the last decade of his life he published six outstanding collections of stories with each one boasting at least one (and often more than one) 'long' short story (another form he had mastered in the early thirties with his prize-winning long story 'The Doctor's Son'. 'Natica Jackson' dates from his last decade and in fifty + pages O'Hara nails thirties Hollywood to the wall in a combination of narration and dialogue which tells us all we need to know about how Hollywood works. This occupies about four fifths of the story leaving only one fifth for the story of Natica Jackson, a high profile star who, in the wake of an auto accident, falls in love with a research chemist with tragic results. Hitherto happily married with two children the chemist reciprocates Jackson's feeling with the result that his wife, in an act of revenge, calmly takes their two children out in a boat and drowns them making it easy to dismiss Natica Jackson as a modern take on Medea. It is, of course, so much more but the screenplay reverses the original ratio making Natica four fifths of the story which was probably wise as most film-goers/television watchers, unlike myself CAN get enough of Hollywoodiana. As an example of O'Hara's writing it is invaluable.
Hitchcoc
While it has a a very good cast (Michelle Pfeiffer and Hector Elizondo, especially), it just doesn't seem to go anywhere. The center is the young actress who is jealous of her high school friends who are married. She never had that chance. She finds herself in a doomed relationship, but is at the beck and call of the studio. There is a lot of driving around in some pretty fancy classic cars. There is some interesting inside cinema from the period. The story is an old one and doesn't offer much that is new. There is a great deal of pain inflicted. The subplot is a group of vulturous has beens who are trying to recoup their careers through the big producer (Darren McGavin). A fly hits the ointment. Unfortunately, it's a big fly and it pretty much decimates this subplot. Without ruining anything, everything is heading for a tragedy. Pfeiffer's acting is very good. She was certainly heading for stardom. But low budget and empty script can only combine to detract from performance. Not a very substantial effort.
Tom Willett (yonhope)
Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.Here Kitty, Kitty...Tom Willett
ruubje
So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.
AD
