Two Movies Seen on TCM: The Scarlet Empress (1934) and Witness (1985)

I've been hooked on TCM for years now. I just always remember being a fan of Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Errol Flynn, Audrey Hepburn, Katharine Hepburn, James (Jimmy) Steward, John Wayne, and many many more. Around a decade ago, I used to do some reviews of movies I saw on TCM. I figured I'd start it up again. If you're interested, click on through.

The Scarlet Empress (1934). I have to say I've never been a fan of Marlene Dietrich. For some reason; however, I keep watching her movies on TCM. Her movies are often highly rated so I watch as I am curious about why she was such a big star. Morocco and Shanghai Express are some of the other recent movies I've seen. I do have to give props to Marlene Dietrich as she did like to push the envelope. Perhaps pushed it to such a degree that she was a reason why the Pre-Code era ended.

The Scarlet Empress is about Catherine II (Catherine the Great) with Dietrich playing the lead role. From what I can tell, the movie is somewhat accurate. Did this movie finally convince me that she deserves her place as one of the great actresses? No. Honestly, there's just something about her acting and voice that irritate me. 

Also, honestly, I couldn't tell if this movie was a comedy or a drama. The movie starts out in Prussia. She is being raised to marry someone of great importance. There is a scene in the movie where she walks into a room and there are around five women inside. She goes up to each one and kisses their hands. Then when she leaves, she also kisses each of their hands. It is done in comedic fashion (or maybe it was just the frame rate at the time that makes it look unusual).

An emissary from Russia arrives, Count Alexei, with the proposal that Sophia (the birth name of Catherine II) will marry the Grand Duke Peter (played by Sam Jaffe). His aunt Empress Elizabeth is the current ruler of Russia (she ruled for 21 years) and Grand Duke Peter will eventually become Peter III. When Catherine arrives in Moscow, she is not at all attracted to Peter. Who can blame her? He is portrayed as a wide eyed creep of an individual. The role of Peter is played so over the top that it was another reason why I wondered if this was a comedy or a drama. Catherine immediately starts to search out lovers among the military officers. It is strongly implied that Catherine and Peter never consummated their marriage. In fact, Peter has his own lover. When Catherine gives birth, one assumes that it is the child of her lover Lieutenant Dmitri. (In real life, the child might have belonged to Sergei Saltykov as that is what is implied in her memoirs though she later recanted and said that the child was in fact Peter III's child. Of course, was that due to succession questions?)

As Elizabeth's health is failing, Peter implies that he will kill Catherine. This doesn't seem to worry her all that much. There is a scene of her playing games with her ladies in wait as well as some soldiers who, no doubt, are future lovers. One part of the movie that is somewhat true is that she meets up with Capt Gregori Orloff. It is Capt Orloff that helps her overthrow Peter III (who ruled for only 6 months or so). What the movie indicates is that Catherine the Great built ties with the military and religious leaders (while Peter III ignored them) and that is how she came to power.

Peter III is portrayed as a thoughtless and cruel ruler. There is a scene where he randomly shoots into the streets, ending up killing one of his military guards -- an obviously reason why they'd turn against him. 

This is a pre-code era movie and it does include some titillating moments. At the beginning of the movie a story is being told to young Sophia. There is some torture of men and women that is shown during the storytelling. There are millisecond images of two topless women though the breasts appear to be purposely out of focus (of course, that could just be associated with my television). Later in the movie as Peter III is acting as a horrible leader, there is a scene where a topless woman, back to the camera, is attacking a soldier. I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of that scene was other than to titillate. Was she being raped and had turned the tables or did he come barging into her house while she was bathing and she attacked him because of that? Whatever the situation, I'm sure it was inserted into the movie to get audiences intrigued.   

Witness (1985). Much younger Harrison Ford (you know, Star Wars, Indiana Jones) and Kelly McGillis (Top Gun) headline this movie. At the time, child actor Lukas Hass (Inception) plays a feature role. A pre-Leather Weapon's Danny Glover gets to play a corrupt cop, Patti LuPone plays Ford's sister, and Viggo Mortensen has a brief role. This is one stacked line-up of actors. 

The backdrop is an Amish community in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Rachel's (McGillis) husband has died and the community is coming together to mourn the loss. Interestingly, it doesn't take long for another Amish man to drop on by and do some flirting, Daniel (Alexander Godunov). Talk about being aggressive. Anyways, Rachel and her son Samuel (Lukas Hass) leave for Philadelphia via a train to take a break from it all. There is a train delay and they're stuck midway between the two cities. During that time, Samuel makes his way to the bathroom. He enters a stall. That's where the set-up of the story starts. A murder takes place where McFee (Danny Glover) kills an individual in the bathroom. Samuel is an eye witness to this and using some of his wit, is able to go undetected. 

John Book (Harrison Ford) shows up at the scene as the cop investigating the murder -- the murdered individual happens to be a fellow cop. Samuel tells John Book that he knows that the killer is Black. There are attempts to identify this suspect via various methods, but none are successful until Samuel goes wondering around the police office. He notices a flier of McFee -- who also happens to be a cop. John Book brings this up to his boss Schaeffer (Josef Sommer). That was a mistake, because Schaeffer is part of the internal crime ring. 

McFee attempts to gun down John Book. John Book is hit, but survives and is capable of loading Rachel and Samuel in a car and off they go back to Lancaster to try and hide out among the Amish. John Book faints from his gun wound. Instead of being taken to a doctor, the Amish take care of him on their own -- because taking him to a doctor would lead to reports to the police. 

John Book slowly recovers and takes part in various Amish traditions while also falling in love with Rachel. The corrupt cops are able to track down John Book when he takes a very un-Amish approach and starts a fight with some abusive individuals. The movie ends with a showdown between the corrupt cops and John Book. 

Well, that isn't exactly the ending. The ending has John Book leaving Lancaster while at the same time Daniel is walking towards Rachel's home. I think that was the right way to end the relationship between the two. Though there was obviously a physical attraction between the two, it just seemed like too much of a cultural divide to result in any long lasting situation. 

This is a quiet thriller of a movie. Within the first 30 minutes or so, you already know who the bad guys are so literally it is a movie about who will nail the other first. I will say that the one flaw of the movie is John Book. Why was John Book put on the case in the first place? Schaeffer must have assigned him to the case. Since Schaeffer must have signed off on the murder, you'd think he'd put a loser of an investigator on the case. Instead, John Book is viewed as a rather competent investor. Of course, maybe because a cop was killed, a top investigator needed to be assigned the case or it would be suspicious. Also, initially, it was thought that there were no witnesses.

I suspect I first saw this movie on rental -- years ago. It is interesting how certain scenes rang a bell such as when John Book and Rachel are dancing.