"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" (1974) Review

 

"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" (1974) Review

Whenever the topic of Agatha Christie novels pop up, many critics and fans seem to rate her 1934 novel, "Murder on the Orient Express" as among her best work. This stellar opinion seemed to have extended to the 1974 movie adaptation. After all, the film did receive six Academy Award nominations and won one. Is "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" the best adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is it my favorite? Hmmm . . . I will get to that later.

But I cannot deny that the movie, also produced by John Bradbourne and directed by Sidney Lumet, is a first-class production. One could easily see that Bradbourne and Paramount Pictures had invested a great deal of money into the production. They hired the very talented and award winning director, Sidney Lumet; along with an all-star cast led by Albert Finney; cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth; production and costume designer Tony Walton; and Paul Dehn to write the screenplay.

One of the most unique aspects of this particular movie is that it started with a haunting montage featuring newspaper clippings and newsreel footage of a tragic kidnapping of a three year-old girl from a wealthy Anglo-American family named Daisy Armstrong. The kidnapping of young Daisy would end up playing a major role in the true identities of the murder victim and the suspects. The movie soon moved to Istanbul, five years later, where famed Belgian-born detective, Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney), is about to journey back to England via the Orient Express. Despite the unusually heaving booking in the train’s Calais coach, Poirot manages to secure a berth aboard the train thanks to an old friend, Signor Bianchi (Martin Balsam), who happens to be a director for the Orient Express’ owner – the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits. After the train departs Istanbul, a mysterious American art collector named Ratchett (Richard Widmark) informs Poirot that someone has been sending him threatening notes and asks for the Belgian’s protection. Due to Poirot’s instinctual dislike of Rachett, the detective refuses to help. And after the train finds itself snowbound in the Balkans, Rachett is stabbed to death in the middle of the night. Signor Bianchi asks Poirot to unearth the murderer.

”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” turned out to be the first screen adaptation of a Christie novel to feature an all-star cast. One that only included screen stars such as Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Jacqueline Bisset, Michael York and Jean-Pierre Cassel. The cast also included stage luminaries such as John Gielgud (who was a bigger star on the stage), Wendy Hiller, Denis Quilley and Colin Blakely. And all of them gave solid performances, although I do have a few quibbles about a few members of the cast.

Critics had been especially impressed by Finney’s interpretation of the Belgian detective and Ingrid Bergman’s role as a shy and nervous Swedish missionary. Both received Academy Award nominations and Bergman won. Personally, I am not certain if both actors deserved their nominations. They gave pretty solid performances. But I found nothing extraordinary about Bergman’s Swedish missionary. It was a first-rate performance, but not worthy of an Oscar nomination, let alone an Oscar. And although he gave a superb performance, there were times when Finney seemed to drift into some kind of parody of the Continental European. This is why I believe that actors with strong European backgrounds like Peter Ustinov and David Suchet should portray Poirot. But . . . I cannot deny that he gave a very good performance. And he also conveyed certain aspects of Poirot's personality that I have never seen in Ustinov or Suchet's portryals - one of them being a talent for manipulating others into revealing themselves during an interrogation. I also enjoyed his brief scene with Jeremy Lloyd, who portrayed an obsequious British Army officer that served as Poirot's escort during the crossing of the Bosphorus Strait.

And there were times when some members of the rest of the cast seemed to be in danger of drifting into hammy acting. Sean Connery sometimes came off as heavy-handed in his British Army officer routine. And Anthony Perkins’ parody of his famous Norman Bates role irritated me to no end . . . especially since the literary version of his character – Hector McQueen – came off as a completely different personality. However, Perkins had one really excellent scene that featured no dialogue on his part. But three performances did strongly impress me – namely Jean-Pierre Cassel as the rail car attendant, Pierre Michel; Rachel Roberts as a German lady’s maid named Hildegarde Schmidt; and Colin Blakely as Cyrus Hardman, an American detective masquerading as a talent scout. Unlike some members of the cast, these three managed to give subtle, yet convincing performances without sometimes careening into parody. And Blakely provided one of the most poignant moments in the film when Poirot revealed his character’s (Hardman) personal connection to the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping case.

As for the movie’s screenplay, I must admit that Paul Dehn and an uncredited Anthony Shaffer did an excellent job in adapting Christie’s novel for the screen. They managed to stay true to the novel’s original plot with very few changes. Their only misstep was in making the Hector MacQueen’s character into a parody of the Norman Bates role from ”PSYCHO” (1960), due to Perkins being cast into the role. Or perhaps the fault lay with Lumet. Who knows? However, I cannot but express admiration over the brilliant move to include the montage that featured Daisy Armstrong’s kidnapping and murder at the beginning of the film. It gave the story an extra poignancy to an already semi-tragic tale. Despite these changes, Dehn and Shaffer basically remained faithful to the novel. They even maintained the original solution to the mystery. Granted, the solution made ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” one of the most unusual murder mysteries in the history of Hollywood, let alone the literary world. And although the revelation of the murderer(s) came off as somewhat inconceivable, it made the movie memorable . . . aside from the flashback that revealed Rachett being murdered. That seemed to last longer than necessary. I also have a different opinion regarding the fate of the murderer(s). When I had been younger, it never bothered me. Now . . . it makes me slightly uneasy. If you have read the novel or seen the movie, you will know what I am talking about.

Richard Rodney Bennett had received a great deal of praise and an Oscar nomination for his score. I thought it meshed beautifully with the scenes featuring the Orient Express’ departure from Istanbul . . . and its continuing journey at the end of the film. However, there were times when I found it a bit over-dramatic and slightly out of place for a murder mystery. I really admired Tony Walton’s production designs for the movie. I thought it truly invoked the glamour and magic of traveling aboard the Orient Express in the 1930s. And it also conveyed the claustrophobic conditions of traveling by train, beautifully. Surprisingly, he also designed the movie’s costumes. I can only assume he was trying to adhere to Sidney Lumet’s desire to recapture the old Hollywood glamour from the 1930s. Unfortunately, I felt that Walton’s costumes for most of the characters seemed a bit over-the-top. But I must admit that I admired his costumes for Jacqueline Bisset, Ingrid Bergman and Vanessa Redgrave’s characters.

In the end, one has to give Sidney Lumet high marks for putting all of this together to create a classy adaptation of an unusual novel. Granted, I have a few qualms with some of the performances, characterizations and the plot’s resolution. And there were times in the middle of the movie when Lumet’s pacing threatened to drag the film. In the end, Lumet’s direction managed to maintain my interest in the story. And ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” remains a favorite movie of mine after 48 years.

"MY FELLOW AMERICANS" (1996) Review

"MY FELLOW AMERICANS" (1996) Review

When "MY FELLOW AMERICANS", was first released, I found myself wondering if Jack Lemmon and James Garner had ever co-starred in a movie or television production together. After checking several websites, including the IMDb, I discovered that this 1996 political comedy was the only production in which they worked together. How sad.

Directed by Peter Segal, "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" told the story of two former U.S. Presidents and long time political rivals - Republican Russell Kramer of Ohio and Democratic Matt Douglas of Indiana - who find themselves caught up in a political scandal called "Olympia" that originated with Kramer's former Vice-President, the current President William Haney of Texas and a defense contractor named Charlie Reynolds. The story began with Kramer spending his time writing cookbooks and speaking at various inconsequential functions and Douglas in the middle of writing his memoirs and dealing with a divorce. The Democratic National Committee chairman, Joe Hollis, asked Douglas to investigate "Olympia" in return for consideration as a future presidential candidate. Kramer discovers that Haney and the latter's Chief of Staff, Carl Witnaur, are trying to frame him for the scandal. Reynolds finally contacts Douglas during a book convention at Washington D.C.'s Union Station in order to confess. Unfortunately, he is assassinated by government thugs commanded by NSA agent Colonel Paul Tanner. Both Douglas and Kramer, who was also at the convention, stumble across Reynolds' dead body. Before the pair can confront Kramer about the scandal and Reynolds, they find themselves being targeted by Tanner and the NSA. Kramer and Douglas are forced to put aside their personal animosity and journey to the former's presidential museum in Ohio to find evidence that would exonerate him and place more suspicion on Haney - while keeping a few steps ahead of Tanner's thugs.

"MY FELLOW AMERICANS" is not exactly regarded as one of the best films in either Jack Lemmon and James Garner's filmography. Not by film critics and not by me. I am not claiming that it is a terrible film. But to be honest, "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" was not exactly an exceptional film. There are certain aspects of it that made it a rather silly at times. For me, the worst aspect of the movie was that director Peter Segal and the screenwriters sometimes presented the humor in a "vaudeville" style in which the jokes came out at a pace that struck me as too fast to be appreciated. And the jokes given to some of the supporting cast struck me as a bit lame. Although the movie did establish Douglas' penchant for finding ways to avoid his Secret Service detail (yes . . . former presidents are still guarded by the Secret Service), it never established how Kramer managed to avoid his detail at Union Station before he and Douglas found Charlie Reynolds' dead body.

And yet . . . years after I first saw "MY FELLOW AMERICANS", I still finding it very entertaining. Despite the occasional lame jokes, I still consider it to be a hilarious movie. Not all of the jokes are lame. In fact, a good number of them struck me as rather sharp and funny:

"Oh, yeah, I'm about to share my coffee with the Washington Love Machine. No dice. You could spit in a Petri dish and start a whole new civilization." - Russell Kramer to Matt Douglas

Matt Douglas: A cookbook. He [Kramer] wrote a cookbook. How dare he?
Joanna: Well, you know, when he was President, he did cook for his guests all the time.
Matt Douglas: That's not the point. Did George Washington write a book called "Your Wooden Teeth and You?" Did William Howard Taft write "Thirty Days To A Slimmer Ass?" It's shameful, just shameful.

"Don't do that with the liquor, Russ. It's so... George Bush." - Margaret Kramer to Russell Kramer

Matt Douglas (at the funeral of a former president): You're a whore. Admit it. Admit you're a big whore. Go ahead.
Russell Kramer: Name three women from the District of Columbia that you didn't bang when you were in office - what am I talking about? Name one.
Matt Douglas: Screw you.
Russell Kramer: Blow me.
[Rifles fire]

It was not just the one-liners that made "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" a lot of fun to watch. One, the movie featured a road trip that stretched from North Carolina to Cleveland, Ohio and back to Washington D.C. And I am just a sucker for road trips. And two, this road trip was made by two men who have loathed each other for years and were forced to work together to bring down a corrupt Presidential administration . . . while evading a group of lethal government thugs. Three, the road trip also forced the two men to escape the political bubble of Washington D.C. and become acquainted with the country and the people that populated it. Which means, this movie also featured some good old-fashioned character development. This was especially the case when Kramer and Douglas encountered an illegal immigrant and a marcher/trombonist in a West Virginia Gay Pride parade, who both helped the pair evade Tanner's murderous thugs; and a family that found itself homeless and jobless, thanks to their administration policies and forced to move to a new location for a much-needed job. In fact, the two ex-presidents' encounter with this family provided a better lesson on the futility of American politicians than any political commentator or historian has ever done.

Most of all, "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" benefited from the performances from a first-rate cast. The movie featured some amusing performances from Esther Rolle, who portrayed a White House cook; Wilford Brimley as the DNC's wily chairman; Conchata Farrell as a sardonic truck driver conveying immigrant illegals; a very young Michael Peña as a sweet and charming illegal immigrant who helped the two former Presidents evade the NSA; Tom Everett as the single-minded NSA agent leading the search for the presidential pair; Marg Helgenberger as Douglas' charming and intelligent book editor; Sela Ward as a sharp and witty journalist investigating the Olympia scandal; Bradley Whitford as President Haney's sleazy Chief of Staff; Jack Kehler and Connie Ray as the generous and homeless couple who gave Douglas and Kramer a ride.

There were performances that really caught my attention. One came from Everett McGill, who gave an intense performance as the ruthless NSA agent Colonel Paul Tanner. Lauren Bacall gave a very witty and charming performance as former First Lady Margaret Kramer. Jeff Yagher was both charming and delightful as the gay parade trombonist, whose real identity proved to be even more surprising. And Dan Ackroyd was deliciously sardonic and slick as the corrupt President Haney. But aside from the two leads, the funniest performance came from John Heard, who had me rolling on the floor with laughter as Haney's dimwitted Vice-President Ted Matthews, who had a talent for saying the wrong thing . . . at the wrong time.

But the stars of the movie were our two leads, Jack Lemmon and James Garner. Earlier, I had commented that it was sad that "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" was the only time they had worked together. It was no comment on the movie itself. I had recently learned that Walter Matthau was supposed to be Lemmon's co-star in this film (as he had been in the past). But Matthau was ill at the time and the filmmakers cast James Garner to take his place. And it is sad that the two actors had only worked with each other once for they were not only hilarious together, they managed to form a first-rate screen team. Both actors had been around since the 1950s and it took over forty years for them to do a movie together? What a shame! Lemmon was fabulous as the overly frugal former Republican president Russell Kramer, who fears being left behind and forgotten after his four years in office. Playing yang to Lemmon's yin was James Garner, who gave a delicious performance as the sardonic former Democratic president Matt Douglas, a sharp-tongued ladies' man who spends more time finding ways to evade his Secret Service detail than making a life after his four years in office.

"MY FELLOW AMERICANS" also featured a nice soundtrack that featured a breezy score created by William Ross. The latter also included some very entertaining songs from the likes of Ella Fitzgerald, Elvis Presley, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Stevie Wonder and John Mellencamp. However, what I really enjoyed was Julio Macat's colorful photography, which I thought did justice to the movie's North Carolina and Washington D.C. locations.

I would never regard "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" as a cinematic masterpiece, let alone, a comedic one. There were times when the jokes moved too fast, along with the movie's pacing. But I cannot deny that the movie featured some first-rate humor and nail-biting action sequences, thanks to Peter Segal's direction. More importantly, "MY FELLOW AMERICANS" featured some strong characterizations, thanks to the screenwriters and first-rate performances from a cast led by Jack Lemmon and James Garner.

"MY FELLOW AMERICANS" (1996) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 1996 political comedy, "MY FELLOW AMERICANS". Directed by Peter Segal, the movie starred Jack Lemmon and James Garner:

"MY FELLOW AMERICANS" (1996) Photo Gallery

"FLAME OVER INDIA" (1959) Review

"FLAME OVER INDIA" (1959) Review

I have seen my share of movie and television productions set during the heyday of the British Empire over the years. They have featured narratives that range from being rabidly pro-Imperial to being highly critical of British Imperial policies and society. Recently, I re-discovered an old movie that seemed to straddle between the two styles of this genre, the 1959 adventure film, "FLAME OVER INDIA aka NORTH WEST FRONTIER".

Directed by J. Lee Thompson, "FLAME OVER INDIA" began in the North West Frontier of 1905 British India, when a Hindu Maharajah asks British Army Captain William Scott to take his young son and heir, Prince Kishan, to the safety of the British Governor's residence in Haserabad, due to a Muslim uprising in his province. Accompanying them is the prince's nanny/governess, an American widow named Mrs. Catherine Wyatt. They leave shortly before the rebels storm the palace and kill the Maharajah. Upon their arrival in Haserabad, Captain Scott and Mrs. Wyatt learn that Muslim rebels threaten to overrun the Residency, due to knowledge of the young prince's arrival. The Residency's Governor, Sir John Wyndham, informs Captain Scott that he must take Prince Kishan to the safety of Kalapur. Scott discovers an old train, the Empress of India, and decides to use it to get Kishan and Mrs. Wyatt to safety. Because of the danger of developing siege in Haserabad, other passengers join Scott, Mrs. Wyatt and Kishan on the journey:

*Gupta - the Empress of India's driver
*Lady Wyndham - Sir John's wife
*Peter van Leyden - a Dutch biracial anti-Imperialist journalist
*Mr. Bridie - one of Sir John's government aides
*Mr. Peters - an arms dealer who does business with all sides
*Two Indian sergeants acting as Captain Scott's aides

There are some aspects of "FLAME OVER INDIA" that did not particularly impress me. Actually, I can only think of two. In one scene, the Empress of India's passengers had come across a train that had departed Haserabad earlier in the film. Apparently, the rebels had massacred all of the train's passengers, leaving behind one infant still alive. Now, I realize that this scene is supposed to be some kind of allegory of the religious strife that marred Britain's partition from India in 1947 and its role in that strife. The problem is that this scene would have been more suited for a story set during that period, instead of a movie set in 1905. I also had a problem with the film's final action sequence. It is not terrible, but it struck me as a bit anti-climatic. Especially since it ended with the Empress of India's passengers evading capture by the train's entrance into a two-mile long hillside tunnel that led to the safety of Kalapur.

Overall, I thought "FLAME OVER INDIA" was a first-rate movie that seamlessly combined the elements of two genres - action and drama. At first glance, it seemed Captain Scott using a train to convey young Kishan to the safety of Kalapur offered no real challenges - especially against pursuers on horseback. Scott and Gupta had initially planned to sneak the passengers out of Haserabad by freewheeling the Empress of India down a gradient and out of the rail yard, but the train's whistle unexpectedly blows, alerting the rebels to their departure. The screenwriters ensure that the Empress and its passengers encounter other obstacles to make it difficult to evade their pursuers - including torn up tracks, the train's nearly empty water tank, the train full of massacred passengers, a bomb-damaged viaduct/bridge and a spy in their midst. If I had a choice for my favorite action sequence, it would be the one in which the Empress of India passengers attempt to fix the sabotaged tracks in the middle of a gun battle. It is a pity that this incident occurred midway in the film.

More importantly, "FLAME OVER INDIA" is an excellent drama in which the political situation - the rebellion within Kishan's province - served as a reflection of the divisions in British India around the turn of the 20th century and the Britons' role in its origin. In fact, this topic manifested in a tense scene featuring an argument between Captain Scott and Peter van Leyden following the passengers' discovery of the train massacre. Earlier, I had commented that "FLAME OVER INDIA" seemed to straddle between those rabidly pro-Imperial movies to those highly critical of British Empire. The quarrel between Captain Scott and van Leyden over the train massacre and British Imperial policy seemed to personify this "no Man's Land" between the genre's two styles. But the movie also featured other characters who seemed to represent not only these two positions on Imperial policies, but also that middle ground. Even Captain Scott's characters seemed to be on the verge of that middle ground by the film's end.

I have seen "FLAME OVER INDIA" on many occasions, but it finally occurred to me that it reminded me of another film. I noticed that one of the screenwriters was Frank Nugent, who had written the screenplays for several of John Ford's movies between 1948 and 1963. Although Nugent never worked on one of Ford's best films, "STAGECOACH", I realized that "FLAME OVER INDIA" bore a strong resemblance to the Oscar winning 1939 film. Like "STAGECOACH", this film is about a group of people who undertake a long-distance journey through dangerous territory. And like the 1939 movie, it is also a strong character study of people from different backgrounds, personalities and philosophies. Whereas "STAGECOACH" seemed more like an exploration of class (and regional) differences between late 19th century Americans, "FLAME OVER INDIA" is more of an exploration of the impact of the British Empire upon the movie's main characters - the Europeans, one American, one Eurasian and two Asians. The ironic aspect of the film's theme is that even young Kishan, who served mainly as the movie's catalyst, had the last word about the British presence in India, near the end.

"FLAME OVER INDIA" struck me as a colorful looking film, thanks to its technical crew. The movie was shot at Pinewood Studios, and also on location in India and Spain. And I must say that cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth did a beautiful job with his photography for both locations. And I must admit that I really admired how he balanced his close-up, far-shots and zooming . . . especially during the film's opening sequence that depicted the Muslim rebels overrunning the palace of Kishan's father. I was also impressed by Frederick Wilson's editing of J. Lee Thompson's direction of the action sequences - especially the opening sequence and that featuring the repair of the damaged tracks. Between Thompson and Wilson, they managed to fill the movie with a great deal of action, suspense and drama. I also enjoyed Yvonne Caffin's Edwardian costumes for the film. But like her work for the 1958 movie, "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER", they did not strike me as particularly mind-blowing, but they certainly did not look cheap or straight out of a costume warehouse.

The 1959 movie did not exactly have a large cast . . . unless one would consider the number of extras. But I have to say that I did not have anything negative to say about the performances in "FLAME OVER INDIA". The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Ian Hunter, Jack Gwillim, and Basil Hoskins. Both S.M. Asgaralli and Sam Chowdhary, who portrayed the two sepoys under Scott's command, had spoken at least two or three lines between them and still managed to effectively convey the idea of competent soldiers. And Govind Raja Ross gave a very charming performance as the young Prince Kishan. He was not the best child actor I have ever seen, but I found him charming.

However, the film's best performances came the major supporting cast members and the two leads. I cannot say that Ursula Jeans gave a complex performance. After all, I could never regard her character, Lady Windham, as flexible. But Jeans did an excellent job in conveying the conservative, yet ladylike "memsahib" of the British Empire. Eugene Deckers gave a very entertaining performance as the witty and cynical arms dealer, Mr. Peters. In fact, I would say that Deckers gave the most entertaining performance in the film. Wilfrid Hyde-White gave a charming, yet poignant performance as the mild-mannered, yet very open-minded government aide, Mr. Bridie. Hyde-White did such a good job in conveying his character's likability that even a hostile character like Peter van Leyden recognized him for the tolerant person he was. While checking I.S. Johar's filmography on the IMDB site, I noticed that he made very few English-speaking films, one of them being the 1978 Agatha Christie movie, "DEATH ON THE NILE". Personally, I believe his role as the effervescent, yet skilled train engineer/driver, Gupta, to be a breath of fresh air, in compare to his role in the 1978 murder mystery. Johar not only gave a first-rate performance, he managed to create a crackling screen chemistry with leading man Kenneth More.

If I had my choice for the best performance in "FLAME OVER INDIA", I would choose Herbert Lom's portrayal of the biracial journalist, Peter van Leyden. Lom did an excellent job in conveying his character's intelligence, penchant for confrontations and complex anger toward the British presence in India and European colonialism in general. Lom's Peter van Leyden may have been an unpleasant character, but what he had to say about colonialism and the British attitude toward the subcontinent's natives resonated with a great deal of truth. The producers of "FLAME OVER INDIA" had originally considered Olivia de Havilland for the role of Prince Kishan's widowed governess, Mrs. Catherine Wyatt. However, the former was unavailable and they turned to American actress Lauren Bacall to portray the role. One would not expect an American character in a film set in British India. And yet . . . Bacall gave such a first-rate performance as the forthright, yet slightly cynical Mrs. Wyatt that I never gave it another thought. More importantly, she also managed to create a strong, yet natural screen chemistry with More, which took me by surprise. Speaking of Kenneth More, he gave a strong and intelligent performance as the movie's leading character, Captain William Scott. In a way, More's portrayal of Scott struck me as rather odd. Superficially, his Scott seemed like the typical British Army officer who believed in the righteousness of the British Empire and regarded its Indian subjects as children. And yet, Scott seemed to be a bit more complicated. He preached like a typically bigoted colonial and behaved like a more tolerant man who had a tight friendship with the likes of Gupta and treated the two sepoys (soldiers) under him as competent fighting men, instead of children who needed to be constantly supervised. Like I had said, More's Scott proved to be something different from the usual military character in a British Imperial film. Then again, the movie had been made over a decade after India's independence.

I may have a few quibbles about "FLAME OVER INDIA", but overall I really enjoyed the film. It might be one of the few British Empire movies that I truly enjoyed before the more ambiguous Imperial films of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The film's screenwriters also created a first-rate adventure film that also proved to be a complex drama and character study. "FLAME OVER INDIA" also benefited from first-rate cinematography from the legendary Geoffrey Unsworth, excellent acting from a cast led by Kenneth More and Lauren Bacall, and superb direction from J. Lee Thompson. I believe there is nothing further for me to say.

"FLAME OVER INDIA" (1959) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 1959 adventure film, "FLAME OVER INDIA (AKA "North West Frontier"). Directed by J. Lee Thompson, the movie starred Kenneth More and Lauren Bacall: 



"FLAME OVER INDIA" (1959) Photo Gallery