Category: Nominees – 1930s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Midsummer Night’s Dream – 1935

I loved this movie.  I love Shakespeare’s playful story.  I loved the brilliant costumes.  I loved the fantastic sets.  I loved Mendelssohn’s beautiful music.  I loved the wonderful cast of actors.  Well… with one exception, but we’ll get to that in a bit.  The movie was very well done and I was thoroughly impressed.

We’ll begin with the plot.  It is a Shakespearean comedy, so we know that it is going to have a happy ending with a couple, or in this case three couples, getting married.  I’ll give a very brief outline of the plot, just to put the story in perspective.  The main conflict of the plot is the fact that Hermia, a young girl of Athens played by Olivia DeHavilland, wants to marry her handsome lover Lysander, played by Dick Powel.  Her father wants her to marry Demetrius, played by Ross Alexander.  Both men love the same girl.  But Helena, Hermia’s friend, played by Jane Muir, is in love with Demetrius.

So, Hermia and Lysander run away to the forest and plan to elope.  However, the forest is full of fairies and sprites.  The Queen of the fairies is Titania, played by Anita Louise.  She is quarreling with her husband Oberon, played by Victor Jory.  Oberon’s faithful servant, Puck, played by a young Mickey Rooney, fetches a flower for him which acts as a love potion to be used against his wife.

At the same time, a troupe of actors comes to the forest to rehearse a play.  Puck gives the most pompous actor, played by James Cagney, the head of a donkey.  When the love flower is used on Titania, she falls hopelessly in love with the donkey.  The love flower is also used on the four young men and women with wonderfully comical results.  It is a delightful story and one that has stood the test of time since it was first written around 1590.

The costumes were simply amazing.  I would have loved to see this film in color!  The use of gossamer fabrics, wind machines, sparkles, and as much glitter as you can imagine combined to make beautiful and fanciful costumes that were as creative as anything I have ever seen.  And it was obvious that the costumes were made for dancing as they flowed and swirled and spun with the dancers, making them all seem ethereal and graceful.

And the movie was astonishing in its use of special effects.  Yes!  Believe it or not, this was actually a 1935 special effects extravaganza!  There were constant shots of blended film images and overlays.  The use of shadows and sparkling lights were combined to remarkable effect.  Every shot seemed to have shimmer and shine that turned the fake movie sets into a magical fairy kingdom.

One memorable shot had an image of dancing fairies as they ascended a gigantic spiraling ramp.  That image was overlaid with swirling fog to hide the ramp, and set around a gigantic tree.  The result was that the fairies seemed to be dancing around the tall trunk of the tree, climbing on a swirling path made of misty fog.  It was beautifully done and pretty impressive for 1935.

Notable actors of the cast were Anita Louise and Victor Jory.  They were wonderful as the monarchs of the Fairy Kingdom.  They were regal and majestic, and yet wild and dangerous all at the same time.  I especially enjoyed Louise’s performance.

But I have to mention one actor that really got on my nerves.  I’m sorry to say it, but Mickey Rooney was impossibly annoying!  I’ll fully admit that this might have been the director’s fault for telling Rooney how he wanted the part played.  But he delivered every one of his lines with such forced merriment and shouted laughter that I just wanted him to die.  I much preferred the 1999 version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream with Stanley Tucci playing a much more reserved and yet lovable Puck.  Rooney’s performance made the character seem ready for a strait–jacket and a room at the loony bin.

And lest I forget, the play within a play, Pyramus and Thisby, performed by Bottom’s inept troupe of actors was hilarious to watch.  Sure, it was full of a more sight-gag based humor, but it was immensely fun, all the same.  All in all, this was a delightful film and I really enjoyed watching it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lives of a Bengal Lancer – 1935

This was a strange little film.  It starred Gary Cooper as Lieutenant Alan McGregor, a member of the Royal British Army based in frontier India.  There was a certain amount of reality, a certain amount of fantasy, and in my opinion, a noticeable amount of misplaced idealism.

What I mean by that is that like many other movies I’ve seen, it seems to have an anti-establishment attitude that audiences seem to love.  It is meant to be inspirational, putting things like love, compassion and even sentimentality above order, discipline and authority.  The plot is pretty easy to follow.  McGregor is put in charge of two new recruits, Lt. Forsythe and Lt. Stone, played respectively by Franchot Tone and Richard Cromwell.

All three officers are under the command of Colonel Tom Stone, played by Guy Standing.  The Colonel is a military man, through and through and he was portrayed as a bit of a stereotype.  He was stern, cold, emotionless, and one might even go so far as to call him heartless.  In his efforts to not show any favoritism to his son, he overcompensates and treats him just a little more harshly than the others.

It is in this way that the film felt like it was against that kind of person, that kind of character.  The point is really driven home in the latter half of the movie.  Lt. Stone is captured by Mohammed Khan, played by Douglas Dumbrille.  He is the evil leader of the Indian rebels.  When the Colonel hears of his son’s capture, knowing full well that he is sure to be tortured and killed, he refuses to mount a rescue mission, as it would put the entire regiment’s lives at risk.

Then, wouldn’t you know it, good ol’ Gary Cooper steps up and calls him a cruel and heartless man.  “How can you sit there and let your own son be killed, all for the sake of the regiment?”  But I’ll be honest.  I was on the Colonel’s side.  Sure he had treated the boy coldly, which was bad.  But the Lieutenant’s capture was his own fault.  The boy was an idiot, disobeying orders, acting out and getting drunk.  It was his own irresponsible behavior that put everyone at risk.

What was the Colonel supposed to do?  Was he supposed to sacrifice all the men in the regiment to mount a futile rescue attempt of one idiot soldier?  Of Course not!  The military is cruel and heartless.  But have no fear!  The big heroes, McGregor and Forsythe do the “right” thing and go A.W.O.L. to rescue the boy.  Never mind that they both get themselves captured as well.

Despite that, I thought that Cooper and Tone both did well in their respective roles.  I wouldn’t say they were great, but they were good.  Standing also did a good job as the stern Colonel.  And lest I forget, the only woman in the film was a true femme fatale.  She was Tania Volkanskaya, played by Kathleen Burke.  Of course, we can’t forget how evil those Russians are.

But it all works out for the best.  In the end, Forsythe gets them out of their cell, McGregor dies being heroic, and Lt. Stone kills Khan, effectively ending the battle before the regiment can be slaughtered.  The action sequences were all very well-choreographed and exciting to watch.

Well… most of them.  I had to roll my eyes as I saw McGregor pick up a heavy Vickers machine-gun and shoot it while running over uneven ground during a chaotic battle.  First, the way he was holding it, I can only assume that he would have third degree burns on his hands.  Second, the kick-back from the weapon would have knocked him off his feet.  But never-mind that.

And finally, one interesting thing about The Lives of a Bengal Lancer that I found in my research was that this was apparently one of Adolph Hitler’s favorite movies, which he saw three times.  He liked this film because it depicted a handful of Britons holding a continent in thrall. That was how a superior race must behave and the film was a compulsory viewing for the SS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Informer – 1935

At first, I wasn’t terribly impressed by The Informer.  It struck me as a trite little film that was trying too hard to be dramatic.  The result was an oppressive and dark movie with horror movie music and maudlin over-acting.  But then I watched a short documentary about the film that was included on the DVD.  This little feature helped me to understand what I had just watched, making me aware of what the movie was trying to do.  My respect for the film and the way it was made went up several notches.

The main theme of the movie is the personal consequences of betrayal.  It follows the journey of a man who shows a weakness of spirit and betrays his friend.  The parallels to the biblical figure of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus are, at the very beginning of the movie, pointed out with a bible verse being shown on the screen.  It references the thirty pieces of silver, the blood money given to the betrayer.

The movie boasted no big names.  It was a British film that had a story based in Dublin, Ireland.  The whole thing took place over the course of one night.  Gypo, played by Victor McLaglan, is a big strong man who has been kicked out of the IRA, to his great shame and disappointment.  He isn’t a very smart man.  In fact, at times he is a drunkard who proves himself to be a bit slow.  He is easily confused and consistently makes bad decisions.

Margot Grahame plays his prostitute girlfriend, Katie Madden.  She is a woman who has led a hard life.  She truly does love Gypo, though, and goes out of her way to help him whenever he needs it.  Grahame actually stood out to me as a fine actress.

Gypo’s problems start when he sees a poster offering a reward of £20 for information leading to the capture of IRA member Frankie McPhillip, played by Wallace Ford.  I’m actually surprised that they didn’t make the reward amount to be £30 to further parallel with Judas.  Ford did a very good job, although his character was killed off after Gypo told the British police where he could be found.    Frankie’s sister, Mary, played by Heather Angel, and his mother Mrs. McPhillip, played by Una O’connor, who I remember from the Best Picture winner Cavalcade, watched in horror as he shot a police officer before they gunned him down.

The rest of the film follows Gypo’s emotional journey as he comes to terms with his betrayal.  IRA officer Dan Gallagher, played by Preston Foster, who also happens to be Mary McPhillip’s love interest, heads an investigation that leads to a famous trial scene.  In this scene, Gypo breaks down and confesses to being the informer.  It was probably this scene which showed the Academy that McLaglen was worthy of the Best Actor award.

But I think the real star of the film had to be the director, John Ford.  The documentary feature explained how the film was very innovative for its time.  Noted specifically for the film’s use of lighting and shadows to create a dark and oppressive feel, Ford was honored with the Best Director award.  It was actually an incredibly well shot film.  The outdoor scenes were always foggy which made for a permanently mysterious and creepy atmosphere.  The glowing street lamps gave everything an ethereal look.

There were shots that were back-lit so that only a character’s silhouette could be seen, creating a sense of surrealism.  Whispered conversations took place where the conspirators’ faces were mostly in shadow.  Moving camera sweeps gave some shots the feeling of depth.  Add to all that a haunting musical score that drew you into the dread and doom of the plot, and you have a powerful film that tells rather dark and weighty story.  Max Steiner also won the award for Best Music (Scoring).

I liked the movie well enough before understanding just how impressively innovative it was, but after watching the documentary, I began to realize that I was not giving it enough credit for its achievements.  It lost the Best Picture award to Mutiny on the Bounty, which had its own merits, though I am pleased to say that this one was definitely worthy of the nomination it received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Copperfield – 1935

Spoiler Alert

David Copperfield surprised me but only a little. I’ll be honest. I wasn’t expecting much more than a combination of an evening at Bob Cratchet’s house with Tiny Tim saying “And God Bless us, every one!” and Oliver holding up an empty bowl, saying “Please, Sir, I want some more.” And in that respect, I pretty much got what I was expecting. What surprised me was the caliber of the actors who did a wonderful job of making all the sappy dialogue palatable.

It is a well-known fact that David Copperfield was Charles Dickens’ favorite character in all his writings. I’ll try not to go into the plot too much, though I will need to touch on a few key points. The film, like the book, follows the character of David Copperfield beginning at his birth. He is born to a widowed mother. His cantankerous Aunt Betsey, is played by Edna May Oliver, an actress who I am growing to respect more and more every time I see her on the screen. She comes on the scene like a whirlwind, bossy and demanding, though later in the film she turns into a beloved parent figure.

When his mother marries the cruel Mr. Murdstone, played by professional villain Basil Rathbone, who moves in with his bitter and angry sister, the young David, played by Freddie Bartholomew, is terrorized and beaten. And when his mother dies, he is sent away to become a child laborer in London. Bartholomew did a surprisingly good job. The studio wanted the role to go to their contracted child actor, Jackie Cooper, but thank goodness the director, David O. Selznick got his way.

Bartholomew was able to deliver the sappy lines convincingly. His crying scenes were not overdone or fake. He was believable in everything he did. While in London, he boards with the Micawber family. The family patriarch is played by W. C. Fields. Now, here I had a little bit of a problem. Fields turned in two separate performances. At first, he played the W. C. Fields from My Little Chickadee. He used the same comical voice inflections for which he was famous, and it took me out of the story. I’m no longer watching David Copperfield. Now, I’m watching a W. C. Fields comedy routine. But later on in the film, after he falls under the influence of Uriah Heep, he started playing the part with a seriousness that transformed him into a good dramatic actor.

And speaking of Uriah Heep, actor Roland Young did a very good job at being a devious and underhanded slime-ball. He oozed his way through every scene, making it obvious from his very first appearance that he was a bad guy.

The adult Copperfield was played by Frank Lawton. Lawton’s skill as an actor matched young Freddie Bartholomew perfectly. They had a very similar look, making the transition from child to adult very convincing. Lawton gave a wonderful performance that was filled with passion and emotion. When his child wife dies, his sorrow was natural and believable. It even brought a tear to my eye to see a grown man crying for such a loss.

I have to give special mention to Madge Evans who played Agnes, the woman he eventually ends up with at the end of the film. She was very attractive and did a great job of portraying the victim of unrequited love. Her performance had an intelligence about it that made her even more pretty, especially in light of the childish behavior of David’s first wife.

There was even a little action sequence that was exciting to watch, as Copperfield’s friend with a death wish dives into the ocean during a raging storm to rescue the crew of a sinking ship.

Yes, I have to admit that though the story was slightly bland, the excellent acting did a wonderful job of keeping my attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Captain Blood – 1935

This was a good movie, and as far as my research tells me, a pretty important one as well.  This was apparently the film that revived the swashbuckling genre in Hollywood.  It was also the film that really launched the careers of two Hollywood superstars, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland.  It had a somewhat engaging plot, plenty of action, and a romance that took enough time to be believable.

Captain Blood was, of course, played by Flynn.  He was a doctor who apparently treated the wrong patient, resulting in his arrest and his being sold into slavery.  But after years of slavery, he escapes and becomes a pirate in the Caribbean.  And I can’t help but think that this film alone was mostly responsible for the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland.  There seemed to be several scenes, sets, and even characters that were taken directly from the theme park attraction.  The trick though, is that the movie came out first, 33 years earlier.  In my research, I could find no official connection between the two, but some of the similarities are pretty obvious to me.  At the very least, Disney had to have been inspired by the film.

Flynn was, at that time, an unknown actor, and so the executives at Warner Brothers were taking a big risk in casting him.  For that matter, de Havilland had only done 4 films before this one, so she was a bit of a risk as well.  But it really paid off.  The two had a wonderful on-screen chemistry.  They were both young and attractive and did a great job of lighting up the screen.

The action sequences were very well done and exciting to watch.  The ship battles were huge and complex.  There were plenty of extras, guns and cannons firing, dangerous explosions and thrilling music.  But in doing my research, I discovered something that I found a little disappointing.  There were several shots in some of the battle sequences that were recycled!  They actually re-used several shots from The Sea Hawk, a silent film from 1924.  Doesn’t that seem a bit like cheating?

Other notable actors were in the film as well.  Guy Kibbee played one of Blood’s pirates and Ross Alexander another.  They both acted their parts well.  Basil Rathbone played the part of Levasseur, a rival pirate.  The sword fight scene was fun and well-choreographed.  Apparently it was filmed in Laguna Beach, California, whereas nearly everything else was filmed on a sound stage.

That brings me to something else I didn’t particularly care for: the backdrops.  They were very obviously painted.  They really stood out in a film in which there was a special attention given to details.  The stationary painted clouds looked almost cartoony next to the actors.  For me it was distracting.

The plot was a good one that I will go over briefly.  Wrongly arrested and persecuted by British officials under King James II, Dr. Blood, Flynn, is sold into slavery and sent to Jamaica.  While there he is bought by the British Governor’s niece, Arabella, played by de Havilland.  Hey share a love-hate relationship, but the love eventually proves stronger.  Despite this, Blood plans his escape.  The town is attacked by Spanish pirates and he leads his fellow slaves on a raid to capture the Spanish ship.

He then turns to piracy and becomes rich, plundering any ship he can find.  During the course of his adventures, he finds that Arabella has been abducted by a rival pirate band under the leadership of Levasseur.  Blood wins custody of her in a thrilling swordfight.  While taking her back to Jamaica, he learns that a new King has been established in England.  He and his crew have been pardoned and he is now free to love his Arabella.

The plot is not terribly complex, but it kept my interest, mostly because of the lead actors.  Flynn’s energetic performance was what really drove the movie forward and made it more than just a mindless action film.  The director, Michael Curtiz gave the movie its action.  The wonderful score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold gave it its epic grandeur.  Rathbone gave the film it its danger.  Flynn gave it its passion and de Havilland gave it its romance.  It all combined beautifully to make a great swashbuckling film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alice Adams – 1935

I’m not exactly sure what to make of this movie.  It was entertaining, but in a very uncomfortable way.  What I mean by that is that it was a movie that was supposed to be a romantic comedy.  There was plenty of romantic drama, but there didn’t seem to be much comedy.  It was there, but I think it was mostly based on incredibly awkward social situations.

The character of Alice Adams, beautifully played by a very young Katherine Hepburn, was a young girl in a poor family who was trying catch a husband.  But because of her family’s lack of money, she resorted to lying as her means of attracting a man.  She put on airs and tried to deceive the rich ladies and gentlemen into believing that she was as wealthy as they.  When she meets Arthur Russell, played by Fred MacMurray, she starts in with her stories.  But a relationship based on such lies can make for such an incredibly awkward situation when the lies are finally and inevitably revealed.

This was one of Katherine Hepburn’s early film roles.  She had been in the Best Picture nominee Little Women two years previous, and so she was the hot ticket of the day.  In fact she had won the Best Actress award two years earlier in a different film called Morning Glory.  Her portrayal of Alice Adams earned her another Best Actress nomination.

But despite the fact that she was not yet the iconic star that she has become today, she was still delightful to watch.  It is hard to say anything bad about her performance.  Hepburn had a face that the cameras loved and a quick and witty personality that was utterly attractive.  Despite Alice’s lies and the drama that they created, we loved her and rooted for her to make her relationship with Mr. Russell work.  Every time one of her lies was revealed, she experienced not only the shame of the lie, but the shame of the poverty that the lie was supposed to have concealed.

And she really pulled off the drama masterfully.  When she tries to get him to leave her because she is too embarrassed by the dinner party, which we’ll get to in a moment, the tears in her eyes were so real.  I don’t know how she was able to hold them in her eyes so long without letting them roll down her cheeks.  She really was wonderful.

But despite Alice’s many fabrications, Arthur falls hopelessly in love with her anyway.  MacMurray was also a pleasure to watch.  I have never been a huge fan of his, but he was young and very attractive.  He had a certain kind of innocence about him that made his smiles seem warm and genuine.  He was perfect in the role of the romantic lead.

Another academy award winner, though she did not win her award until 1939, was Hattie McDaniel, who played the small part of Malena.  Malena was a colored maid who the Adams family hired for their dinner party.  She was funny, especially when her little maid’s hat kept falling over her eyes.

The party was supposed to be funny, but I couldn’t help but seeing it as anything but pathetic.  Embarrassed by her own family’s extreme poverty, Alice tried so hard, but simply didn’t have enough money to make the lie anything even close to convincing.  The pretense was awkward for Alice, awkward for Arthur, awkward for Alice’s family, and even awkward for Malena.  It was one of those situations where you just want to say, “Let’s stop pretending that we are enjoying ourselves and put an end to this farce.”

A little sub-plot that was mildly interesting was one in which Alice’s brother Walter, played by Frank Albertson, was a self-involved guy who could not hold a job, was friends with colored people, and even eventually stole money to help a friend with his gambling debts.  Albertson was a handsome young man and did a good job

This was an interesting movie, and though I loved Hepburn, I’m not sure I would have nominated it for Best Picture.  She deserved her Best Actress nomination, sure, but I wouldn’t put the film up on that level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Broadway Melody of 1936 – 1935

I really wanted to roll my eyes at this film.  I wanted to.  But it had such a cute little story, I couldn’t.  Directed by Roy Del Ruth, this little gem was fun and entertaining.  It had a few cute songs and a lot of incredible tap-dancing.  It starred Jack Benny, Eleanor Powell, Robert Taylor, Francis Langford, Sid Silvers, Una Merkel, June Knight, and Buddy and Vilma Ebsen.  I was just expecting to see the same old dance moves set against the same old shallow plot.  But I was wrong.

The plot had a little complexity, though I’ll admit, very little.  The acting was nothing special, except maybe for Benny, Merkel, and Silvers.  They stood out to me as better actors than the rest of the cast.  Silvers was the film’s comic relief and even had a few scenes in which he was supposed to impersonate a woman, so he dressed in drag.  Of course, once it was determined that he could never pass as a woman, he could have changed back into his own clothes.  But for some reason, he stayed in the dress.  Apparently a man dressed as a woman was comedy back then.

Each character was a bit of a stereotype, some more than others.  For instance, Benny played the sleazy reporter who would do anything to get his little tabloid stories.  For him, truth was never terribly important.  Taylor played the jaded, womanizing producer, Knight played the spoiled heiress, and Powell played the unknown woman who just needed a chance, and who can dance circles around anyone.  Merkel played the witty secretary with the heart of gold, and Silvers played Benny’s comedic sidekick with the motor-mouth.  Bring them all together and you have a cute little story with very little depth, but a lot of fun and dancing.

Bert Keeler, played by Benny, is told to dig up Broadway dirt in order to sell newspapers or he will lose his job.  So he and his assistant Snoop Blue, played by Silvers, target Broadway producer Robert Gordon, played by Taylor, and his rich and spoiled financer, Lilian Brent, played by Knight.  They invent gossip about the two to print in their rag.  Irene Foster, played by Powell, wants to be a big Broadway star.  She was once the childhood sweetheart of Mr. Gordon, though he doesn’t recognize her at a glance.  When he finally does, he tells her to abandon her dreams of stardom and go home to Albany.

In order to get new dirt on Gordon, Snoop gets cozy with Gordon’s secretary, Kitty Corbett, played by Merkel.  Through her, he learns that the producer is looking for a lead for his new show.  In order to cause chaos, Keeler invents an unknown French actress and builds her up in his paper to be the best thing since sliced bread.  Kitty discovers the plot and devises a plan in which Irene poses as the fictitious actress.  Inexplicably, Gordon doesn’t recognize her… again.  But when Keeler finds out that Irene is posing as his made up girl, he knows she is a fraud.  He threatens to expose her unless she leaves the show.  But in the end Irene exposes herself by dancing for Gordon.  Mr. Gordon and Irene proclaim their love and get married.  Happy ending!

I am always impressed with tap dancing, which was the primary form of dance in the film.  But one sequence stood out in my mind as unique.  The dance number that took place when Mr. Gordon is making a bargain with Lilian Brent.  He goes out of his way to woo her in order to get her financial backing, and though she doubts him at first, she quickly falls under his charming spell.  The two sing I’ve Got a Feeling You’re Foolin.  As they danced around a balcony at a restaurant, items kept popping up out of the floor like constructs in a pop-up book like a full sized piano, or a fully set romantic dinner table with chairs.  And the backup dancers had quick costume changes that were facilitated by cleverly implemented split-screen effects.

And the music, while only slightly memorable, was well-sung.  In fact, when any real singing had to be done, the star singer, Frances Langford, was brought out to croon her way into our hearts.  But even that took a back seat to Powell’s dancing.  She was amazing!  Her high kicks were ridiculously high.  And she did this move where she could bend over backward and touch the floor, then lift herself back to her feet, all in one swift, swanky motion.  In the finale dance number, Langford started belting out the up-tempo tune, Broadway Rhythm.  But when Powell took the floor, my jaw nearly dropped.  There were times she was spinning faster than a figure skater.  And she did it all with a big bright smile on her face.

And finally, I’d like to mention the cute performances of Buddy Ebsen and his sister Vilma.  Buddy had a really easy and charming country-bumpkin sort of demeanor.  His dance moves all seemed gentle and yet precise and deliberate.  But the movie had one really stupid comedic subplot that might have been amusing if it had only been a single scene.  But they kept it going throughout the entire film as a running gag.  The ridiculous character of Hornblow, played by Robert John Wildhack, who tried to get onto Gordon’s show to show off his talent for the many and varied, and categorically organized, forms of snoring.  He was like a person with asperger’s who never misses a chance to display his talent and bore everyone to death.  That whole thing should have been cut.  It just wasn’t funny.

This is a film that I cannot find to watch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viva Villa! – 1934

It is hard to love a hero who is a buffoon.  That is the phrase that kept going through my mind as I watched this movie.  On the one hand, I have grown to like Wallace Beery as an actor.  On the other hand, I don’t think this was his best work.  But I don’t think it was his fault.  I would put the blame on the script writer and the director.

What I mean by that is the character of the Mexican hero, Pancho Villa, was portrayed as not only a moron, but a drunken criminal.  I cannot believe that someone as utterly stupid as the character Beery portrayed could have done the things he did.  In fact, in doing my research, I learned that the real Pancho Villa was a smart enough man who accomplished what he did mostly by brute force.

Unfortunately, the writer and the director dropped the ball.  They turned him into an idiot with a gun.  It never really explained why he was so popular.  It never went into how he was able to win all his battles.  Instead, they showed how he was a drunk, a womanizer, and a fool.  They also went out of their way to show how Pancho Villa was a bandit, first and foremost.  He was a common thug and criminal, but because he had the biggest army behind him, might made right.

Next, a pretty important plot point was changed: the manner of Villa’s captured the home of Teresa, played by Fay Wray, and brought her to a private room so that he could rape her.  But then she pulled out a gun and shot him in the wrist.  His henchman Sierra, played by Leo Carillo, came in along with the woman’s brother, Don Felipe de Castillo, played by Donald Cook.  Sierra tried to shoot the Don, but shot Teresa instead.  Don Filipe vowed vengeance against Villa, and it was he who assassinated him in the end.  This is all made up.

In real life, nobody is exactly sure why Villa was gunned down.  The popular myth is that one of his Generals had betrayed him and he had made it his goal to exterminate the General’s entire family.  Unfortunately, they got him first.

Now, as I say these things, I have to also mention that before the film started, they let us know that this account was fictional and not historically accurate.  Because they did that, I can’t blame them for not being true to life.  But all that means is that I can’t fault the film makers from not following history.  That doesn’t excuse them for making a film that made fun of a Mexican hero in the first place.  If I was a Mexican who revered Pancho Villa as a national hero, this movie would have been deeply offensive to me.

Now, something they did in the structure of the film was a bit annoying.  Whenever there was a part of Pancho Villa’s story that they didn’t want to film, they would show a screen full of text saying what happened.  I can understand this at the beginning of a film as set-up for what we are going to watch.  Many films do it, especially historical dramas.  But to constantly be propelling the plot by making us read about it instead of showing us just seems like a cop-out.

When they are riding to battle to capture a town, either show me the battle or pick up the narrative after the battle and find some other way to let me know what happened during the fight.  Don’t say “We are going to capture the town,” and then make me read about how the town was captured.  That is why I went to the movies instead of reading the book.

And finally, everyone in the film spoke English.  I have no problem with that.  What I question is the fact that everyone else spoke perfect English except for Villa and Sierra who spoke with Mexican accents.  But at least Sierra was able to speak in complete sentences.  Villa could only speak broken English, usually in one or two word sentences, as if he was still trying to learn English.  That made no sense if we can assume that they are all speaking Spanish.  It only served to make him sound like more of a moron.  On top of that, Beery’s accent kept slipping every now and then.

I’m sorry, but I didn’t particularly care for this film and I think it all comes down to my earlier statement.  It is hard to love a hero who is a buffoon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Thin Man – 1934

The Thin Man was a fun movie.  It was a murder mystery with a cleverly written plot and some memorable characters.  Most notable was the reluctant investigator, Nick Charles, played by William Powel.  He is really an interesting character.  He is a man who married into money, retired from his job as a police inspector.  He has a very biting and yet careless sense of humor which is actually part of his charm.  He is a handsome mane with a ready smile and no ill will towards anyone.

Powel did a fantastic job and was fun to watch.  But here’s the thing:  The film is the first in the Thin Man franchise.  The only problem is the title.  The eponymous thin man is very specific to the murder mystery in this film.  It has no bearing on any further movies in the franchise.  You see, the film was so named because the first man to be murdered was thin and not fat, a critical point in solving the case.  One could even call it “The Case of the Thin Man.”  However, both audiences and critics alike kept referring to Powel as the Thin Man, so I guess it just stuck.

And yet there were 5 more movies in the franchise, each being called a variation of The Thin Man:  After the Thin Man, Another Thin Man, Shadow of the Thin Man, The Thin Man Goes Home and Song of the Thin Man.  Just bear in mind that the character of Nick Charles was not the Thin Man.  The Thin Man was actually the character of Clyde Wynant, played by Edward Ellis and he was one of the murder victims.  But it was his disappearance that started all the events of the plot.  But never-mind that.

Opposite Powel was Myrna Loy, playing the part of Nora Charles, Nick’s socialite wife.  She is witty and smart and a perfect match for Nick’s quirky sarcastic, devil-may-care attitude.  The two of them often exchanged quick quips and witty jabs that sometimes gave the impression that they couldn’t stand each other.  In fact, he often makes jokes that he only married her for her money.  But it is completely clear they are hopelessly in love with each other.  All that, and Nick’s constant and unrepentant drinking, is part of the movie’s charm.

The mystery of the plot was very cleverly written.  Clyde Wynant disappears and his mistress, Julia Wolf turns up murdered.  There are plenty of suspects and they each have a particular motive to want the demise of the victim.  There is Mimi Wynant Jorgenson, played by Minna Gombell, Clyde’s jilted ex-wife.  Cesar Romero played Chris Jorgenson, Mimi’s new husband who wants to extort money from Clyde.  There was Clyde’s lawyer who had access to $50,000 in bonds that Wolf had stolen from him.  And there were several others, all of whom could have done it.

The reluctant detective is finally moved to solve the case because of the pleas of Wynant’s daughter.  You see, most of the film, the murder case is really that of Julia Wolf, and the missing Wynant, himself, is the prime suspect.  But Wynant’s daughter Dorothy, played by Maureen O’Sullivan, cannot believe that her father is guilty.  She begs Nick to take the case.

The climactic scene in which the murderer and his victims are revealed was very fun to watch.  Nick had gathered all the information that he could and invited all the suspects to a dinner party.  Then he went through each one of them, spouting their various motives.  But during the ensuing denial-filled conversation, the true murderer gave himself away.  It was pretty funny that even Nick wasn’t even sure who the killer was until that point.

It was a fun movie and I enjoyed watching it.  Apparently, audiences in 1934 did as well.  But that being said, the movie didn’t strike me as Best Picture material.  It was fluff.  All the comically witty dialogue and the light-hearted feel took away from the poignancy of the murder investigation.  It was a charming movie, but there was no seriousness, no danger.  It was clever but not amazingly clever.  It was funny, but not incredibly funny.  It was engaging, but not terribly intense.

But it was enough for William Powel and Myrna Loy to appear in 5 more Thin Man films, which I suppose says something pretty good about the franchise.  However, I found it interesting to note that the movie was filmed in only 12 days, only 5 months after the release of the book.  But director W.S. Van Dyke pulled it off and made the film for a budget of only $231,000.  Not bad, since it brought in around $1.4 million.