Sign of the Ram (1948)

[Mr. Arkadin]

Looks interesting. Anybody seen or have info on this one?

[benwhowell]

It does sound interesting.
This was Susan "Random Harvest" Peters' return to the screen after being paralyzed from the waist down...she accidently shot herself during a hunting trip with her husband (Richard Quine) and the bullet was lodged in her spine. I guess this comeback-as an evil wheelchair-bound matriarch-was not well received.
She and Quine did adopt a son and than later divorced. She did some theatre and a short-lived TV show and then went into seclusion. She suffered from constant pain (from the accident,) kidney problems, depression, etc. and eventually starved herself to death...in 1952 at the age of 31.

I'd love to see "TSOTR" for the cast alone-Susan, Alexander Knox, Phyllis Thaxter, Dame May Whitty, Diana Douglas, Ron Randell and one of my favorite child stars-Peggy Ann Garner.

Thanks, Mr. Ark! I will be taping that one...

[moira finnie]

I thought that Susan Peters' performance in The Sign of the Ram (1948) as the wheelchair bound young matriarch, has some powerful moments. Her small size and delicate appearance is belied by the force of her performance as a conflicted, often manipulative character. Her Frida Kahlo-like appearance (same 'do sans the artist's unibrow), the clawlike way that she uses her hands in the film, and her striking clothes combine with her emphatic refusal to have viewers pity her, or, at times, even like her.

My main problem with the film is that much of the story seemed to ramble, and at times—due to the sheer blandness of some younger cast members*—a viewer might wish to have the boys and girls in this film come on wearing numbers on their backs to distinguish them--it is finally Miss Peters who carries this movie right through to the melodramatic but curiously moving last scene.

* A notable exception to this sameness would be Peggy Ann Garner, whose role as a neurotic teenager is very well acted.

Did anyone else find the soundtrack on The Sign of the Ram to be alternately muddy and booming? I had to adjust the sound all through the movie.

Other thoughts on Susan Peters' work:
My deep affection for Random Harvest has never convinced me that Susan Peters' Oscar nomination for her appealing supporting performance as the plaintive fiancée of Ronald Colman in this film wasn't an example of studio block voting for employees from that era rather than her acting prowess.

Peters' child-like manner, fragile, almost-birdlike appearance and relentless eagerness to please came across well in Random Harvest, (particularly in the early scenes at the family manse when Colman first returns). I just didn't believe a minute of her character's relationship to Colman. It seemed to be like watching a five year old dress up in her mother's clothes. Yet seeing her in other roles before and after her tragic accident seems to show that she wasn't necessarily a typical studio "flash in the pan". The girl may have had quite a bit of talent, which might be glimpsed in some other parts during her time at MGM and after.

I did find her performance more convincing in the forgotten, often ludicrous Song of Russia (1943), a wartime propaganda piece laced with some swell Tchaikovsky and a miscast Robert Taylor, as an American conductor visiting the Soviet utopia around the time of the Nazi invasion. Due to the fact that the USSR was then our ally against the Nazis, this film seems to have gotten the full gloss job from the studio. It comes complete with happy peasants, amusing remarks about share and share alike, a sometimes thundering score, and a love story that touches the viewer even when a person thinks one is immune to the schmaltz.

It's Peters, whose earnest playing of the winsome comrade who loves Taylor, classical music and Mother Russia who got to me. Despite my cynical self & what's been called the Hollywood-on-the-Volga touches throughout this MGM movie, I did root for her vulnerable yet valiant character. Maybe it would've all turned out better if life could've been like the movies for her.

[Erebus]

Despite being a sucker for movies set on rocky seashores (it was my good fortune to spend most of my brief army stint at Ft. Ord, near Monterey and Big Sur), the overwhelming negativity of this film had me up off the couch at 50 minutes in to see just how much longer of the domineering Ms. Peters I had to endure. I was reassured to see that the film had but a half hour or so to go, whereas the prospect of another hour would have sent me off to the history channel or anywhere else. Don't get me wrong: I thought it overall well executed, but man, how I cannot understand, or watch, such hateful characters, wheelchair notwithstanding.

Can't say I've been tracking "Bob's Picks" over the long-term but three of five last night featured some pretty nasty villainesses, the last of which, "Wicked As They Come", was basically unwatchable due to venomously predictable linearity.

[Hollis]

I'd have to agree with Erebus and his take on "Wicked as They Come." The acting was so bad and the story line so predictable that I found it almost unwatchable, and did in fact switch back and forth between the movie and a program on The Military Channel. I don't want to sound chauvinistic, if that's even a remote possibility, but the only thing that drew my eyes to the screen was the sheer physical beauty of Arlene Dahl. If her talent had equaled even a fraction of her allure, we might have been looking at one of Hollywood's bigger stars. The ending of the film was thoroughly unexplainable, making little if any sense to me. Then again I'm not the sophisticated viewer that some members of this forum are, my knowledge of comparable or similar movies paling by comparison. Did the movie make any real sense to any of you? Or am I, even in my relative infancy as far as "classic" film goes (as this surely doesn't qualify) developing a jaundiced eye?

As always,

Hollis

[Erebus]

Hollis, I agree that Arlene Dahl was very attractive. Can't help you with interpreting the movie because I bailed.

[jdb1]

I was very disappointed in this movie. Notwithstanding the fact that the unfortunate Susan Peters was wheelchair-bound just like the character she played, I thought she was seriously miscast. In addition, the screenplay was weak, the production slipshod, the characters underdrawn, and most of the performances superficial. I thought the only performance of note was that of May Whitty, who put some life into her small part as the town's malicious gossip. She gave a fully rounded performance; but then, she was the most fully rounded actor of the cast.

With a stronger screenplay, this might have made a fitting "A" film vehicle for Joan Crawford or maybe Gene Tierney. I didn't find anything particularly evil about Peters, or particularly lovable, for that matter. Her family was suppose to worship her supposed selflessness and goodness - I didn't get any of that either. Even as a second feature, this movie would have been better with someone like, say Jayne Meadows, who was very good in vicious female parts, and could carry off being beautiful, sweet, and brittle at the same time. I saw Meadows over the weekend in "Lady in the Lake," and her scene with Robert Montgomery, where she is pretending to be the landlady of the house Montgomery has just invaded, was wonderful: in the space of a few seconds she was scared, then antagonistic and then flirtatious. Very well done.

[Mr. Arkadin]

A bump for this peculiar film coming on late tonight.

[moira finnie]

Thanks, Joel. I am interested in seeing it again. The first time was not what I expected.