Category: Winners – 1930s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gone With the Wind – 1939

OK Folks – Sit tight.  This is one of the big ones.  My apologies if the review turns out to be a long one, but I think this movie deserves it.  Gone With the Wind was a truly great movie.  I went into it having already seen the movie before.  It had been my opinion that I didn’t like the movie, because at the end of the film, I didn’t like any of the characters.  I couldn’t identify with or sympathize with any of them.  But upon watching it again, I have completely changed my opinion.

This was a great movie for a number of reasons.  The acting was incredible.  Just because I don’t like a character, it doesn’t mean that it was not well acted.  Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable (again!) were the two main leads, Scarlet O’Hara and Rhett Butler.  Leigh was, at times, the least likeable character of all, and in my opinion was the best part of the movie.  Scarlett’s amazing strength of will and endurance transcended my dislike of her personality.  Despite her monumental selfishness, and her overwhelming obsession with Ashley, a man who did not belong to her, she was able to survive the Civil War, the Restoration of the South, and the saving of her home, Tara.  And while doing so, she inadvertently helped others to survive as well, though most of them seemed to conveniently overlook that aspect of Scarlett’s actions.  Leigh was phenomenal, playing the spoiled Southern Belle, the strong survivor in the face of the Civil War, the determined provider during the restoration of Tara, the uncaring wife, the distant mother, the not-very grieving widow, the obsessed woman in love with the wrong man, and everything in between.

My biggest change of heart was the character of Rhett.  I originally thought that his character was mean and uncaring, but he was actually quite the opposite.  He was a true and honest man.  He never pretended to be anything other than self-serving.  He accepted himself as he was, flaws and all.  And to be certain, he had his flaws.  He was also supremely selfish and obsessed with a woman who did not love him.  He tried everything he could to win her affections away from Ashley.  But in the end, by the time he did, it was too late.  Scarlet had spurned him once too often, and even the most persistent man has his limits.  When she finally professes her love for him, he has already had enough and leaves her.  This, of course spawned that most famous of lines: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Interesting note:  This was not the original line.  It was supposed to have been something like, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t care.”  Gable improvised the line using the word “damn” instead.  The producer, David Selznick, liked it enough to keep it in the film.

The supporting cast was also incredibly capable.  Olivia de Havilland played Ashley’s saint-like cousin/wife. (I guess that kind of thing was common back then.)  She, who had the least reason to, always believed the best of Scarlett.  Ashley, played by Leslie Howard, was also a good man.  Though he was often tempted by Scarlett, he was never unfaithful to his wife.  Mammy, a house servant, was wonderfully played by Hattie McDaniel.  Her character could easily have been very one-dimensional, but McDaniel made it stand out.

Interesting note:  Hattie McDaniel, winning the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for the role, was the first African American to win an Academy Award.  Well done Hattie!

Gone With the Wind was the 12^th movie to win Outstanding Picture.  But it is significant to note that it was the first color film to win.  As I have been watching all the Best Picture winners, so far, they have all been black and white.  It was beautiful to finally have color on the screen.  I can only imagine what a monumental feature it must have been for audiences of 1939 to finally see a film in Technicolor.  And director, Victor Fleming, really used it to his advantage.  The cinematography was spectacular.  There were plenty of wide shots of amazing skies and open country, clouds blazing with bright brilliance.  The vibrant greens of Tara, the O’Hara plantation, the dirty browns and greys of the Civil War scenes, the luminous red fires of the burning of Atlanta – all were a feast for the eyes of movie-goers that knew only black and white!

And the costumes!  They seemed to spare no expense when it came to the costumes.  The southern belles and their elaborate dresses were amazing.  And, of course the famous green velvet curtain dress worn by Scarlett was just fantastic.  (Although, I wondered – if the Yankees took everything of value in Tara, why would they not have taken the beautiful curtains as well?)

And finally, there was the music.  At last, we have a true epic with a score that really steps up to the plate.  The composer, Max Steiner, spent twelve weeks writing a score that conveyed the grandeur of the story and, in my opinion, actually enhanced the visual glory of the cinematography.  There were plenty of period specific songs used like “Louisiana Belle”, “Dixie” and “Bonny Blue Flag”, but there were also huge and sweeping orchestral melodies that did an incredible job of supporting the epic nature of the film.

Gone With the Wind was nominated for thirteen Academy Awards, eight of which it won, and in addition, won two honorary awards.  Aside from Outstanding Picture, it also won for Best Director (Victor Fleming), Best Actress (Vivien Leigh), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Hattie McDaniel), Best Cinematography, Color, Best Film Editing, and Best Art Direction.

This movie came in at just under four hours, a long movie, even by today’s standards, but it was such a pleasure to watch, that it didn’t feel that long at all.  This one well deserved the Award for Outstanding Picture.

Interesting note:  In total, Gone with the Wind has grossed over $390 million globally at the box office.  Turner Entertainment estimates the gross to be equivalent to approximately $3.3 billion when adjusted for inflation to current prices, making it the most successful film in cinema history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You Can’t Take It With You – 1938

You Can’t Take It With You clobbered me.  It beat me over the head with a message… but I didn’t mind.  The message of this Outstanding Picture winning movie was:  There are things in life that are more important than money.  It is a very true statement, to be sure, and at times the message was so blatant and unrepentant that it bordered on being preachy.  But that being said, I really did enjoy the movie.

We’ll start off with the cast of actors.  Jean Arthur as Alice Sycamore, our kooky female romantic lead, Lionel  Barrymore as Grandpa Martin Vanderhof, Alice’s eccentric grandfather , Edward Arnold as Anthony Kirby, the stuffy business man, and a very young James Stewart as Tony Kirby, our other romantic lead.  Barrymore did a particularly good job as the head of the Vanderhof/Sycamore/Carmichael clan.  His character was very gentle, loveable, understanding, self-sacrificing, and charming, and yet human enough to lose his temper and really blow up at someone when driven to it.  Barrymore brought all this out quite believably.  Kudos to him.

Interesting note:  Barrymore’s arthritic foot was written into the script as a sprained ankle, allowing the actor to be on crutches for the entire film.

And then, of course, James Stewart is always great to watch.  He has a very easy on-screen presence.  He seems to be completely comfortable in front of the cameras whether the situation is romantic, comedic, or dramatic.  One curious thing about his character, though:  James Stewart has a very slight southern drawl.  You hear it in nearly every role he plays.  It doesn’t matter that none of the other actors who play his family in the movie have this accent.  But hey, it’s Jimmy Stewart, so I didn’t mind.

The movie is a feel-good movie.  By the end of the film, you end up liking all the characters.  You feel happy for all of them.  The bad guys become good, the young couple in love can get married, and everyone becomes friends.  And by the way… Did I mention that there are things in life that are more important than money?

The plot is a simple one.  The son of a rich, stuffy, and ruthless business man falls in love with a girl from a poor, eccentric, and loveable family.  Of course, the rich man wants to buy the poor man’s house, but the poor man cares nothing for money and will not sell.  But when the love-birds bring the two families together, there is an awkward culture clash that has pretty funny results.  As a matter of fact, I would even call this movie a zany comedy at times.  But there were also profound dramatic moments that made you feel for characters from both families.

Something else that caught my attention is the fact that most romantic comedies are somewhat predictable.  But this movie made me pause.  At the climax of the film, I couldn’t easily tell which way the story would go, and that gave more weight to the drama.  And did I mention that there are things in life that are more important than money?

Two supporting actors in the film who stood out to me were Spring Byington who played Alice’s mother, Penny Sycamore, and Dub Taylor who played Alice’s brother-in-law Ed Carmichael.  Byington played a mother who loved being artistic in any way that took her fancy, but a few of her off-the-wall lines almost made her seem like a loveable air-head.  Taylor’s character was an amusing country bumpkin.  He is not particularly smart at times, but he is a good-hearted guy who obviously loves his wife, played by a fifteen year old Ann Miller. He also plays a mean xylophone!   They were both fun to watch.

This movie had a lot to offer.  It had comedy, drama, romance, big name actors, a good message, and a story that left me smiling when it was all over.  It was definitely worthy of the Outstanding Picture Award.

Interesting note:  In 1938 the country was still coming out of the Great Depression.  The message of the movie was probably very appealing to a lot of audiences.  There are indeed things in life that are more important than money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Life of Emile Zola – 1937

Emile Zola was a French author who lived in the mid 1800’s. According to this biographic movie, he started his career as a poor and starving writer living with poor and starving painter. As artists, they both had a need to find truth, both in their world and in their work. Zola began writing works criticizing the government and the military. Of course, those he criticized were not happy and they censured his work. But as we all know, the best way for a book or a movie, or any trend or fashion for that matter, to become immensely popular, is to censure it.

Thus began The Life of Emile Zola. Today, most Americans have never heard of Emile Zola, but I can think of two reasons why audiences of 1937 might have known who he was. First, he was a much more recent figure. After all, he died in 1902 – only thirty-five years before the movie had been made. Of course, that would be one hundred eleven years before today. Second, let’s face it, books were much more prevalent back then and more people had read his works.

The movie followed his career from around 1860 to his death. However, most of the film is centered around the Dreyfus case, in which an innocent man is sent to prison, and Zola’s involvement in it. Zola, played by Paul Muni, is very charismatic. Not only is he a successful writer, but he also is able to give inspiring public speeches when he needs to. I looked up pictures of the real Zola, and Muni really looked the part – sometimes difficult to do when the film is a biography. There was never a point in the movie in which I did not like his character portrayal.

Ultimately, I enjoyed watching the movie, but to me it was a bit unmemorable. It was really a political drama. I have never taken a huge interest in politics of any kind. There was no exciting action or heavy emotional drama. It was all about a man who incited political and social changes in his beloved country, so in that respect I found pacing of the movie to be a bit slow. There were two speeches given by Zola that were able to catch my interest and stir the blood a little, but they were only brief moments in the movie.

The rest of the actors in the film all did a good job. I was particularly impressed with Joseph Schildkraut who played the part of Captain Alfred Dreyfus and also with Gale Sondergaard who played the part of his wife, Lucie Dreyfus. Most of the emotional content of the film belonged to them as they are wrongfully separated for five years. Lucie never stops trying to prove her husband’s innocence. There was a brief scene where she visits him in prison, but can only see him for a few minutes without being able to touch him. The whole visit is supervised by guards. They both acted that scene very well.

Unfortunately, that was the extent of the emotional drama. Again, the main focus of the movie was Zola’s trial. Yes, Zola himself was put on trial for speaking out against the injustice of the Dreyfus case and another closely related case. It was the other case, however, for which he was arrested and the trial was a complete sham. That was also interesting to watch, although, if the real court case was anything like it was depicted in the film, I can’t imagine how anyone would not see what a horrible injustice was being perpetrated by the French court.

I didn’t particularly care for the end of the movie – specifically, Zola’s death. Apparently, he died of carbon monoxide poisoning, which was historically true. But the movie didn’t show what really happened. Actually, a Parisian roofer claimed to have murdered Zola by closing his Chimney for “political reasons.” But the movie only shows his wife putting a brick on the fire and leaving the room. There are a few shots of smoke entering the room through the chimney pipe, and then he dies. Maybe if the film had shown what really happened, I’d have felt more emotional sympathy for the character. As it was, I thought it a rather anticlimactic ending to the film, which makes his death seem like nothing more than an accident. But then, I also thought the movie itself was pretty anticlimactic. So in that regard, the ending was an appropriate one.
All in all, it was a good enough movie, though a little too slow for my tastes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Great Ziegfeld – 1936

Florenz Ziegfeld put on some of the greatest spectacles to ever hit the stage. Even by today’s standards, his shows, known as the Ziegfeld Follies, were over the top and beyond compare. The movie is a fictionalized biography of his career from 1893 until his death in 1929. There were many things about the film that moved it from good to great, earning it the Academy Award for Best Picture.

I went into the movie knowing nothing about the real Ziegfeld, so when the film introduced him as a carnie played by William Powel, I was a little put-off. I had the idea that he was a great man with impeccable taste and a keen business sense. How else could he have been incredibly rich, super successful in all his endeavors, and loved by the entire industry? But as the movie progressed, I learned how. He was a con man.

He apparently had such a charming and winning personality that he got people to give him all the money he needed. Granted, he had a unique vision of a grand and beautiful stage spectacle, but in order to produce it, he needed money that he rarely had. Powel was very believable in the roll. He was very charming and smooth with a nice smile and a complete disregard for propriety and rules. He could smooth-talk and lie his way out of almost anything.

Luise Rainer played Ziegfeld’s first wife, Anna Held. Rainer was a German actress but played a French character. I liked watching her and it is interesting to note that she won the Academy Award for Best Actress for the role. Other notable actors in the film were Myrna Loy as Billie Burke, Ziegfeld’s second wife, and Frank Morgan as Jack Billings, Ziegfeld’s professional competition. Morgan was famous for a different role in his career – more about that later! He was particularly fun to watch. His acting always seemed very free and easy, like a real person – almost like he wasn’t acting.

The film’s music was wonderful. The movie was not a musical, but it had music in it whenever Ziegfeld’s productions were part of the movie. Several numbers from the Ziegfeld Follies were shown, featuring Ray Bolger and Fanny Bryce, both playing themselves. Bolger’s style of dance is always fun to watch. The big number was a song called “A Pretty Girl Is Like a Melody.” And boy, this is one of those musical numbers that blew the roof off! Not only was the score and the singing wonderful, but the visuals really sold it. This was the big number of the movie.

A gigantic carousel covered with glitter and girls revolved slowly as the curtains that covered it were strategically lifted, craftily revealing the enormous cast of smiling faces. Circling the carousel was a wide staircase, upon which the girls sat. The camera started at the bottom of the winding staircase and simply rose slowly, catching all the elegant glitz and glamour you can imagine. The sequence seemed to take forever, and by the time the dazzling girl at the top of the carousel was revealed, I was just amazed at the beauty of all the women and the grand scale of the music. Then the camera panned back to show you just how huge the set actually was. It was an amazing sequence! That girl at the top better not be afraid of heights!

You see, Ziegfeld’s formula was simple. Lots of beautiful girls to look at, lots of costumes, lots of music, and lots of sparkle! And it worked! The girls didn’t even have to sing or dance, or even move, really. Leave that to the couple of dancers and the few singers. Just sit there, smile, and look pretty. Let the revolving carousel and the clever curtains take care of the rest.

Interesting note: The connections to the Wizard of Oz were plentiful. Frank Morgan was the Wizard himself. The character of Billie Burke was Glinda the Good Witch. Ray Bolger, who played himself, was the Scarecrow.

Another interesting note: Even though Fanny Bryce and Ray Bolger played themselves in the film, and even though the real Billie Burke was contracted with the studio that made The Great Ziegfeld, she was not a big enough star to play herself.  Myrna Loy was cast instead. Billie was apparently not happy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mutiny on the Bounty – 1935

We’re off on the high seas for an adventure! The Bounty – a merchant ship owned by the King of England, charged with procuring breadfruit plants from Tahiti. It’s Captain, the cruel Captain Bligh, played by Charles Laughton. Lieutenant Fletcher Christian, our hero and all around good guy, is played by Clark Gable. That would make it the second year in a row that Gable was in the Best Picture winning movie. This is a story that has had several film adaptations. As a matter of fact, two years earlier, Errol Flynn starred in an Australian version that was not very successful. There were even two movie re-makes done in later years starring such big names as Marlon Brando, Anthony Hopkins, and Mel Gibson.

Obviously it is a popular story, and if you don’t know it, you need look no further than the title. There was a boat named the Bounty, upon which there was a Mutiny. Pretty simple. But there was clearly more to it than that. Despite the fact that I knew what was going to happen, they did a good job of building up to the inevitable, holding my interest.

I have often heard the name of Captain Bligh mentioned in connection with harsh cruelty, and sure enough, in Mutiny on the Bounty, my expectations were met. But now I at least know the context. Laughton acted the part well. I very quickly hated the character. His cruelty bordered on insanity right from the first time he is on the screen and it almost never let up. But after a while, I began to realize that there was a problem.

The problem was with the script, not with Laughton’s performance. The character was so constantly mean and sadistic that he was very one dimensional. The writers seemed to beat you over the head with how horrible the character was supposed to be. There was no subtlety and therefore was not very realistic. As I did my research, I learned that the real Captain Bligh was not as extreme a man as was depicted in the film. He was apparently no more cruel than any other Captain of his day. However, as a film, it was certainly entertaining to see the depths to which the despicable character sank. It made me want the mutiny I knew was coming all the more.

They did, at least, give him one moment of worth. When he and those loyal to him were cast off and left adrift in the middle of the ocean with little hope of ever reaching the shores of England, he was able to get his faithful followers back home alive. During that terrible voyage, he showed leadership skills and even compassion to his sick and starving men.

Then there was the character of Fletcher Christian. Noble and honorable, he seemed completely justified in his mutiny. Who wouldn’t rebel against such an insane tyrant? His character was a little more realistic. He was at least conflicted between his sense of duty and his desire to put an end to Bligh’s cruelty. And, of course, Gable put in another fine performance.

Tahiti was depicted as a true paradise with happy and beautiful people – especially Tehani and Maimiti. They got the soft-focus treatment when they were introduced. I am really starting to see the trend in movies of that era, giving beautiful women soft-focus to make them appear more ethereal and alluring whenever possible.

One thing I really liked about the movie was its treatment of the rough and dangerous ocean waters and powerful ocean storms. The violent waves, the howling winds, and the constant spray were very well done. The actors must have had a difficult time of it during filming. That aspect of the movie seemed very realistic and was exciting to watch.  So Hollywood took some artistic license with historical facts. It was neither the first, nor the last film to do that.

Interesting note: Apparently, in reality, the utopian society that the noble Fletcher Christian and the mutineers tried to create on the island of Pitcaim was a colossal failure. Most of them, including Christian, died violent deaths as the men devolved into drunkards, rapists, and murderers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It Happened One Night – 1934

It Happened One Night was a romantic comedy starring Clark Gable as Peter Warne, a newspaper reporter who is down on his luck and getting fired. His co-star was Claudette Colbert playing the part of Ellie Andrews, the pampered daughter of a rich banker. Ellie runs away from her father, meets Peter, who sees her as a story that will win him back his job, and hijinks ensues.

Before watching the film, I was a little surprised that a comedy that has been described as a screwball comedy, had won the Academy Award for Best Picture. After watching the movie, I was still surprised that it had won, but for different reasons. In my humble opinion, it didn’t seem worth it. The plot was pretty shallow and lackluster. As a comedy, it wasn’t overly funny. As a drama, it wasn’t very dramatic. As a love story, it was only mildly romantic.

I admit that my opinion is a bit biased. I’ve never been a huge fan of romantic comedies. I’m not sure what I was expecting, but for a Best Picture winner, I guess I was expecting more than I got. The characters were two-dimensional, the plot was predictable, and there were a few editing errors that were obvious enough to catch even my attention. From what I read, the actors didn’t even want to be in the movie. When filming was completed, Colbert even went so far as to tell her friend “I’ve just finished the worst picture in the world.”

Fortunately, for Gable and Colbert, they were good enough actors that their disinterest in the project did not come across on the screen. They looked like they were enjoying themselves and they shared a good on-screen chemistry. There was a scene in which the characters had to pretend to be a fighting couple. You could tell that the actors enjoyed filming that scene and it was fun to watch.

There were several things about the movie that did catch my attention, though these are not criticisms of the movie itself. These are just signs of the era in which the film was made. I had never seen a movie starring Clark Gable before. I had heard about his prominent ears on several occasions, but was caught off guard the first time he was shown head-on. They really did stick out from his head a lot. Colbert’s eyebrows were frightening, at least by today’s standards. And finally, I was amused by the men’s fashion of pants that were worn incredibly high, several inches above the belly-button. I will also mention that Colbert’s leg in the famous “hitch-hiking” scene was quite beautiful and shapely.

Interesting note: This was the first film to win the “Big Five”. Not only did it win for Best Picture, but it also took home Oscars for Best Director (Frank Capra), Best Actor (Clark Gable), Best Actress (Claudette Colbert), and Best Writing, Adaptation (Robert Riskin)

To me, the film may not have been worthy of all the Academy Awards that it won, but the audiences of the 1930’s loved it. In fact, audiences around the world since then have loved it, too. There have been two re-makes (Eve Knew Her Apples in 1945 and You Can’t Run Away From It in 1956), numerous parodies, and even two Bollywood re-makes.

I guess its popularity might make a little more sense when you consider the times in which the movie was released. The country was right at the lowest point of the Great Depression. I can see how movie-goers might have liked seeing a story about a rich girl who falls for the common man with no money. An appealing fantasy for people with very little money themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cavalcade – 1932 – 1933

Cavalcade was a film based on a stage play by Noel Coward.  This play had only been written two years before director, Frank Lloyd turned it into a movie.  It was a drama that told the story of the Marryot family, spanning from 1900 to 1933.  A lot happened during those 33 years that had a profound impact on the world.  It started with the second Boer War in South Africa, then covered the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, and the First World War.  Of course, those are just the highlights.

The Marryot Family was the quintessential example of a British family and household which consisted of Clive Brook as Robert Marryot, his wife Jane, played by Diana Wynyard, their children, Edward and Joey, each of whom had a young child and an adult playing the same character in different time periods.  The film also spent some time following the lives of their service staff, Ellen and Alfred Bridges, played by Una O’Connor and Herbert Mundin, respectively.

I watched the film with a little bit of hindsight.  Actually, this was the only Best Picture winner that I had to watch out of order.  Cavalcade was the last Best Picture winner to be made easily available to the general public.  After the release of Wings, the first winner of the Outstanding Picture Oscar, in January of 2012, Cavalcade received the most votes for a region 1 release in a Fox-sponsored online poll.  It was finally released in August of 2013.  The last Best Picture winner I actually watched was the 1987 winner, The Last Emperor.

Interesting note:  Cavalcade’s first release on DVD was actually in 2010 as part of a three-volume “Twentieth Century Fox 75th Anniversary Collection” at a price of nearly $500.00.

I think that this film was a very sugar-coated and watered down version of the dramatic events that it depicted.  For example: WWI.  This was actually a very horrific war in which many men gave their lives.  Others survived with horrible and debilitating injuries that changed their lives forever.  However, Cavalcade showed none of this.  The entire WWI montage consisted of chaotic overlays of indistinct and smoky explosions, marching soldiers, and men with pain-contorted faces falling out of the scope of the camera.  But none of these images were shown in the same overlaid image.  There was no blood, no men dying on-screen.  None of this would have been new, or even too shocking for audiences of 1933.  After all, the war scenes in the 1929/1930 winner All Quiet on the Western Front were much more graphic.

Another example was the sinking of the Titanic.  It was handled by showing the eldest son Edward on a ship, looking out over the railing on a calm sea, his new bride by his side.  They share a lovely moment together, though the conversation turns a little morbid for a honeymoon when they talk about the fading of the initial marital bliss and dying some day.  Then they walk away and the camera zooms in on a little life preserver ring with the name TITANIC printed on it.  Then it cuts directly to two years later as WWI starts to take shape.  Edward’s death is mentioned in passing, saying that at least he died in a time of happiness.

Granted, this was not a movie about those tragedies, so I understand why they were not focused on for too long.  However, I would have liked to have seen a little something.  Maybe a little more of the horrors of war or the family’s reaction to the news of Edward’s drowning.

As it was, they kept everything very clean and, shall I say, Disney?  There was one thing that they did do that peeked out of that careful little mold.  It concerned the story of the Bridges family.  Upon returning safely from the Second Boer War, Alfred, having purchased a pub so that he could run his own business and be his own boss, becomes a drunk and abusive father.  His shoddy behavior is driving his business and his family to ruin.  One night, after getting sloshed, he is standing in the middle of the street and a team of horses driving a carriage  runs him down, killing him.  Using my modern eyes, I could tell that it was obviously a dummy getting run down, but the film editor cut it together in such a way as to make me wince.  But again, when Ellen runs to his side to commence weeping over his body, there was no blood and not even a single visual indication that he had just been run over by four horses and a carriage.

As the movie didn’t particularly focus on the events so much as the family’s reaction to the events, (well… sort-of) the plot was told mostly through the eyes of the women.  While the men went off to fight, the women stayed home and drove themselves to distraction with anxiety as they waited for their husbands and sons to come back home.

All except for the death of the Queen.  The characters seemed to take this very personally as if a member of their own family had just passed.  The children were too young to understand what was happening as the funeral procession made its way down the street, but the adults looked as if they had lost their mother.  But maybe, in a way, they had.  Queen Victoria was like the mother of all Britain.

But I think that the main point that the film was trying to get across was twofold.  First, that times change whether we want them to or not.  Sometimes that change is difficult and painful, and we have no choice but to endure.  Second is that the British people, both high-born and low, have hearts that are filled with patriotism, courage and pride.  I think that Jane’s little speech at the end summed up this point.  It is worth repeating here in its entirety.

“Now Let’s couple the future of England with the past of England: the glories and victories and triumphs that are over, and the sorrows that are over, too.  Let us drink to our sons who made part of the pattern, and to our hearts that died with them.  And let us drink to the spirit of gallantry and courage that made a strange heaven out of unbelievable hell.  And let us drink to the hope that one day this country of ours, which we love so much, will find dignity and greatness and peace again.”

A bit verbose, maybe, but profound and meaningful.  It displays that stoic attitude and that stiff upper lip in the face of trials and hardships that are stereotypical British traits.

Interesting note:  As I watched the film, I was very much reminded of the popular British television show of the 1970s Upstairs, Downstairs.  In my research, I learned that this was not a coincidence.  The TV program was also a spawn of the Noel Coward play, even going so far as to name the cook Mrs. Bridges.

Another interesting note:  The original play ended in the year 1931, but the movie extended that by two years so that it could end in the same year in which the film was released.

As with many films that take place over long periods of time, many of the actors had to sit in the makeup chair to make them appear old.  Then they have to know how to act believably aged when the cameras are rolling.  The only characters that really had to worry about this were Mr. and Mrs. Marryot and their long-time friend Margaret Harris, played by Irene Browne.  I’m sorry to say that I didn’t think that Diana Wynyard pulled this off very well.  Sure, they made her hair white, but they didn’t give her any wrinkles and the only concession to age she made was to walk a little slowly.  I’ve seen better.  But she did well enough to earn a Best Actress nomination which she lost to Kathryn Hepburn in Morning Glory.

Overall it was an OK movie, though it was a little too sugar-coated for my tastes.  Hollywood had already proved that it was capable of handling more than this movie gave us.  Cavalcade actually won 3 Oscars, the others being Frank Lloyd for Best Director and William S. Darling for Best Art Direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grand Hotel – 1931 – 1932

Grand Hotel was a grand movie. There were big stars, big sets, and big drama. It had an ensemble cast that included Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Wallace Berry, and Lionel Barrymore. Those were some pretty big names back then, so it was a pretty big deal. I’m not surprised it was given the Outstanding Picture award.

The plot was an intriguing tapestry of different stories as they overlapped and intertwined. It was interesting to see how one story affected another and how the writer made the characters easily jump from one story to another. The characters were all likable at times and unlikable at other times. To me, that made them all the more realistic. But for all the grand scale of the film, the overall plot was remarkably simple and easy to follow. True, some of the dialogue was a bit melodramatic and some scenes were a little over-acted, but it was still fun to watch.

The first thing about the film that really stood out to me was Greta Garbo. I have never seen any of her other films, but I have always heard her name mentioned as one of the superstars of her time. I never understood why until I watched Grand Hotel. She seemed to steal the screen in every scene she was in. She effortlessly drew my attention away from all of her famous co-stars. She was gorgeous and captivating to watch. I didn’t always like her character. I don’t think I was supposed to. But even then, I couldn’t take my eyes off of her. Greta Garbo? OK – I get it now.

Interesting note: I now understand where that famous line “I want to be alone” comes from.

Another member of the cast that I liked watching was Wallace Beery. At first I was sympathetic to his character, but as the plot progressed he did a good job of showing his true colors. He was not a very likeable man and by the end, I was satisfied that he would get what he deserved. He also had to work with an accent, which is not always easy for an actor to do. But he pulled it off well enough without sounding fake.

Another thing I liked about the film was the costumes and the sets, both of which were beautiful. I bet this movie would have been absolutely fabulous to watch if it had been in color. The set for the hotel lobby alone must have been a magnificent sight, though I think it was actually diminished somewhat because it was in black and white.

One disappointment, however, was the music. For the most part, I don’t remember there being any original music to the score. It was all nice classical music, which was fine, but I think a big sweeping original score (something like the John Williams score for the 1995 version of Sabrina) would have made the movie that much more grand.

The star power alone was enough to bring the movie to Academy Award status. The wide scope of the plot and elegant setting certainly didn’t hurt either. It was a good drama, but there were plenty of moments of light hearted banter and even a bit of comedy.

But watch out for the last line of the movie. “Grand Hotel. People come and go. Nothing ever happens.” After all the interesting stories, that line left me a bit confused. You never really get to know the character who says it, or understand why he says it, unless he is just trying to demonstrate the ennui of the rich and powerful.

Cimarron – 1930 – 1931

Cimarron was not as bad as they say. I went into this movie knowing only what I read about it. It has been called one of the most undeserving movies to ever win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Honestly, I think it is getting a bad rap. It wasn’t the greatest movie in the world, but then again, I enjoyed it more than The Broadway Melody of 1929.

Interesting note:  The budget for this film was 1.5 million dollars, a huge sum of money for 1931, as the nation was in the grip of the great depression.  Even though the film was considered to be a success, it actually lost $565,000 during its initial release.  Fortunately, it earned more when it was re-released in 1935.

Again, I love epics, and this was certainly an epic. The movie follows the lives of strapping young newspaper entrepreneur and lawyer Yancey Cravat, played by Richard Dix and his young wife Sabra, played by Irene Dunne, as they move to the new frontier of the recently opened Oklahoma Territory, otherwise known as the Cimerron Territory.

At the outset, the film tries to portray Yancey as the prime example of a fine and noble man with the morals of a saint. He always does the right thing and is respected by his peers. He helps those in need, defends the weak, and has no patience for lawbreakers. But as the plot progressed, I think the focus shifted. The main character was no longer Yancey, but his wife Sabra.

You see, for all his fine and noble qualities, Yancey had one major flaw. He had the desire to constantly be building the new frontier. Nevermind that he had a wife and two kids at home who needed him. What a jerk! I didn’t know whether to admire him for his nobility, or hate him for abandoning his family to satisfy his own wander-lust.

But the movie did not follow him on his new adventures. The movie then shifted and followed his wife through the hardships she was forced to endure with her husband missing, never knowing if he was alive or dead. But her character was strong enough to not only get by, but thrive.  She raised her two children, ran the newspaper that Yancey started, and eventually became one of the first women elected to congress.

Interesting note:  There was actually one noted fabrication in the plot.  In the film, Yancey Cravat is the Progressive Party’s candidate for governor of Oklahoma.  The film took place in 1907, but in reality, the Progressive Party did not form until 1912.

The movie followed the lives of the characters from their younger days to their golden years. I thought the make-up artist, Ern Westmore (who won a special Academy Award for make-up on the film) did a fantastic job, making the cast look believably aged. And the actors did a fine job portraying both young and old.

A particular gem in the film was the character of Mrs. Tracy Wyatt, played by Edna May Oliver. She had a supporting role as the town’s hoity-toity busy-body. She had a better-than-thou sneer that was quite sufficient to provide both comic relief and a small amount of drama. She had a small role, but wonderfully caught my attention every time she was on the screen. Well done Edna May!

The movie certainly had the scope and feel of a true epic. There was a large cast of extras, giving the film a grand scale. Like I said before – I think this movie is getting a bad rap when people call it one of the most undeserving Best Picture winners.

Interesting note: The movie was remade in 1961, showing the Native American Indians in a kinder light, but the remake wasn’t nearly as successful as the 1931 version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Quiet on the Western Front – 1929 – 1930

I will start off by saying that this was an excellent movie for a number of reasons. It did a great job of portraying the horrors of World War I. I liked that the story was of a group of German soldiers. It showed that the war was just as horrible for them as it was for American soldiers. Sometimes, as Americans, I think we tend to forget that there are two sides to every conflict.

At first, the plot was difficult to follow because main characters were not established and names were not explicitly given. You learn these things as the film progresses, but you have to figure them out for yourself. The very first scene is of a teacher in Germany as he gives a speech, inspiring his young students to join the German military. They all cheer and go out to sign up. At this point, there are so many students that it is hard to tell one from another or who the main protagonist is.

As they gain combat experience and meet other soldiers, you begin to recognize that the story is following one soldier in particular. He is Paul Baumer, played by Lew Ayres. The film still tells the stories of his fellow soldiers, but concentrates mostly on him.

As I watched, I was reminded of the movie Saving Private Ryan. The battle scenes were very complex and jarring. The constant shell explosions and falling soldiers, the loud sounds and screaming men, the dirt and blood, all made for a very realistic depiction. Some of the imagery was pretty disturbing.  The film displayed war and military service as neither clean nor glamorous.  It is a sad and pointless tragedy that takes in innocence and turns it into sorrow and pain.  It maims and kills friends and comrades.  It scars everyone touched by its cold fingers.

The psychological and physical horrors endured by the characters, both the young new recruits, and the old experienced soldiers are easy to empathize with. You see the school boys transform from naïve children into hardened and emotionally damaged men, and you believe such a terrible change to be not only possible, but inevitable.

The final scene is heart-wrenching.  As Baumer is reaching for a thing of beauty in his terrible reality of pain and loss, he is killed senselessly and needlessly.  Then two images are shown together, one overlaid above the other.  They show Baumer as he had been before the war killed his spirit, something close to an innocent smile on his face.  The other image is a mass graveyard displaying little white crosses as far as the eye can see.  It makes the point that Baumer’s death is just one among many, and implying that his death is the only way the story could have ended.

I happen to love epics and this movie was clearly a prime example. There seemed to be hundreds of extras and a story spanning years. It was exciting to watch. True, the ending was pretty depressing, but that doesn’t make it a bad ending – just a depressing one. The overall message of the film was very anti-war, and it shouted that message loud and clear.

The film boasted no big Hollywood names but the large cast did a fine job of drawing the audience into the hardships, the fear, and the physical and emotional desolation of such a terrible conflict as WWI. The end of the movie would not have been as effective if they didn’t make you really feel for the characters (despite the fact that they were not on “our” side of the war.)

All in all, this is a very engaging epic film. Even if you are not a war buff, this movie is a great example of a war-time drama. There have been several remakes of this movie, but this remains the most widely renowned version.