Category: Nominees – 1930s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wuthering Heights – 1939

Wuthering Heights didn’t surprise me, and I was honestly hoping for a surprise.  Of course, it is based on the classic novel of the same name by Emily Bronte.  It has been hailed as such a wonderful and dramatic romance story that it has stood the test of time as an enviable romance.

But I don’t understand why.  I tend to take a bit of a logical view to life and emotions, but there wasn’t a single character in the story that had an ounce of common sense or emotional stability.  They were each messed-up in their own way.  I don’t know which was worse, the leading man or the leading lady.

However, that being said, I do understand why so many people love it.  The plot follows the rocky romance between Heathcliff, a little over-acted by Lawrence Olivier, and Cathy, played by Merle Oberon.  Their love is so intensely passionate that it is greater than life, greater than death, greater than everything in-between.

Some people consider such a mindless and overwhelming love to be the pinnacle of romance and the apex of desire.  Who wouldn’t want to be loved with such passion?  ME!  That kind of love is dangerous and destructive.  It is selfish and obsessive.  Emotion is great and it feels wonderful when it is working in your favor.  But when it is not tempered with logic and reason, it is wild and unpredictable.

Such is the case between our two lead characters.  Heathcliff and Cathy are so in love with each other that they are blinded to how much they hurt the people around them and how much they hurt each other.  But despite this, the two can’t stop what they feel.  Cathy’s problem?  “I love you!  I hate you!  I love you!  I hate you!  OK, I’m marrying someone I don’t really love.”  Heathcliff’s?  “I’m going to marry your sister-in-law just so I can be close to you.”

Oberon did a good enough job as an actress.  She was beautiful and her long and dramatic death scene which showed off a bit of her talent as an actress.  If I had any criticism, though, I would say that her performance as a wild and fiery woman was a little lack-luster.  On the other hand, Olivier seemed like he was still acting on a stage and not in front of a camera.  His display of emotions were too over-done and melodramatic.  There was very little subtlety in his work.

More than them, I enjoyed watching three of the other actors who played supporting roles.  David Niven has never disappointed me.  He played Cathy’s love sick husband, Edgar Linton.  Yes, that’s right.  At one point she sends Heathcliff away and then blames him for leaving.  As a form of rebellion or revenge, she marries Edgar.  Niven played the part of the love-sick puppy with an ease and elegance that was charming.

Edgar’s sister, Isabella, was played by Geraldine Fitzgerald.  Just like her brother, Isabella was just as love-sick for Heathcliff.  But Fitzgerald had a bit more to do.  We see her as an unhappy wife in Heathcliff’s home, knowing that he never loved her in return.  When Cathy becomes sick, she hopes that the other woman dies so that Heathcliff might begin to love her.

And finally, I am happy to mention Flora Robson who played the part of Ellen, the housekeeper of Wuthering Heights.  Robson’s character seemed to be the only one who used her head and her heart in equal measure.  Though Robson did a very good job, I so would have loved to see Edna May Oliver in the role.

In my research, I found that this film, directed by William Wyler, only used 16 chapters of Bronte’s 34 chapter novel and a few points differed between the two.  First, Cathy and Edgar’s daughter was removed from the film, as was Heathcliff and Isabella’s son.  Second, in the novel, Isabella eventually leaves Heathcliff to be forever haunted by Cathy’s ghost.  Also, some motivations were changed which made more sense in their original states.  In light of those changes, Bronte’s story is easier to swallow.

I suppose the film was made well enough and had some very inspired cinematography, but I just don’t agree with some of the changes Wyler made.  I believe that had he remained truer to the source material, the film would have been more successful for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Wizard of Oz – 1939

OK, here is one of the big ones.  Of all movies ever made, this is among the most popular and beloved.  It is timeless and fresh every time it is watched.  It spans generations and is a jaw-dropping marvel of film-making, made even more impressive because it was a true fantasy that was made in 1939.  It was Hollywood’s answer to Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  Everyone has seen this film.  Even my friend who hates musicals saw it as a child.  It skyrocketed Judy Garland into the realm of mega-superstar.  Sure, it didn’t win Best Picture on Award night, but it was up against another one of the biggest movies in film history, Gone With the Wind.

So what is there to say about this movie that is so popular from generation to generation?  I won’t go into the story much, because we all know the story.  Nor will I go too far into the catchy and memorable tunes like We’re Off to See the Wizard, or If I Only Had a Brain.  But what I will do is give an appraisal of some of the performances and then give a few minor flaws that occurred to me as I watched it again with a more critical eye than usual.

First and foremost, Judy Garland was so utterly perfect for the part of Dorothy Gale that it seemed like a match made in heaven.  Thank goodness the front runner for the part, Shirley Temple, did not get the part.  Garland’s voice was exquisitely lush and velvety soft in the movie’s biggest hit song Over the Rainbow.  She was pretty but not sickeningly cute, and the voice that came out of her was mature and full and gorgeous.

Ray Bolger, originally cast in the role of the Tin Man, convinced the director, Victor Fleming, that the Scarecrow was the right part for him.  Instead Jack Haley took the part of the Tin Man after Buddy Ebsen was nearly killed by the original silver makeup that used aluminum dust which coated his lungs, making it nearly impossible for him to breathe.

But my favorite of the four main characters has always been the Cowardly Lion, played by Bert Lahr.  He brought such a wonderful and loveable personality to the character and a great sense of comedy as well.  I can only imagine what a nightmare his costume must have been under the hot lights during filming, but he never showed any hint of discomfort on the screen.  Well done Bert!

Of course, the title character, the Wizard of Oz, played by Frank Morgan, was also wonderful to watch.  He just seemed like such a likeable man.  Billie Burke playing the part of Glinda the Good Witch of the North, had my favorite line in the entire film.  When the Wicked Witch of the West says “You stay out of this Glinda, or I’ll fix you as well!”  Her response is just perfect.  She laughs and says, “Rubbish!  You have no power here.  Be gone before somebody drops a house on you!”  The wicked witch suddenly looks up at the sky, cowering in fear.  Classic!

And speaking of the Wicked Witch, Margaret Hamilton’s inspired performance was incredibly well done.  I admit, her character was a little one-note, but her every movement, the delivery of every line, and the aura of evil that Hamilton portrayed, all played into that one wicked note splendidly.

And I have to mention the makeup.  The version of the film that I watched was a professionally restored version in HD.  The makeup and costumes, especially during close-up shots, were incredibly detailed and unbelievably well done, in particular, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion.  And lest we forget, the Flying Monkeys and the Munchkins looked amazing.

But there were a few superficial flaws that I will close with.  First of all, and this is the biggest one for me, the fact that if the entire story that took place in Oz was, in fact, a dream, then when Dorothy woke up in bed at the end, saying that “there’s no place like home,” we still have to remember Miss Gulch.  She still wants Toto put down.  After all, she had a court order and a tornado would not deter the evil woman.  Second, in the beginning, when Dorothy falls into the Pig Sty, she is pulled out without a spot of mud or dirt on her.  Third, if the oppressed Munchkins had a military (remember the Munchkin soldiers in the white, yellow and green uniforms?), armed with rifles, why couldn’t they free themselves from the Wicked Witch of the East with a well-placed sniper?  But like I said – superficial.  It was still a great movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stagecoach – 1939

I’ll say, right off the bat, that I am generally not a fan of Westerns.  I don’t hate them, I just have never gone out of my way to see them.  So when Stagecoach came up in the queue, I gave a little sigh and settled in for the duration.

But darn it if the film didn’t surprise me.  The film could almost have taken place in any time period, but director John Ford was particularly fond of Westerns.  Specifically, he was looking for a script that would make the movie’s main actor a star.  And boy, did it work.

John Wayne was that star, and though he had been acting in Hollywood for around ten years, he was not as big a name as he was destined to become.  He played the part of The Ringo Kid, a good natured man with a dark past.  By today’s standards the character was a stereotype, but in this case it worked.  In fact, every character in the film was a stereotype on purpose.

The movie was about a ragged group of strangers that were all put into a dangerous situation.  The drama of the film was not so much the life-threatening hardships they faced, but the interactions between the characters.  And it was brilliantly done.

Claire Trevor was Dallas, the hooker with the heart of gold, and The Ringo Kid’s main love interest.  Andy Devine played the moronic Stagecoach Driver, Buck.  John Carradine was Hatfield, the gambler with a sense of honor.  Thomas Mitchel played Doc Boon, the alcoholic medicine man.  Louise Platt was Lucy Mallory, the snooty woman who was pregnant and trying to get to her husband.  George Bancroft played Marshal Curly Wilcox, the law man who is out to arrest the Ringo Kid.  Donald Meek was the mousy salesman Samuel Peacock.  And finally, the rich aristocrat who was secretly a crook, Henry Gatewood, was played by Berton Churchill.

The interactions between the different characters against the backdrop of the dangerous Apache Indians is what made the movie good.  Each character had his or her own motives which drove them to make decisions that affected the entire group.  They each had their own past and their own skills which either helped them all to survive, or put them all into further danger.

In particular, I really liked Doc Boon.  He was an unapologetic drunk who sobered up when he needed to, but happily went back to the bottle with his work was done.  He also had a bit of shared history and a soft spot for Dallas.  He proved to be a good man, despite being inebriated most of the time.  Thomas Mitchell did a great job playing the part.

Now, John Wayne was still fairly young when he was in Stagecoach, but you could tell he was an actor who knew what he was doing.  He used facial expressions to show emotions and his dialogue to propel the story in a way that did not seem forced or fake.  He had a good sense of timing and pacing.  And like many actors in Hollywood, he was pretty easy on the eyes in his youth.

However, I will make mention of the character of Samuel Peacock.  He seemed like a throw-away character.  He had so little to do and not very much to say.  He spent much of his time in the background.  The film could have done without him except that he was a salesman who sold liquor, providing Doc Boon with the spirits he needed to stay drunk.  Another rough point was the romance between The Ringo Kid and Dallas.  It seemed underdeveloped and came out of left field.  But I guess the filmmakers wanted the final shot of the film to be the happy young couple riding off into the distance, a life of wedded bliss awaiting them.

You would think that the Indian attack would have been the climax of the film, but you’d be wrong.  Sure, it arrived late in the movie, and one of the passengers of the Stagecoach was actually killed.  But it was over quickly and there was still a gunfight ahead that was like the Ringo Kid’s personal battle.  Of course, the romance made the shoot-out more intense, or was it the other way around?  Either way it gave Wayne his own victory that the star of the movie needed to impress the audiences.  And I was impressed as well… despite myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of Mice and Men – 1939

I went into this movie knowing very little about the plot – just enough, in fact, to know the personalities of the two main characters, but not much else. And as far as that went, the characters were so well written. I make that distinction because, yes, they were also very well acted, but the author of the original novella upon which the film was based, John Steinbeck, did an incredible job.

Burgess Meredith plays the part of George Milton. He is an intelligent and good natured man who cannot find a regular job because he has formed a special relationship with a half-wit with the strength of an ox named Lennie Small, played by Lon Chaney Jr. Lennie is a gentle giant. But there’s the rub. He is mentally handicapped. His mental capacity is no more than that of a child, and he is not smart enough to realize how powerful his adult body is. He also has a remarkably short memory span.

The nature of their relationship is one of brotherhood, companionship, and I think a platonic love that is hard to describe. It was very touching. The two men had been roaming the country as vagabonds, looking for work for so long that they grew to need each other in a very touching way. George needed Lennie to stave off loneliness and for physical protection. Lennie needed George to protect him from himself and to help him survive in a world he was not capable of understanding.

The plot follows the two men as they find work at a California ranch, hefting bags of grain onto trailers. There, they meet several characters: Candy, the old, one-handed ranch-hand, wonderfully played by Roman Bonhen, Slim, the quiet and serious-minded rancher, played by Charles Bickford, Curly, the hot-tempered and vicious son of the ranch owner, played by Bob Steele, and Curly’s emotionally damaged wife Mae, played by Betty Field.

Each of the characters had their own moments of great writing and character development that really made you understand and feel for them in special ways. Again, this is a testament to the great skill of Steinbeck, the original author. All, except for Curly, but his character’s personality and motivations are easy to figure out. He is a mean man who has a short-guy complex. He is a small guy with a chip on his shoulder the size of a mountain.

All of the actors did a fantastic job, especially the two leads. Meredith was surprisingly fantastic as George. I only know him from the films in which he appeared later in his life, movies from the 80s and 90s. I really only knew him as Mickey the boxing trainer from the iconic 1976 Best Picture winning movie, Rocky, and its sequels. But over his 60 year career, he was in many films, most of which I have never heard of. Lon Chaney Jr., of course, mostly became known for his monster movies like the Wolf Man, the Mummy, and Frankenstein’s Monster. But his incredible portrayal of Lennie was done with real sensitivity to the character’s child-like mental and emotional state.

Betty Field also surprised me. At first, I thought of her character as an unlikable woman who brought all her troubles on herself. But near the end of the film, as she is talking to Lennie, we learn a little about her history and why she is married to Curly. Field’s acting actually made me begin to sympathize with her character. I still didn’t like Mae, but I don’t think I was supposed to.

Without giving too much away about the ending of the film, I will say that it was incredibly depressing and yet appropriate. On the one hand, it was the only way the story could have ended. But on the other, it left a few things open to interpretation. George’s fate was left unresolved. Would he go to prison, or would he be allowed to go free? Idealistically, I’d have wanted him to go free, but I don’t think it would have happened that way.

And finally, I have to make special mention of the film’s score. The music was wonderful and as I was watching the film, I thought that it reminded me of the music of the great American composer, Aaron Copeland. Imagine my surprise when I learned that it was actually he who had written the score. I was not aware that he had ever done any film scores, but he did such a fine job that he was nominated that year for Best Original Score.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ninotchka – 1939

This is the second film I have seen starring Greta Garbo.  The first was the 1931/1932 Best Picture winner, Grand Hotel.  There was no doubt that she was a stunningly beautiful woman, and she could act with skill and finesse.  But Ninotchka has the distinction of being both her first comedy, and her penultimate film.  But the problem for me is that it wasn’t terribly funny, or perhaps I should say that for me, there were very few funny moments, making it almost seem like Garbo’s performance was not very good.

However, that is not at all true.  Her performance was just fine.  It was the script by Billy Wilder, Charles Brackett, and Walter Reisch that didn’t quite work for me.  The humor was largely political, having to do with Russia during the Stalin era.  But I’m no history buff so many of the jokes were lost on me.

Three Russian men, Iranov, Buljanov, and Kopalsky, played by Sig Ruman, Felix Bressart, and Alexander Granach, respectively, are sent to Paris, France to sell some jewels which were confiscated from the Russian Grand Duchess Swana, played by Ina Claire in the Russian Revolution of 1917.  The Duchess, who now lives in Paris, learns that her precious jewels are in the city and she wants them back, considering them to be her own property, unlawfully stolen after the revolution.

But the three men become seduced by the free and easy lifestyle of Paris, which is in great contrast to the drab and oppressive society of their mother Russia.  When they fail to complete the sale of the jewels, Ninotchka is sent in to get the men in line.  Garbo played the part as serious to a fault and utterly humorless.  She goes out of her way to remain stony and strict.  But I think that this is where much of the political humor was supposed to be.  I just didn’t know enough about the political climate of the era to get the jokes.

For example, I learned a few interesting facts from Wikipedia, which I will quote here.  “The sly political jokes include Garbo saying: ‘The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians’ and there are a few well-placed jokes mocking the failed Soviet Five-Year-Plan.”  If you don’t know about that failed plan, then the jokes are meaningless.

While Ninotchka is in Paris, she meets and falls deeply in love with the Duchess’s friend, Count Leon, played by Melvyn Douglas.  The first moment which I found to be particularly funny was straight-up slap-stick humor.  Count Leon is trying to get the hard and serious Ninotchka to smile by telling her jokes.  He is completely unsuccessful.  But when he trips and falls, knocking over a table, she laughs at him.  He eventually laughs as well, his mission accomplished.

And once that dam is broken, her personality changes and she becomes just as seduced by the freedom she is enjoying in Paris as her three comrades.  She buys herself a new and fashionable hat.  She goes to a ball with Count Leon.  She gets tipsy on champagne, which happened to be another funny scene in which she drunkenly starts shouting Communist propaganda on the dance floor.  But the entire thing falls apart when she passes out in her hotel room.  The Duchess steals the jewels back while she is unconscious.

But then the movie turns serious again.  Ninotchka returns to Russia, to her hard and dismal life.  She loses her newfound freedom, her lover, and her happiness.  But don’t worry.  I won’t say how, but she is eventually reunited with the Count.  Happy Hollywood ending.  Garbo actually did a very good job.  I especially liked her in the scenes after she returned to Russia.  She showed some real emotion when dealing with the harsh conditions under the oppressive Communist Government.  Douglas also did a good job, though he was clearly second fiddle to Garbo.

From Wikipedia: “The film was marketed with the catchphrase, ‘Garbo Laughs!’, commenting on Garbo’s serious and melancholy image and implying she had not laughed or played comedy before. However her canon reveals this not to be the case. Although all her films were dramatic to this point, Garbo laughs heartily and often. In the most famous example, Queen Christina (1933), she disguises herself as a man and jokes with her co-star John Gilbert and others throughout the first half of the picture.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington – 1939

Ah, Mr. Capra…  You’ve done it again.  And again.  And again.  I hate to say it, but if you have seen several other films directed by Frank Capra, you’ve seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  In fact, this movie was almost an exact copy of previous Best Picture Nominee, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town.  Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

First, the overall message of the film is the same.  There are things in life that are more important than money.  Second, anyone that has money is automatically corrupt and dishonest.  And third, if anyone doesn’t have any money, he is quirky, honest, generous, and ultimately wiser than anyone else.

However, having said all that, I will also say that I know why Capra’s movies kept doing so well.  It is because they stress the importance of All-American values that, by today’s standards, represent a time of innocence and integrity in our nation’s history.  They promote clean Christian values and speak to those who share those values.  And it doesn’t hurt that the guy always gets the girl in the end.

But what sets this one apart from the rest is really two-fold.  First, it has James Stewart in the lead role.  Stewart plays the title character, Mr. Smith, a country bumpkin that is something of a boy-scout leader.  He believes in the inherent goodness of all young boys that can be nurtured by spending time in outdoor activities like camping and the like.

Second, this film came out in 1939, which of course, was the first year of World War II.  The fact that it took place in Washington, was about a man fighting against evil and corrupt politicians and businessmen, and showed a whole lot of imagery that promoted American patriotism, was not lost on me.  The Lincoln Memorial, in particular, was shown in great detail.

The afore-mentioned politicians and businessmen have a sneaky and dishonest plan to make a lot of money by destroying a nature reserve that happens to be Mr. Smith’s favorite camping grounds.  In order to get the bill that will make this underhanded deal a reality, they need to fill a vacant seat in the Senate, using a stooge who will vote for the bill without knowing what he is voting for.  But when Mr. Smith finds out what it will do to his nature reserve, he ineptly attempts to stop the bill.

The businessman is Jim Taylor, played by Edward Arnold.  The politician that is in his pocket is Senator Joseph Paine, played by Claude Rains.  Together they go out of their way to destroy Mr. Smith’s credibility and ruin his reputation.  And they nearly succeed.  But here is where our heroine comes in.  She is a woman who knows how to play the White House game with the best of them.  She is Clarissa Saunders, played by Jean Arthur.  She is smart and beautiful, cynical and easily swayed by Mr. Smith’s innocence and naiveté.  She is hired to be Smith’s secretary.

The main players all did a fine job.  Arthur, in particular was a pleasure to watch.  Of course, Stewart is always good in whatever role he plays.  But there was a small supporting role that I really ended up liking.  Thomas Mitchell played “Diz” Moore, an alcoholic news reporter that had a thing for Miss Saunders.  He lent some extra humor to the somewhat serious nature of the plot.  Also, Guy Kibbee played corrupt Governor, Hubert “Happy” Hopper.

The only thing I really had a problem with, plot-wise, was the fact that Smith was such an absent-minded man that he would not have been able to survive in the real world.  He was stupid and rude and I couldn’t stop rolling my eyes.  For example, when her first arrives in Washington, he catches one glimpse of the Capitol Dome and is inspired to immediately drop what he is doing and leave the train station to go on a sight-seeing tour of Washington D.C.  Never-mind that he simply walks away from all his baggage, leaving it on the floor of the train station.  Never-mind that he keeps people waiting for five or six hours, not knowing where he is, what happened to him, or when he would turn up.  Anyone that dumb needs constant professional care.  I’m sorry, but if patriotism inspired him that much, he should have visited the Capitol earlier in his life.  Oh, and lest I forget, you can’t go around town punching reporters in the face because they willfully misquoted you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love Affair – 1939

Love Affair was a mildly interesting story.  It is supposed to be this great romance that everyone loves.  They love it so much that it has been remade at least twice.  First came 1957’s An Affair to Remember with Carry Grant and Deborah Kerr.  Next came Love Affair with Warren Beatty and Annette Bening in 1994.  But this was the original film adaptation which starred Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne.

The film is about a famous French playboy, Michael Marnet, played by Boyer, who is on a slow boat to New York City where he is to meet his wealthy heiress fiancée.  While on the ocean, he meets American singer Terry McKay, who is already engaged as well.  But apparently, neither of them are terribly enthused about their impending marriages because, you guessed it, they begin a discrete love affair together.  But what starts out as a light fling turns into true love.

So far, the plot is fairly straight forward.  But here is what I found interesting.  The two lovers actually used their heads and were not blinded by mind-blowing bliss.  They both realized that their brief affair was not only wrong while they were engaged to other people, but impractical because neither of them had much money and he had never worked a day in his life.

I liked how the movie acknowledged that love is not enough to build a successful relationship.  You must have common interests, common social dynamics, and equal temperaments.  Both people involved must be at a place in their lives where a new long-term relationship is a viable option.  Now, I know that I am being uncommonly idealistic, but the movie gave these things consideration, which I appreciated.

The two lovers made an agreement.  They would part for 6 months, each to get their lives and relationships in order.  If they were able to separate from their fiancées, and if Michael was able to successfully earn a living so that he could financially contribute to the union, they would meet at the top of the Empire State Building, which, at the time, was the tallest building in the world, so that they could turn their affair into a marriage.

To me, that gave the two characters a strong sense of honesty and integrity.  But there wouldn’t be much drama if something didn’t go wrong, and when it came, I was completely blind-sided.  Well, actually it was Terry who was blind-sided… by a car as she was running to the Empire State Building.  The actual accident happened off-camera, so we didn’t see the collision, but the sound of screeching tires and screams was enough to get the point across.

But here is where the script-writers, and by extension, the characters, dropped the ball.  First, as a small side-note, the evening after the accident, we see Terry in a hospital bed.  The team of doctors are talking in hushed voices, saying that she may never walk again.  Behind them we can see Terry’s flawless face and her perfect hair.  The accident was enough to prevent her from ever walking again, and there were no scars no scrapes, and no bruises.  OK, I had to roll my eyes at that.

But then, what she should have done if she had really loved him, was to contact Michael to let him know what had happened.  But instead, she remains silent, letting him think that she had truly stood him up on top of the Empire State Building.  Apparently she is too embarrassed by her injured state to return to him.  So, Michael goes into depression because he thinks she no long loves him.  He has already ended his relationship with the heiress, and on top of all that, his beloved grandmother has died.

Speaking of the grandmother, she was one of the best parts of the film.  You see, while on the original voyage, while the initial affair was still going on, the boat stops at Maderia, home of Michaels Grandmother, Janou, beautifully played by Maria Ouspenskaya.  There was a gentleness about her that was wonderful to watch, especially in the way she interacted with Michael.  Well done Maria.

But back to the plot.  When the two finally get back together, as we all knew they would, the relationship is now under the weight of Terry’s inability to walk.  But true love conquers all.  Michael loves her so much that he is ready to marry her and become her sole provider and caretaker.  Sweet.  Unrealistic and sappy, but sweet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goodbye Mr. Chips – 1939

Awww… Aren’t old people remembering their pasts sweet?  The answer is no.  No, they are not.  At least not for their own sakes.  If you want a particular man to be thought of as sweet, then show me why I should think so.  Why should I feel my heart strings being tugged at when he sees a young child smiling at him?

Yes, I know I am being slightly harsh, but therein lies my biggest problem with Goodbye Mr. Chips.  Mr. Chipping, played by Robert Donat, is a Latin teacher, or Master, at an all boy’s academy in England.  His career as an educator begins in an unmemorable fashion.  It continues in an uninteresting way.  And in the end, he has somehow earned the love and respect of students and teachers alike simply because he has been faithfully doing his unremarkable job for so long.

The film was as slow and unexciting as Mr. Chips himself.  I think that the point was that he was supposed to be such a great teacher that he eventually becomes the best headmaster the school has ever had.  The students are supposed to love him because he cares so much about the children he is inspiring and educating.  The staff are supposed to respect him because he has gone out of his way to do an exemplary job as a Master.

The trouble is that the film didn’t spend nearly enough time establishing these things.  There were a few scenes in which he is shown teaching in the classroom, but he wasn’t doing anything unusual or creative with his students.  He was only shown sitting at his desk and telling students to translate Latin from a textbook.

The most interesting part of the film was how Mr. Chipping met his wife.  He was pressed into going on holiday with a fellow Master.  While hiking alone in the mountains of Austria, he meets another lone climber, Kathy Ellis, played by Greer Garson.  They are stuck on the rocky cliffs together by a blanket of fog, during which time, they fall in love.  The two are parted, but meet again in Vienna.  After that, they are soon married.

But then the pace slows again as Mr. Chipping, or as his new wife calls him, Chips, returns to his teaching job.  Mrs. Chips is unfortunately not around for long as she and her baby both die in childbirth, making the film take another slow turn.  The pace is almost saved by World War I, but not quite.  The film slows down again as the entire school mourns the loss of teachers and alumni whose lives have been claimed by the war.

All that makes it sound like I hated the film, but I didn’t.  There were a few things I liked.  For example, the acting.  Donat won the Academy Award for Best Actor that year, beating Clarke Gable in Gone With The Wind.  It was a well-deserved win.  The character of Mr. Chips started out as a 25 year-old man and ended up as an 83 year-old.  Donat convincing portrayed all the ages in-between with what seemed like ease.

Second, I thought it interesting how several generations of a single family were all played by a single child actor, Terry Kilburn.  He actually played John Colley and Peter Colley I, II, and III. Kilburn is probably best known for playing Tiny Tim in the 1938 adaptation of A Christmas Carol.  And third, one thing was done that I actually really liked.  As the names of the fallen school alumni were being read, they made a point of naming one who had actually fought for the Germans with just as much sorrow and respect as had been given the Englishmen.

And in the end, the film was about nothing more than Mr. Chips as he remembered his past, thinking that his life had been a good one.  He was happy because he was a well-respected man who’d never had children of his own, but that was alright because he’d had thousands of young boys over his 58 year career.  They were all his children, in a way.  His was a life of which anyone could be proud.

But I don’t get it, though.  His happiness was not as poignant as it should have been because he didn’t really do anything significant other than teaching for a very, very long time.  Unfortunately, the filmmakers relied on that just to say “Awww… Aren’t old people remembering their pasts sweet?”  The answer is no.  No, they are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dark Victory – 1939

Dark Victory starred Bette Davis in a role that was not typical.  First, the character she played, wealthy socialite Judith Traherne, was actually a nice person.  I mention that because most of the roles she is best known for are vicious and mean.  Second, it was not typical for a lead actress, especially one as big as Davis to take a role in which the character dies at the end.  And third, the death was not one that was in any way spectacular or grand.

But that was the point of the film.  Judith died of a malignant brain tumor.  We learn that this will happen fairly early on in the film.  But it was not a movie about a woman fighting against her own mortality.  It was about how she and those who loved her came to terms with, and in the end, learned to be at peace with her unavoidable death.

George Brent played Dr. Frederick Steele, her physician.  Judith’s best friend and personal assistant was Ann King, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald.  And there were a few more names that you might recognize rounding out the cast in smaller roles.  Humphrey Bogart played Michael O’Leary, Judith’s stable hand, and Ronald Reagan played her wealthy playboy friend.  Yes, Reagan was quite handsome in those days.

As I mentioned, Judith was a nice person.  True, she was a partier, but a fun one.  She was generous and kind, though she had a tendency to drink and smoke too much.  By today’s standards, drinking and smoking don’t make you a bad person, but in the 1930s they were considered hedonistic behavior.  And for a woman to be a drinker and a smoker… scandalous!  But that was Bette Davis.  She was nothing if not a rebel and a risk-taker, both on-screen and off.  The trailer for Dark Victory used a catch-line that said “She’s EVERYTHING and woman can DARE to be!”  But Judith didn’t seem to have a mean bone in her body, at least not the way Davis played her.

On the contrary, I think her character had very believable and human reactions to everything that happened.  I’ll explain.  She has terrible recurring headaches and tries to ignore them.  But when she starts having blurred vision and dizzy spells, Ann gets her to see a doctor.  The doctor sends her to a specialist, Dr. Steele, and perfunctory tests are done.

At this point she is terribly afraid.  She resists and is uncooperative.  She is in denial that she even has a problem.  Fear and denial sound like a normal reactions to me.  But Dr. Steele gets her to cooperate and gets her to have brain surgery, which was a much more frightening prospect back then than it is today.

But during the surgery, Steele learns that her brain tumor is of a rare kind.  It is definitely malignant and definitely terminal.  Judith has around ten months to live.  But here is where the good doctor proves to be a terrible one.  His first reaction is to LIE TO HER!!  Well, when her death comes, it will be swift and painless, so why tell her at all?  Just let her live out her remaining days in total ignorance!  Ann figures out that something is wrong and forces the truth out of him.  But not to worry.  She lies to Judith as well.

So, what do you think happens next?  Judith and Dr. Steele discover that they have feelings for each other, and why not?  Judith’s headaches are gone and she thinks she is cured.  Of course, she falls in love with the handsome doctor who saved her life.  And the horrible doctor plays into her obvious transference issues because he falls in love with her as well.  Completely unprofessional!!

But just to add more drama, Judith snoops in her fiancé’s office and reads her own file.  She learns the truth and now she gets angry with Steele and Anne for their unbelievable deception.  And she has every right to be!  How would you react?  But by this time she is too deeply in love.  She forgives him and ends up marrying him.

The real meat of the film is that last third in which she comes to terms with the prospect of dying and is finally unafraid.  She learns to live her life without fear and savor every moment as if it was her last.  The ending, her ending, was quiet and unremarkable, except that in accepting death as a necessary part of life, she conquered it.  And that… was her dark victory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test Pilot – 1938

This movie, by today’s standards, was fairly average.  But by the standards of the late 1930s, it was very good.  It had three of Hollywood’s biggest stars, action, drama, and of course, romance.  It made use of new and experimental airplanes, and had some really impressive stunt-flying.  The film also did a great job of displaying a certain amount of realism when showing close-ups of the planes and pilots when they were in the air.  There was some incredible sweeping camera-work making the audience really feel the chaotic motion of the aircraft in flight.  The use of rear projection screens was obvious to my modern eyes, but even that was good.

The acting was just fine, and the drama had an unexpected complexity to it that surprised me.  But of all things, it was the movie’s romance that had me rolling my eyes.  Movies in the 1930s were all about fantasy, and whirlwind romances were part of that.  But let’s face it.  Real people don’t fall in love at the drop of a hat, or an airplane, as the case may be.  And when characters meet and get married within the space of a day, I have a hard time sympathizing with them when the relationship encounters difficulties.

Clark Gable played Jim Lane, a test pilot who had a strange addiction to the death-defying thrill of his job.  He is a wild man who drinks heavily and regularly, but within the industry, he is known as the best at his job.  It goes without saying that he has a soft heart of gold.  His best friend and mechanic, Gunner Morris, played by Spencer Tracy, is a calm-natured man who cares deeply for Jim.  He bends over backward to take care of him.  He picks him up off the floor when he falls down drunk.  He gets him to bed and wakes him up when he is supposed to test a new aircraft.  He watches out for him like a father figure.

But one day, Jim meets Ann Barton, played by Myrna Loy, and he decides to marry her.  A significant portion of the film is dedicated to their fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants romance, and therein lie the seeds of the plot’s drama.  The life of a pilot is a dangerous one.  Ann doesn’t realize how much he puts his life on the line until after they are married.  But she quickly realizes that she cannot compete with the rush Jim gets from his occupation.  Despite this, she is determined to stand by her man.  Gunner grudgingly accepts Ann and does his best to comfort her when Jim is flying.  Then he dutifully takes care of Jim when he is on the ground.  After Jim wins an aerial race in which his main opponent is killed, he gives half the prize money to the dead man’s widow.  Then he goes on a three-day drinking binge.  Gunner tracks him down and brings him home to a distraught Ann.

She says, “Three roads face us, and there’s doom at the end of each.  Suppose he didn’t drink.  He sits around drinking sarsaparilla with Ann, me.  How he would love me.  The second road is worse than that.  He’s retired from flying and works on the ground.  Imagine a man with his heart in the sky, living with a woman on the ground.  He wouldn’t like himself very much, and I wouldn’t like him either, Gunner.  Oh, no.  He’s in love with a woman with wings.  She’s got him.  I’ve no way to cut her out.”  Gunner interjects, “But there’s another road.”  She replies, “Yes, there is, and we’re on it.  We go on as if nothing had happened.  He goes in the next race, another bat, another race, another bat, until some day when he’s not quite so young and quick, she slaps him out, and Mrs. Benson takes another man home on the train.”

That little monologue seemed to summarize all of the movie’s drama, as well as a good portion of the romance.  And her solution was one that I didn’t expect.  When Jim flew, Ann cheered him on.  When he drank, she drank with him.  And when he eventually died, she would die with him.  In the meantime, she would stick with him and savor every moment she could get with him.  From that moment, a bond forms between Gunner and Ann.  Of course when Gunner goes up with Jim to test a new military bomber, the plane that would eventually become the B-52 bomber used in WWII, it is not Jim, but Gunner who is killed.

And lest I forget, there was another big name in the movie who seemed to almost be an afterthought in the advertisements and even the trailer.  Lionel Barrymore played the part of Mr. Drake, Jim’s patron who hires him to fly his planes.  At first you think he is the film’s antagonist, but eventually we find that he cares for Jim and Ann as much as anybody, even offering Jim sage advice after Gunner’s death.  Overall, it was a good movie, worthy of its Best Picture nomination.