richard-1787

If you've ever convinced yourself to sit through Orson Welles The Lady from Shanghai (1947 - 87 minutes) to watch the admittedly stunning finale, you may not want to go through the same thing for this movie, made three years later and only 77 minutes long. But the ending is very definitely very impressive, even if most of what leads up to it is not.

The script has some dull writing, the end leaves you up in the air about certain important things, the direction is sometimes leaden, etc. But the camerawork throughout is definitely first-rate, and the last scene, on the San Francisco wharf, is indeed a masterpiece of both filming and editing. It will have you glued to your seat.

Other than the cinematography and editing, I think it's worth watching - once - for Ann Sheridan's performance. Warner Brothers seldom gave her material up to her potential - The Man Who Came to Dinner being a magnificent exception to that - and even here the script and leaden direction don'.t help her any. But she is able to create some wonderful moments that must have been absolutely magical on a big screen, and are good even on my tv set.

The rest of the actors are all fine, but have nothing decent to work with and no support from the director. It's pretty much paint by number. I think Eddie Muller on TCM gives it more credit than it deserves.

This movie is a mystery to me.

It's full of talented individuals:

Garson Kanin, the director

Paul Jerrico, the writer

Ginger Rogers, who had just won a Best Actress Academy Award for Kitty Foyle and been lots of fun in all those movies with Astaire for RKO.

Two fine supporting men: Burgess Meredith, who did very good work in lots of movies, and George Murphy, who danced with some of the finest in first-string musicals.

Yet despite all this talent, the script here is really embarrassing and the direction and performance of it not much better. I understand how the studio system worked, but why did RKO put Rogers, one of their top stars and money-makers - all those musicals with Astaire in the 1930s - in this turkey?

And why didn't they get a script doctor to put at least a few laughs into this laughless script???

Alan Marshal, the third male lead, had proved in movie after movie that while he was handsome, he had no acting talent and absolutely no sex appeal. He was probably in this to fulfill contractual obligations and there was nothing to be done about that.

But Meredith and Murphy, not to mention Rogers, could have done so much more with an even half-way decent script, which this is not.

As I started off by saying, many of the 33 previous reviewers found things to like here. I couldn't, and I like these performers. Maybe you will have better luck.

This is not a great movie, but it's certainly watchable. And the fact that so many of the previous 141 reviewers say that they had never heard of the 6888 and what they accomplished shows that a movie needed to be made on the subject. So bravo Tyler Perry for doing this.

My one objection is that the movie never spends time telling us how these women managed to get through all that mail in only three months. That was their signal accomplishment, what made them famous, and the movie never tells us.

It does tell us that several other units had been assigned the task previously and failed, so the 6888's achievement certainly merits recognition.

The obvious parallel contrast here is *Hidden Figures*, a downright remarkable movie that does not sell its audience short, but rather takes the time to let us see how those "human calculators" accomplished what they did. It makes us admire their ingenuity and intelligence, as well as their courage and perseverance.

I suspect the women of the 6888 had these qualities as well, but we really never get to see it.

There are books on the subject. I guess I'll have to go out and read one.