BOTTOM OF THE BOTTLE

US, 1956, 88 minutes, Colour.
Van Johnson, Joseph Cotten, Ruth Roman, Jack Carson, Margaret Hayes, Bruce Bennett, Brad Dexter, Peggy Knudsen, Jim Davis, Margaret Lindsay, Nancy Gates.
Directed by Henry Hathaway.

Bottom of the Bottle is a film about alcoholism. Joseph Cotten portrays a wealthy attorney and ranch owner in Nogales, on the border with Mexico. He is married to Ruth Roman. His brother, played by Van Johnson, has been in prison for five years after accidentally killing a man in a barroom brawl. He has been condemned without the help of his brother. When he escapes, he wants to help his family in Mexico and cross the border. However, the river is in flood. Cotten's wife and other people in Nogales society don’t know about the history of his brother.

The film offers a great deal of dramatic tension, the contrast in (*contrasting? – not clear) character of the brothers, their conflict. It also offers Van Johnson the opportunity for a better display of acting than was generally given him. He is persuasive as the alcoholic.

The film was directed by Henry Hathaway who had a long career in Hollywood, making a number of action films in the 1930s including the first colour western, Trail of the Lonesome Pine. He made a number of dramas during the 40s specialising in gritty realism with The House on 92nd Street, 13 Rue Madeleine, Call Northside 777 as well as Kiss of Death. With the coming of Cinemascope he made a number of colourful films including Garden of Evil, Prince Valiant, The Racers. He also directed Van Johnson as a blind detective in the parallel to Sherlock Holmes, 23 Paces to Baker Street. He continued to make westerns during the 1960s including John Wayne’s Oscar-winning True Grit.

1. The British title was Beyond the River. Which emphasis is best for the film, the drink emphasis of the American title or the escape emphasis of the British title? Which was the major theme?

2. Was this an informative and insightful drama about alcoholism? What insight into the problem did it give? The consequences of alcoholism? An escape drama? Did it generate suspense and the need for escape?

3. How important was the characterisation for this film? Were the characters strongly delineated? With an identity of their own? For a strong interaction? Was the screenplay strong in providing situations and dialogue or did this situation seem weak for the potential theme?

4. Which brother did the audience identity with? PJ or Donald? Why? How would this point of view be important for the theme of the film?

5. Initial impressions of PJ,? As a man about the city? His relationship with his wife? Wealth and his legal profession? His role in society and the type of society? His reliance on his good nature? His first interaction with his brother and his wanting to hide his identity? The fact that he had left the family earlier? That he had not helped Donald in his time of distress? That he was weak although filled with self-importance?

6, How did Donald contrast with P.J.? That he had stayed at home with his sister? His poverty? His temper? His drinking? His years in prison and his escape? His desperation? His conversation about his brother. His anxiety about his family? The irony of the closeness of distance but the swollen river?

7. What kind of person was Nora? What life did she have with P.J? the fact that she was not a drinker and yet the parties and the continual round of socialising? The pressures that society put on her relationship with P.J.? Their separate rooms? Their interest in Donald? How did she act as a catalyst for the resolving of their problems? Was this convincing?

8. Comment on the picture of society in the film? How attractive was it? How arrogant and wasteful? The arrogance of the Brekenridges? especially Hal Brekenridge at the end with his violence and impatience? How did this contrast thematically and visually with Mildred and the children in Mexico? The emotional impact of the phone call? their poverty?

9. How did the film get the audience involved with Donald and utilise their compassion? The situation of the river? Its reputation of being insecure? The questions of justice and the letter of the law? Of collaboration? What decisions did the film ask of the audience?

I0. How important were the drinking sequences in the film? The social parties? The abstemiousness of P.J, and Nora? Doc isolated at the party? His visit to the cafe and his need for drink in the morning? His alcoholic behaviour at the party and his fighting with P.J.? His taking refuge in the mountains?

11. How convincing were the sequences between P.J. and Nora? for his change of heart? Why did he not want to become involved? Why did his wife challenge him? Why did he change his heart? In helping Mildred with money etc,?

12. How dramatic was the chase and the confrontation at the river? Did P.J. do the right thing? the law? the nature of brother relationships? The fact that Donald saved P.J.?

13. Decisions come quickly at the end. The end also sounded somewhat sentimental. Did this fit in with the film? Or was it done too quickly for the dramatic impact to be effective? was it right? Did Donald make the right decision?

14. Films like this are popular entertainment, but they treat of real problems of drink and family relationships. How important are films like this for popular audiences?