Category: Nominees – 1930s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Night of Love – 1934

This was a charming movie. It was a film about a girl with dreams of studying with the best voice teacher in Italy to become an opera super-star. It was certainly not a musical, though it had music as part of the plot. Back in the 1930s musical performances in films were immensely popular, but often times the music was rather unmemorable, especially for modern viewers like myself. More than that, songs just seemed to pop up without real reasons, other than that the director decided that it was time for another song.

But this film had several wonderful performances which showcased timeless classical arias from Lucia di Lammermoor, La Traviata, Carmen and Madam Butterfly. Playing the lead role of Mary Barrett was the real-life opera star, Grace Moore. Moore was a world-famous operatic soprano and musical theatre actress who had the nickname, the “Tennessee Nightingale.” The singing was always part of Barrett’s performances during her journey to become a great opera star.

And she was a truly talented singer, a fact to which I have to call special attention. As I am watching a lot of films from the era, I have found that many of the female singers who are featured in other musical films have very shrill voices. Maybe it was the popular style of the time, or maybe some actresses were hired for their looks and not their voices. Perhaps the sound recording technology of the time was not able to give an accurate account of treble voices. But Moore’s voice had a fullness and an ease about it that convinced me that her singing was no fakery. It was a genuinely good voice.

The character she portrayed was a young girl who dreamed of studying with the great vocal coach, Giulio Monteverdi, played by Tullio Carminati. Giulio’s problem was that he had a history of falling in love with his voice students. But after hearing Mary sing, he went out of his way to take her on as his pupil, on the condition that the subject of love never be approached. Everything was to be strictly work and study.

He trained her hard, driving her to the point of exhaustion and frustration. But in the end they both succeeded. She became the greatest opera star in Italy. But you can guess what happened next. Without realizing it, they had both fallen in love with each other.

Maybe it was a little predictable in that respect, but it was still delightful to watch. It was worth it just to see and hear Moore’s performances in Carmen and Madam Butterfly. I know very little about opera, but I know enough to spot a great performance when I see it.

I really liked Moore’s performance, but I also enjoyed Carmenati’s performance as well. His Italian accent was not an affectation and his style of acting was pretty realistic. He never seemed to be forced or nervous. I thought it was a rather honest portrayal.

Of course, there were other actors in the film, though Moore and Carmenati took the lion’s share of the screen time. Giulio’s vindictive ex-student and ex-love, Lally, was played by Mona Barrie. His pianist Giovanni, who turned out to be the film’s comic relief, was played by Luis Alberni. He had some pretty amusing moments. His housekeeper and Barrett’s assistant, Angelina, was played by Jessie Ralph. And finally, Bill Houston, the sweet young man in love with Mary Barrett, was played by Lyle Talbot.

They all did a fine job, but I still felt a little unenthusiastic about the whole movie. It was cute and charming but it was little more than fluff. It was neither too deep nor too serious. The plot was simple and easy to follow, though not terribly engaging. But that’s alright. Moore’s wonderful performances made up for it.

It is interesting to note that this was the first film to win the Academy Award for Best Music Score, as this was the first year in which the category existed. Moore was also nominated for Best Actress, though she did not win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imitation of Life – 1934

This was a movie that was done right.  It was so well done, and I’ll be honest: This movie should have taken home the Oscar for Best Picture.  It lost that honor to It Happened One Night, which was not one of my favorite winners.  It starred Claudette Colbert, Louise Beavers, Warren William, Rochelle Hudson, and Fredi Washington.

It was a great film that had a definite stance on a serious issue, but it didn’t beat you over the head with it.  It was simply a powerful story with a very loving and positive message.  The characters were well written.  They were good people, and yet they were each flawed enough to be completely realistic.  I would put this film up there with other great movies like The Best Years of Our Lives and Marty.

It is interesting to note that Claudette Colbert seemed to have been the hot ticket in 1934.  This was the third Best Picture nominated movie she starred in for that year.  She was in Cleopatra, and the Best Picture Winner, It Happened One Night.  And she really did a great job in each of them.

The story is about a widow, Bea Pullman, played by Colbert, with a child.  She is struggling to make ends meet, struggling to care for her daughter, Jessie.  By happy misfortune, she meets Delilah Johnson, played by Beavers.  She is a colored woman with a daughter of her own named Peola.  She is looking for a job as a housekeeper and a place to live.  She asks to become Bea’s housekeeper for free in exchange for room and board.

Without giving away too much of the plot, I will mention the main points of the film.  Peola is a child of mixed race.  She is very light-skinned, fair enough to pass herself off as a white girl.  She sees how colored children are treated and becomes embarrassed because of the color of her mother’s skin.  She also learns to hate herself because of her true heritage.  It was a very interesting take on the problem of racism.  I’ve never seen another movie that deals with the prejudice in the same way.

The two women use Delilah’s family recipe for pancake batter to open their own pancake restaurant, become rich beyond their wildest dreams, and the children grow into young adults.  Jessie is not the smartest girl, but she has a good heart.  But Peola still has the same issues, though she is apparently very smart.

When the business takes off, Bea offers to buy Delilah a house of her own, but she doesn’t want to be parted from her.  She begs to be able to continue to be Bea’s housekeeper, though they are both rich enough to have their own servants.  The friendship between the two women is a strong one that was wonderfully written and beautifully acted.  Colbert and Beavers each did a really fantastic job.

The adult Peola also had a pretty dramatic role.  She was played by actress Fredi Washington.  The scene in which she rejects her mother completely, saying that she wanted to be free to pass herself off as a white woman, was heart-wrenching.  Delilah’s spirit is crushed.  She takes to her bed and dies of a broken heart.  Before dying she tells Bea her dream of a lavish and grand funeral.  Let me tell you, the funeral scene was very dramatic and brought tears to my eyes, especially when Peola shows up and breaks down in tears.  She is ashamed of her own behavior and cries for her mother who never treated her with anything but unconditional love.

Of course, I have completely left out a whole different side of the film, which was the relationship between Bea and her daughter, Jessie.  The adult version was played by Rochelle Hudson.  And a new man comes into Bea’s life.  He is Stephen Archer, played by William Warren.  But you’ll have to watch the movie yourself to get that story-line.  The parts that dealt with racism were so much more interesting and meaningful to me.

And finally, it is interesting to note that like most films made in the 1930s, the cast credits are given before the beginning of the movie.  But at the end, they are listed again with a little sign that said, “A good cast is worth repeating.”  And this cast was very good.  Like I said, this one should have won the Award for Best Picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The House of Rothschild – 1934

This was a very interesting movie on several fronts.  I generally shy away from historical dramas if I don’t know anything about the real history.  When I watch one, I have to do at least a small amount of research to see how historically accurate the film is.  This historical drama follows the rise of the Rothschild family as it makes its vast fortune during the Napoleonic Wars.

It started out with George Arliss playing the part of Mayer Rothschild, the father of five sons named Nathan, Salomon, Amschel, Carl, and James.  The film shows Mayer as a Jew in the 1760s, in Frankfurt, Germany.  He is an honest business man, except that he hides his wealth when the tax collector comes to call.  The point is made that the Jews are treated with extreme prejudice that resembled Nazi Germany in WWII.

On his death-bed, Mayer instructs his sons to establish banks in the five capitols of Europe, Frankfurt, Paris, London, Naples and Vienna.  Thus, was the first international bank born.  Each brother is very successful in his business dealings, each working together to build one of the largest financial empires ever created.

All this took place against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars, and as everyone knows, war is good for business.  The five brothers became extremely rich when making loans to governments to support the war efforts.  And while that is the main focus of the film, the concept of anti-Semitism is also a strong component.

The director, Alfred L. Werker did a very good job of building the tension.  The story of the five brothers was a journey that was one of financial success, though there were also setbacks, risks and the possibility of complete and utter ruin.  George Arliss also played the part of Nathan Rothschild, the man who opened the bank in London.  Though he was the third son, the brothers elected him the head of the family business, so the plot focused on him.  Arliss did a good job in playing both parts.  In fact, I didn’t even know it was the same actor in the two roles until I did my research.

As I usually like to do with historical films, I did a little reading into the real-life events and found that they were pretty accurate, though they left out a lot of the details in order to present a dramatic interpretation of the events.  The film did not say how the brothers established their banks, nor did it mention what they each did to become successful.

Instead, they threw a little sub-plot into the mix concerning Nathan’s daughter Julie Rothschild, played by Loretta Young.  She fell in love with the Captain Fitzroy.  He was part of the British military, an organization which was being controlled by men who oppressed the Jews, stole their business, and incited discrimination and even criminal activity amongst them.  Julie was a completely made-up character.  The real Nathan actually had 3 daughters, none of whom were named Julie.  But this sub-plot played into the anti-Semitism subject.

Now, at the end of the film, they did something rather interesting, though it was never really explained why it was done.  The final scene showed Nathan Rothschild kneeling before the King of England at a formal reception.  Not only has he almost single-handedly funded England’s war efforts against Napoleon, but he has saved the British economy and financial empire from utter ruin.  He has been made a Baron.

For some reason, this last scene was filmed in three-strip Technicolor.  The gowns of the ladies attending the reception, the banners on the walls, the military coats of the gentlemen, everything was in full and vibrant color.  It was nice to see a bit of color at the end, but why was it done?  It didn’t really make sense with the story, unless they were trying to make it clear that a lot of time had passed since the previous scene.  If they could do it, why didn’t they do it for the entire film?  If it was too expensive to do, why was it done at all?  It left me slightly confused.

All in all, though, it was a good film and I enjoyed watching it.  The acting was good, the plot was easy to follow and the pacing was engaging.  For some reason, I hadn’t actually expected to like this one, but to my surprise, I really did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here Comes the Navy – 1934

This was an ultimately silly movie, though I wouldn’t exactly categorize it as a screwball comedy.  It was move of a romantic comedy, but it seemed that the romance took a back seat to humor.  It was wildly unrealistic in some aspects, consistent with rom-coms.  But the movie was remarkable in that it worked with the US Navy and had the use of real naval equipment and crafts, and even had the participation of real naval sailors and officers as extras.

It starred James Cagney, playing “Chesty” O’Connor, a real jerk by modern standards who joins the navy to get revenge on Chief Petty Officer “Biff” Martin, played by Pat O’Brien.  As a matter of fact, the entire plot was set into motion because Chesty was being a wanker and showing off in front of his construction worker friends.  He picked a fight with Biff, a random guy on the street.  The two men almost get into a fist fight then and there.

Later, Biff sees Chesty at a dance with his girl, Gladys, played by Dorothy Tree.  To get back at him, Biff picks a fight with him, knocks him out and steals Gladys.  Chesty loses his job for getting into fisticuffs with a naval officer.  So he joins the navy to get the chance to get back at Biff.  So not only is Chesty a jerk, he is also a moron.  He signs up at the recruitment office, but as soon as he signs the paper, he is told that he will have to do 90 days-worth of training.  He immediately tries to back out, but is told that his signature makes it too late.

While in basic training, he meets Droopy, played by wonderful character actor, Frank McHugh.  The two become friends and when training is over, they are assigned to, as luck would have it, the Arizona, the battleship on which Chief Petty Officer Biff Martin is serving.  Coincidence?!?!  One day, while swabbing the deck, Chesty sees a pretty girl come on board to visit Biff.  He goes out of his way to steal Biff’s sweetheart, Dorothy, played by Gloria Stewart.  But he gets more than he bargained for.  Not only does he actually falls in love with her, quickly learns that she is not Biff’s girlfriend, but his sister.

The rest of the film follows the continuing conflict between Chesty and Biff, Chesty’s efforts to get out of the Navy so that he can continue to go out with Dorothy, and her desire to see him excel in the military.  Along the way, Chesty gets court marshalled for going AWOL to see Dorothy.  In anger, he rejects the Navy, Biff’s offers of peace, Droopy’s friendship, and Dorothy’s love.  During combat training, Chesty puts his own life at risk to put out a fire in a gun room and is awarded Navy Cross Medal, but he rejects that as well.  His fellow sailors shun him and he is transferred to the rigid airship of the US Naval Air Service, the USS Macon.

When the Macon, a giant blimp, tries to dock, Biff gets caught on a guide rope and is hoisted up into the air.  Disobeying orders, Chesty again puts his own life at risk to save him.  He climbs down the guide rope, grabs Biff and parachutes them both to the safety of the ground where Dorothy is waiting to fawn over them both.  Chesty is transferred back to the regular Navy, this time with a personal note from the President of the United States, promoting him to Boatswain of the Arizona, suddenly making him outrank Biff.  And of course, this makes everything right with the world and Chesty and Dorothy get married, though he and Biff almost come to blows at the wedding.

OK, this ending was so phenomenally ridiculous because a soldier is never rewarded for disobeying orders.  Despite the fact that he saved a life, a sailor with a court-marshal on his record who has shown a complete lack of respect for authority and the Navy in general, and who has proven that he cannot follow the rules, would not get a Presidential promotion.  He would get dishonorably discharged or severely punished.  It’s a good thing this movie was a comedy.  That ending was certainly laughable.  This movie was a comedy, though it didn’t have any laugh-out-loud moments.  I guess it was supposed to be amusing to follow Chesty’s brainless extremism, or Droopy’s comic relief moments as he tried to sing along with the radio, thou his voice was horribly awful.  And there was a running gag about trying to come up with $20 to by Droopy’s mother a set of false teeth.

But what I didn’t appreciate was the blatant racism portrayed in the film.  In order to get ashore to visit Dorothy, Chesty goes to a black sailor, Cookie, played by Fred “Snowflake” Toones, and buys his shore-leave pass.  Cookie is portrayed as a stupid man who is just a stone’s throw away from “Yessa Massa!”  As if that wasn’t bad enough, Chesty then puts on black-face and isn’t recognized during a personal, up-close inspection by Biff.  I mean, I understand that it was 1934, but I still call it ridiculously racist.

You also might recognize the name of the actress who played Dorothy.  Gloria Stewart was only 24 when she starred in Here Comes the Navy.  But she was 87 when she was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for the Best Picture winning Titanic in 1997.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Gay Divorcee – 1934

This movie was a bit of a disappointment. I was expecting a happy, feel-good musical, and for the most part, that is what I got. What I found disappointing was the lack of subtlety, memorable music and a plausible plot. I understood that a film starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers would be a dance musical, and I have no problem with that. But most of the dancing had so little to do with the plot that it all seemed unnecessary.

Let me explain. The main character was a professional dancer named Guy Holden, played by Astaire. He has a chance meeting with the beautiful Mimi, played by Rogers. He falls instantly in love, though she does not return his affections. In fact, she rather dislikes him. But then things turn creepy as Guy actively stalks her. When he finds her, he gets in his car and a nice little high-speed car chase ensues. When he finally catches her, he traps her behind a phony “Road Closed” sign and forces her to talk to him. She repeatedly tells him to leave her alone. She makes it quite clear that she is not interested and wants him to go away. But Guy is so in love with her that when she says no, he ignores her objections.

Mimi’s problem is that she is unhappily married and wants to get a divorce. She goes to an idiot lawyer because her husband refuses to grant her a one. His solution is to have her go to a hotel and stay in a room with a hired man while a private investigator comes and catches the two together, causing the husband to request a divorce from an unfaithful wife. But the lawyer happens to be Guys friend and they all go to the same hotel. The rest of the plot, of which there isn’t much, is pretty predictable.

The original stage musical featured music by Cole Porter, but when it was made into a movie, only one of Porter’s songs was kept. It was called Night and Day, and in my opinion, it was the best song in the film. But there were a few other songs written for the movie. The most notable was a song called The Continental. It was a twenty minute dance number with singing that was pretty superfluous. At least this number started out in a good fashion, being a part of the plot. Guy and Mimi are watching the dancing hotel guests from their balcony. Guy says that he likes the music and wonders what it is called. Mimi says that it is The Continental. The two say that they want to go down to the dance floor and join the dancing.

They do, and we have another delightful little dance number. After a few minutes the pair completed their dance and the hotel guests applauded for them. But then dozens of dancers rush onto the dance floor and we are treated to another eighteen minutes of flashy dancing, matching costumes and meaningless music. The whole scene could have been over when Guy and Mimi were done dancing. It would have saved us a lot of time, and everyone would have been happier.

And as for the dancing itself, it was alright. Much of dancing was fairly simple formations, meaning that the costumes were all either black or white and the choreographer used that to create shapes and formations. All the black dresses form a line here. All the white dresses form a line there. Look: a big plus sign! Now move to position two! Look: a big equal sign! Now look at it spinning!

Of course, we really only came to see Astaire and Rogers dance. So I’ll comment on their dancing in particular. I’m sorry to say this, but Fred Astaire was not a very good actor, though he could dance. He knew all his moves, he knew all his steps, but his style seemed a bit jerky and frantic. He was a very thin, gangly sort of a man and when he danced his movements all looked a little forced. But then I watched Ginger Rogers dance. Her dancing was smooth and fluid. She glided across the floor like a breeze, though her energy, at times, seemed a little lacking.

But when the two of them danced together, it was like magic. They were both better together than they were separately. They moved as one being and were perfectly in synch. Those were the times when I stared at the screen in amazement. That was what audiences really came to see.

But I really don’t think this should have been nominated for Best Picture. The vapid story and Astaire’s equally vapid acting were not enough to warrant such a high honor. And besides… Gene Kelly was really a better dancer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flirtation Walk – 1934

Flirtation was a cute and enjoyable film that fit right into the style of the 30s.  It starred Dick Powell as Richard “Canary” Palmer Grant Dorcy, an enlisted man in the U.S. Army.  He is a moron.  Opposite him is Ruby Keeler playing the part of Kit Fitts, the manipulative and self-centered daughter of the General.  Together, they make for a delightfully romantic couple who must overcome class differences and the social conventions of the day to be together.  Their story is set against the backdrop of two iconic places: the Hawaiian Islands and West Point Military Academy.

Now, you may ask why I call our main protagonist a moron.  Let me explain.  We first meet him as he is making fun of his superior officer behind his back.  That, in itself isn’t so bad, but when he realizes that the officer is standing right behind him, listening to him, Dorcy doesn’t stop.  He continues to make fun of him to his face.  Of course, this lands him in hot water.

Then when the General’s daughter shows up, and manipulates him into disobeying orders, using the old “My father is the General, and you have to do what I say,” line, Dorcy is dumb enough to go along with it.  The two have a romantic escapade, complete with a well-choreographed Hawaiian luau.  They fall in love, despite the fact that Kit is somewhat promised to Lieutenant Biddle, played by John Eldridge.

Then rest of the movie follows Dorcy as he makes one bad decision after another because he is so crazy about Kit.  He tries to go AWOL and is talked down by his best friend, Scrapper Thornhill, played by Pat O’Brien, along with the stereotypical dumb grunt, Sleepy, played by Guinn Williams.  Then he decides to win Kit back by going to West Point Academy, not to excel, but to impress her.  While there, he meets new friends like Spike, played by John Arledge, and Oskie, played by Ross Alexander.  One bad decision after another, all concerning Kit, culminates in Dorcy nearly getting kicked out of the Academy the night before graduation.

But remember, this is Hollywood in the 1930s, so whatever happened, love would conquer all.  The happy couple ended up together in the end mostly because of the officer who was supposed to be the bad guy, Lt. Biddle.  He was eventually man enough to realize that Kit loved Dorcy instead of him, and graciously stepped aside, allowing the two lovers to be together.

The film was presented as a musical, spouting 6 musical numbers.  But I liked how the numbers were actually worked into the story.  They were not gratuitous or part of the story, but at least they came at appropriate times.  There was a song at the luau, and several when Dorcy was put in charge of writing a play to be performed by the Cadets of West Point.  The tunes were light and fluffy, giving the film a pleasant air and a fun atmosphere.

But it was that light-hearted aesthetic which made the movie fun to watch.  Yeah, the leading character was an idiot, but it was ok because the film wasn’t too serious or dramatic.  The luau scene was elaborate and fun, and had the distinction of being filmed on the biggest set ever constructed at Warner Brother Studios at the time.  And the scenes filmed at the real West Point Academy were visually interesting with the handsome cadets all marching in their pristine uniforms.

Powell, who was a very popular crooner in the 30s was handsome and fresh-faced.  As it turned out, he was also a very capable actor.  Keeler was a little one note, and though she was also known as a singer, I wasn’t impressed with her voice when put next to Powell.  Fortunately, her singing was kept to a minimum.

If I had any real complaints, it would be the old movie trope in which men turn into cartoonish, blithering idiots whenever a pretty girl walks into the room, as if they had never seen an attractive woman in their lives.  Sure, Keeler was pretty, but really…  oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cleopatra – 1934

This was a big movie.  It was a huge Cecil B. DeMille epic that starred Claudette Colbert as Cleopatra, Warren William as Julius Cesar, and Henry Wilcoxon as Marc Antony.  DeMille was famously known for the flamboyant spectacles of his films.  It was beautifully and sumptuously designed with an opulent art deco style, and I think it would have been stunning as a color film.

Colbert, William and Wilcoxon all did a fine job in their respective roles.  Colbert was beautiful, though if I am being honest, I have never liked her penciled-in eyebrows.  They are frightening.  And she didn’t look even remotely Egyptian.  But putting that aside, she acted the part well enough.  She had gravity and a sense of authority about her at the appropriate moments, though at other times she stopped being a queen and became a woman in love.

Wilcoxon was incredibly handsome and his acting was good.  The scene that took place on Cleopatra’s barge, where she seduced Marc Antony with her exotic foods and dancing slaves, was a particularly fantastic sequence.  Wilcoxon was able to portray a believable transition from anger to delight, and finally to lust, looking at the scantily clad dancing girls.

It was all a feast for the eyes and the wild and beautiful score by Rudolph Kopp helped propel the dancers into a frenzy of lust and passion.  It was almost too much to take in.  In a very sensuous sequence, Cleopatra has a team of hunky slaves in loincloths haul up a net from out of the sea.  The net is carefully laid on the deck of the barge and when the ropes are released, we can finally see what has been “caught.”  Six or seven naked women are in the net, each holding up an oyster shell filled with pearls and gems.

But then the whole scene was thrown into the realm of the bazar.  A troupe of female dancers came out dressed in sexy leopard costumes, tails and all.  They began having cat-fights on the deck, meowing, scratching and hissing at each other.  They only stopped when a leopard tamer came out cracking his whip to force them into submission. Then they started doing cartwheels through three flaming hoops.  Flaming hoops on a wooden barge…

And while we are on that subject, it is interesting to note that this movie was made in 1934.  The Hays code was just beginning to take effect, allowing DeMille to be much more risqué than he could be in his later films.  He showed more naked female flesh in this movie than I was expecting.  Even Cleopatra, with her flamboyant wardrobe, seemed to be always showing her midriff, though we never once saw her belly-button.

Apparently no Roman man could resist Cleopatra’s exotic beauty and charms.  Rome is out to conquer Egypt and Cleopatra’s way of keeping her throne is to seduce Cesar.  But then he is assassinated because of his love affair with a foreign queen.  Then the Roman Senate puts Marc Antony and Cesar’s nephew Octavian, played by Ian Keith, into positions of joint rulers.

Antony goes to conquer Egypt, but Cleopatra seduces him as well.  The Roman army abandons him and he takes control of the Egyptian army.  The fantastic battle sequence showed a surprising amount of blood and horrific death.  But in the end Cleopatra, who has truly fallen for Antony, goes to Octavian to plead for his life.  Thinking that she has betrayed him, Antony commits suicide.  Cleopatra finds him and he dies in her arms.  With the Roman army breaking down the palace doors, the Queen shoves a snake onto her breast and dies of its poison.

The film was huge and grand.  It was well acted and had a good story.  OK, so we threw reality out the window for a bit, but that was OK, and not entirely unexpected.  I just wish this film could have been made in color.  I guess I’ll just have to wait for Cleopatra, the 1963 Best Picture nominee with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Barretts of Wimpole Street – 1934

I went into watching this film with no knowledge of what it was about.  I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of the story.  I was not expecting the heavy drama.  It was drama that was uncomfortable to watch.  It had to do with the real-life romance and subsequent marriage of two famous poets, Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning.

The film was marked as a big romance, and it certainly was that.  But I found the bigger issue to be one of a family whose domineering and tyrannical father was so cruel as to willfully deny his children any happiness.  He was manipulative and selfish in his dealings with them, using powerful guilt trips to cow his sons and daughters into obedience.  I mean, the romance itself didn’t present the most prominent conflict to the plot.  The film’s biggest tension was the father’s mean-spirited oppression of his children.

Norma Shearer played Elizabeth Barrett, a girl who is so ill that she is generally confined to her sick-bed.  But she writes her poetry and exchanges letters with another poet, Robert Browning, played by Fredric March.  It would all be a picture perfect romance, except for her father, played by Charles Laughton, is an ultra-conservative Christian, who’s self-righteous and supremely pious ways have long since turned to cruelty disguised as love.

Mr. Barrett terrorizes his children, both emotionally, and physically.  He constantly tells Elizabeth that she is sick and that she will never get better.  He keeps her in poor health so that she will always have to depend on him to survive.  But when her relationship with Mr. Browning escalates to a point where they actually meet and the fall in love, she begins to realize the true nature of her father’s affections.

Love gives Elizabeth the strength to regain her health.  She begins to realize that she can get better, and that her father wants to keep her sick so that she will never leave him.  For me, the real drama of the film is Elizabeth’s character arc as she rebels against her father.  In the end she decides to leave him, fully realizing that she will leave with nothing but the dress she is wearing.  She runs into the arms of her lover, marrying him in a secret ceremony, and when she did, I applauded her.  Her personal struggles for freedom interested me more than the romance, or her regained health.

Shearer’s performance was slightly melodramatic, and she made a little too much use of the over-exaggerated hand gestures and facial expressions that actors had been using in the silent rea, though it wasn’t too bad.  But aside from that, her style of acting was real and engaging.  The role she played demanded a wide range of emotions and she seemed to pull them all off with ease.  Fredric March also did a fine job, but I think that his performance was a bit overshadowed by Shearer.  But he seemed passionate and sincere about his performance, so maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on him.

Laughton did a good enough job, though with the exception of one scene, his character was pretty one-note.  He played his one emotion, angry self-righteousness, very well.  But I have to mention the one scene where that stolid mask was dropped for an instant.  In it, Mr. Barrett confesses to Elizabeth how much he really loves her.  The intensity of his affection for her borders on inappropriate and uncomfortable.  He seemed to love her a bit too much, and possibly in an un-fatherly way.  This incestuous aspect of his character was stronger in the original Broadway play upon which the film was based, but director of the film, Sidney Franklin, took all of that out of the script.  However, Laughton was quoted as saying, “They can censor it all they like, but they can’t censor the gleam out of my eye.”  And he was absolutely right because I certainly picked up on it.

And lastly I have to mention another wonderful performance.  Elizabeth’s younger sister, Henrietta, played by Maureen O’Sullivan, was, for most of the film, even more rebellious than any of her eight siblings.  She was generally the most vocal about her misery, living under the oppressive shadow of her father.  She fell in love with a soldier and when her father found them out, she was told that she would not be allowed to marry him or even see him ever again, for fear of being completely disowned.  O’Sullivan’s acting was, at times, nearly as powerful as Shearer’s.

I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting, but the depth of the drama was a pleasant surprise.  I thought the entire cast did a great job.  And knowing nothing about the story, I found myself really questioning whether Elizabeth and Robert would end up together, whether Elizabeth would find the courage to defy her father and leave him, and that is a credit to both the director and the script.  Well done, everyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Fair – 1933

This was a charming little movie, even if it was a bit predictable.  We have the Frake family, consisting of Abel, played by Will Rogers, his wife, Melissa, played by Louise Dresser, and their two innocent and well-mannered teenage children, Wayne, played by Norman Foster, and Margy, played by Janet Gaynor.  Of course, as the title implies, the big event of the plot is the Ohio State Fair.  All four of them have their own reasons for going, and each of them gets exactly what they want.  The family must have been charmed.

It is important to note that the film, as innocent as it might seem on the surface, was pre-code.  This means that the Hayes Code was not in effect and the filmmakers could be a little more risqué than they could be the following year when the code was enacted.  As such there was no nudity in the film, but there were scenes which made it clear that Wayne was having a sexual affair with an older woman.  In the original novel by Phil Stong, Margy loses her virginity with an older man, but the film altered the story to make her more chaste.

The story begins with Abel as he is feeding his prized Hampshire boar named Blue Boy with which he hopes to win the prize for best hog at the Fair.  Melissa is working on pickles and mincemeat with which she hopes take home blue ribbons.  Wayne and Margy are both lusty young teens who want to leave behind their dreary lives and their even drearier sweethearts.

While at the Fair, Wayne meets a trapeze artist named Emily Joyce, played by Sally Ellers, who takes a liking to him.  Over the three days of the fair, they become close and she takes him back to her place.  She gives him his first taste of alcohol, and seduces him.  Most audiences were titillated but some morally upstanding movie-goers were scandalized by Emily going to “Change into something more comfortable” and then emerging from the bedroom in a slinky silk bathrobe.

Margy has her own adventures when she meets Pat Gilbert, played by Lew Ayres.  He is a worldly reporter who meets the young girl on a roller-coaster.  He has aspirations of being a reporter in New York City, but is willing to sacrifice his dreams to settle down and lead a sedentary life with Margy.  In the film, the two share no more than a few kisses and a lot of longing glances.

Meanwhile Melissa wins blue ribbons for both her pickles and her mincemeat, but I had a slight problem with her win.  It is implied that the only reason she took home the top prize is because Pat knew the judges and got them to fix the competition to curry favor with Margy.  Then he lied to her about his scheming.

And finally, we have Abel and his emotionally troubled boar.  Yes, part of the film’s drama is that Blue Boy seems to be depressed, or angry, or something.  While in his pen at the Fair, he lies on his side in a fit of pique.  But whenever a certain engorged sow passes by, he rouses himself and begins grunting.  They actually spent time comically cutting back and forth between Blue Boy’s eyes and the sow’s eyes, trying to capture the porcine romance.  But in the end, Blue Boy comes through with flying colors, taking home the blue ribbon Abel has been after without any outside help.

The real meat of the story, of course was young lust, the impetuousness of youth, and coming of age.  Both romances ended poorly when the Fair was over.  The naïve Wayne falls head-over-heels I love with Emily, and she partly responds in kind.  But when he proposes marriage to her, she turns him down, showing that she has no intention of giving up her carefree lifestyle to me married to a child.  Pat also proposes marriage to Margy, but she turns him down, neither wanting him to give up his dreams, nor wanting, herself, to move to a big city.  As the Frake family is driving home, the kids are depressed, pining over their lost loves.

But the end is where the film really differs from the novel.  In the book, Margy returns home to marry her long-standing, but utterly dull childhood sweetheart, Harry, played in the film by Frank Melton.  But Hollywood had their own ideas, of course.  At the last minute, Pat unexpectedly drives to her home town and literally sweeps her off her feet.  Happy romantic ending!

But I have to think that the problems that kept Margy and Pat apart at the end of the Fair still remained.  Where would the happy couple live, on a farm, or in a big city?  Who cares, asks Hollywood!  Audiences want to see the lovers end up together.  Reality be damned!  I think the book had it right.  Well, there were three more versions of the State Fair that made their way onto the big screen over the years, one in 1945, another in 1976, and a Rogers and Hammerstein musical in 1962.  I’ve seen none of them, but I wonder if the fabricated ending was kept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smilin’ Through – 1932

This was an adorable movie with some good acting, an interesting plot, and a sappy, happy ending.  It starred Norma Shearer, Fredric March, and Leslie Howard.  Shearer and March both played two different characters, present day characters and their ancestors.  Howard played the same character but at different ages.

I read somewhere, and I’ll be honest – I can’t remember where, that the movie dealt a little with spiritualism and had a slight fantasy element.  Howard played the character of Sir John Carteret.  He is a bitter old man who has a dark secret in his past.  He has spent 30 years pining for his lost love, Moonyeen, played by Shearer, who had been murdered at their wedding.  He spends long hours in the garden where he had spent so many happy times with her before her death.  The ghost of Moonyeen visits John and it is implied that he can actually hear her and have conversations with her.  This is where the whole spiritualism aspect comes in.

Then one day, John is manipulated into becoming guardian to Moonyeen’s niece.  He becomes a happier man as she grows into a beautiful young woman, Kathleen, played by Shearer.  By chance, she meets and falls hopelessly in love with Kenneth Wayne, played by March.  When Sir John learns of his identity, he becomes despondent and forbids Kathleen to ever see him again, threatening to disinherit her if she does.  Apparently, Kenneth is the son of the man who murdered his beloved Moonyeen.

Of course, he forces Kathleen to promise that she will turn him away, a promise which she cannot keep.  But Kenneth goes off to fight in a war that is never clearly identified.  He is gone for 4 years, during which time he is emotionally and physically damaged.  On his return, he turns her away because… well, it never really explained why, other than the fact that he could only walk with crutches.

Meanwhile, John is filled with hate for him, punishing him, and consequently Kathleen, for the sins of his father.  Moonyeen’s ghost tries to get John to let go of his hate because it is getting in the way of her communicating with him.  But so hateful is he that he cannot hear her pleas.  But then Kathleen learns of his injuries and tells her uncle that she loves him anyway.  John finally sees the error of his ways and tells her to go after Kenneth and marry him.

It is a cute enough story, though not terribly deep.  But as I said, the acting was good, especially Shearer, who seemed to be able to shed convincing tears on cue.   I liked March and Howard, both of whom were very young when this movie was filmed.  The film is based on a well-loved play of the same name, written by Jane Cowel and Jane Murfin.  In fact it was so popular that this was actually the second film adaptation, the first being a silent film made in 1922.  Incidentally, the director, Sidney Franklin, was the very same man who directed the silent film version.  In addition, a third film was made in 1941, this one being done as a musical starring Jeanette MacDonald.

As I think about it, there was really only one thing I would have changed about the film: its ending.  The ending we got was alright, but I would have added a single scream that would have given the end a much more poignant climax, and would have completely changed the romantic, feel-good vibe.

So, John tells Kathleen to run to the train station to get her man.  As he is waiting for her to return, he dies, and after 50 years of being alone, his spirit is finally reunited with Moonyeen.  The two ghosts watch as Kathleen and Kenneth enter the gate and make their way towards the house.  Then the camera follows the spirits as they get into a ghostly carriage and ride off to spend eternity with each other.  But they ignored the fact that Kathleen is about to find John, her beloved uncle, dead.  Just think of how that one scream in the background would have changed the ending, making it more meaningful and powerful.  They could even have given a last wistful glance back at the world of the living before riding off to their everlasting bliss.  But I guess that might have been too depressing for the audiences of 1932.