sesht A wonderful interplay of characters and words in this magical adaptation of a stage play, anyone unfamiliar with the material, like I was at the time, will be rewarded with all the goings-on at Hotel Beauregard. A collection of characters, both long-term and short, at the aforementioned hotel, gather at the time of this narration, at various points in their lives. There are the (for those times, at that place) illicit unmarried couple, one of whom is more intent on the romantic getaway than the other, who'd rather focus on an upcoming examination.There is a mother-daughter couple, one of whom hold dominance/sway over the other, and that dynamic is painful for all those who behold them, including this viewer.There is the boorish ex-armyman, who's fulla stories that test everyone's patience, and attention-span, and who's completely oblivious to the effect he has on his fellow-person, and keep at it anyway. And the mainstay, of course, is the return of an old flame into a milieu where the one who lit that flame has seemingly moved on, to, let's just say, stabler pastures? hardly a powder-keg waiting to go up, but go up it does, with media, whispers and gossip doing their jobs quite effectively, until it all comes to a head. Once again, as with most of the works made in this time, very economical story-telling, and powerful monologues as well as dialogues from all characters, who put in strong performances. The score though, and this is something typical for flicks made in this time and period, is very in your face, and if one learns to ignore its manipulation, one will be rewarded for said effort. Kerr is almost unrecognizable, but Lancaster and Niven do their schtick, and that's not a bad thing, since I'm still not able to visualize anyone else doing what they've done here. Definitely their A-game. Worth repeat viewings.

Holdjerhorses Having recently watched "You Were Never Lovelier" with Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth, it's interesting to notice how she was largely shot and directed throughout her career.Her dancing in "Lovelier" was fun and fine in "The Shorty George," where she's relaxed and clearly having a ball -- and appears to be keeping up with Astaire. "Appears" is the operative word. Astaire (who choreographed) carefully kept their routines within Hayworth's range, never challenging her beyond her capacities. But Hayworth completely lacked Ginger Rogers' lithe body fluidity and on screen electricity.Hayworth was stunningly beautiful, of course. But even in "Lovelier" there are moments when, not carefully lit, the forehead lines that were so apparent in later years (unless also carefully lit) were already apparent and fleetingly distracting.More to the point was how she was directed and photographed in "Lovelier." She actually has very few lines. What she does have are usually brief and delivered in a relatively quick take before cutting away.She never makes emotional transitions in a scene. Rather, the camera cuts to a new angle when she's called on to register a different emotion. The primary goal at all times is to maintain her seemingly flawless facial beauty. Fine in a fluff piece like "Lovelier."Cut to "Separate Tables" 16 years later.Hayworth is still beautiful if more "mature." AGAIN she is never shown making an emotional transition in one shot: cutaways are instead employed. The technique (to disguise her limited acting abilities) is particularly jarring in her dramatic scene in her bedroom with Burt Lancaster. On closer inspection, she "poses" from cut to cut rather than displaying her character's emotional arcs.Sure, she was supposed to be an aging model, all self-possessed poise. But not in that dramatic scene.Still, it's a fascinating lesson in how skilled film making disguises limited range. (For a heartbreaking account of the making of her last film, read Frank Langella's "Dropped Names.")Terence Rattigan's play was forced to disguise the homosexual "scandal" of the Major's (David Niven) being arrested for soliciting men in dark movie houses, though the implication is fairly clear.Knowing the repression of homosexuality at that time makes Niven's performance even more involving; especially once the scandal is revealed to the boarders at the Beauregard.Niven's amazing performance (in only 16 minutes of screen time) is disarmingly deep. He goes from an almost comical figure to an exposed fraud with a dark secret since childhood, to a lost late-middle-aged man with no future, to the final hope of redemption.Niven shows all his character's subtle emotional transitions in sustained takes (unlike Hayworth).Deborah Kerr is fine and completely convincing, as always.Burt Lancaster gives another version of Burt Lancaster in not his finest hour. "Sweet Smell of Success," "The Rose Tattoo," "Come Back, Little Sheba," "Birdman of Alcatraz" and "Judgment at Nuremberg" -- even "Trapeze" -- are better records of his talents. But he's always believable.The remaining cast, especially the nuanced Wendy Hiller, are terrific.Still, it's Hayworth's impression -- not her character's -- who lingers as something not quite real, not untalented, but unrealized and somewhat vacant. It's not her mental deterioration. It was there on screen from the beginning. She tried gamely throughout her career, and looked magnificent thanks to careful costuming, lighting and cinematography. But even with careful cutaway direction she seems little more than a paper doll -- and finally, tragically, just as fragile.

vincentlynch-moonoi This is a very serious film that tells the stories of a number of people who live at a small British hotel. They dine each evening at "separate tables".Wendy Hiller plays the manager of the hotel and is secretly engaged to resident Burt Lancaster, who drinks just a little too much. The wonderful Gladys Cooper overprotects her very nervous daughter Deborah Kerr (so plain here). David Niven plays a high-ranking military veteran who is exposed as being a harasser of young women at a cinema...not to mention telling lies about his past. Will he be expelled from the hotel? Rod Taylor plays a not-very-romantic new husband. Lancaster's ex-wife (Rita Hayworth) shows up, and reveals to us that Lancaster tried to kill her and spent time in prison. One thing -- at the end of the movie, most of the subplots are pulled together. Some endings are relatively happy, others unhappy, some just neutral. In other words -- real life.One of the most brilliant things about this film is how seamlessly the seemingly unconnected sub-plots meld together.This is not an exciting film, but it is brilliantly acted by just about all involved. And what a remarkable cast it is! Rita Hayworth is wonderful, and I realized that she is one actress I have payed little attention to; time to reassess! Deborah Kerr is remarkable as the terribly shy and nervous young woman; almost hard to believe it's her. I'm usually pretty neutral toward David Niven, but this is one of his best roles! I'm also rather neutral toward Burt Lancaster, but he is excellent here. As another reviewer wrote, Wendy Hiller can do no wrong! Gladys Cooper is one of the finest character actresses of her era, although as was often the case, she's not very likable in this role. Cathleen Nesbitt and Felix Aylmer round out the cast nicely. The subplot with Rod Taylor is irrelevant to the film and should have been eliminated. May Hallatt is good as Miss Meacham.Highly recommended, and it gets a very rare "8" from me.

ackstasis It sometimes seems as though most of Hollywood's 1950s stage adaptations were either based on a Tennessee Williams play, or directed by Elia Kazan, or both. 'Separate Tables (1958)' belongs to neither category, but nevertheless deserves to stand alongside the likes of 'A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)' or 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958).' Headlining the very distinguished cast are Burt Lancaster, David Niven, Rita Hayworth, Deborah Kerr, and Wendy Hiller, playing residents at a British country motel, each concealing secrets and hidden motives that don't remain hidden for long before the prying eyes of the house's gossipy old women. Though the entire story unfolds in the one location, the film's extensive motel set is nevertheless an impressive stage for the actors' talents, with Mann's versatile camera effortlessly switching between rooms and angles. The film takes in awkward conversations and intimate exchanges from all corners of the motel, weaving a tapestry of small, parallel stories (indeed, the screenplay was drafted by combining two related one-act plays by Terrence Ratigan). Some of the subject matter is fairly bold for its time, with sex and perversion playing important roles.'Separate Tables' is truly an actors' picture. The film is a Powell/Pressburger reunion of sorts. Kerr ('The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1945))' pulls off a difficult role as a mousy, painfully- shy young woman, her timidity so utterly complete that I could scarcely watch her out of pity. The performance highlights Kerr's wonderful versatility; she could alternate with ease between portraying introverts and extroverts (and even both within the same character, as in 'Perfect Strangers (1945)'). Burt Lancaster enters the film with a rather peculiar accent, but soon settles into his usual acting groove. Opposite him, Rita Hayworth is as beautiful as ever, with a tinge of the insecurity that comes with middle-age. David Niven ('A Matter of Life and Death (1946)') won an Oscar for his bumbling, Latin-mangling WWII Major, an amusing yet poignant depiction of a social outcast. According to Niven's biography "The Moon's A Balloon (1972)," a prominent rival- studio producer tried to sabotage the actor's Oscars campaign by spreading a false rumour that he had attended the stage-show dozens of times, and had directly copied Eric Portman's stage performance.