Category: Nominees – 1930s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Hundred Men and a Girl – 1937

This movie had to potential to be a great screwball comedy. It had a good cast of characters, misunderstandings and mistaken identities. The only thing it didn’t have was a big romance. But somewhere along the way, the ball was dropped. Somehow, the movie came across to me as annoying. I had to think about it a little but I finally figured out why. Once again, Hollywood committed the cardinal sin. Cute for the sake of cute is never cute. Never. The rule was broken, though not blatantly. It was subtle. But that made the sin no less deplorable. Here is what I mean.

The film, as I mentioned, was a screwball comedy. It starred Deanna Durbin as precocious young girl, Patricia “Patsy” Cardwell. She is supposed to be the eager young girl with the pure heart of an angel. She is sweet and innocent. She is adorable and has an amazing voice. What’s not to love?

Her father is John Cardwell, well-played by Adolphe Menjou. He is an out of work trombone player who is trying to get an audition with the world famous Leopold Stokowski. When he is unsuccessful and the two are on the verge of being evicted from their apartment for not being able to pay the rent, he is lucky enough to find the dropped purse of a rich woman. He uses the money to pay his rent and lies to his daughter, saying that he earned the money playing for the famous conductor.

Patsy finds out about the lie and takes the purse and the remaining money to return it to its rightful owner. So far it almost sounds like a serious drama. But when she meets the kooky rich woman, Mrs. Frost, played by Alice Brady, a hair-brained scheme is concocted on a whim in which a full orchestra of 100 unemployed musicians will be sponsored by Mr. Frost, played by Eugene Pallette.

Hijinks ensues. Now it all sounds like a setup for a great screwball comedy, right? But here is the problem. Deanna Durbin was over the top in an unbelievably annoying fashion. The character of Patsy was supposed to be a smart, fast-talking young girl. But she took that to mean that she was just supposed to say her lines as rapidly as possible. The result was that she was hyper-excited and super-talkative. Not only that, the lied, schemed, intruded on private property, ignored rules, destroyed property, and generally made a criminal nuisance of herself in her efforts to make the idea of the unemployed musician orchestra work. How sweet does she sound now?

I just wanted her to shut up and slow down. Fortunately, every now and then, she did when it was time for her to sing. Granted, she had a beautiful singing voice, which the filmmakers did their best to showcase. But such juvenile behavior would never be tolerated in the real world. I just had to keep telling myself that it was a screwball comedy. It is supposed to be silly.

But then it hit me. The entire film had Durbin dressed in the clothes of a child. She had ribbons in her hair and small, frilly little-girl frocks. All that, combined with her already bright, youthful face and brilliant smile, made for an extravaganza of cuteness. Even her excited and exuberant childish behavior was supposed to make her appear even cuter. Ugh! I was on cute overload! Then when she sang with the voice of a woman, because her voice was so mature and developed, it seemed almost disturbing. Here I am, listening to her wonderful, full voice and looking at the image of a child on the screen. My brain had trouble reconciling the two.

The best part of the film was Leopold Stokowski. I myself am a musician and I know a true conductor at work when I see one. He was so realistic because he wasn’t playing a character. He was playing himself. Granted, maybe some of his actions and decisions were not very realistic, but he played them well for the purpose of the plot. I especially liked the part in the end where Patsy sneaks all 100 men into Stokowski’s private home and they start to play for him. As they play he tries to resist conducting them. But being the true master musician he is, he can’t help himself. His hands start moving of their own volition and before he can do anything about it, he agrees to conduct them in a public concert. And of course, Patsy gets to sing an aria with them to close the performance. Would this really happen? Of course not. But hey, it is a screwball comedy, so why not. Best Picture nominee, though? I would say no. It was just too… average in its execution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lost Horizon – 1937

This was a very ambitious movie for a number of reasons.  I liked it even though large portions of it were pretty schmaltzy.  It is the first Best Picture Nominee I have come across that I could categorize as a Science Fiction or Fantasy movie.  It definitely had a supernatural quality about it.

It was about a group of people who are fleeing the war-torn country of China, specifically, the city of Baskul.  However, my research tells me that Baskul is actually a city in modern-day Iran, not China.  But never-mind that.  As Robert Conway, played by Ronald Coleman, his brother George, played by John Howard, Alexander Lovett, played by Edward Everett Horton, Henry Barnard, played by Thomas Mitchell and Gloria Stone, played by Isabell Jewell fly away from the oncoming revolutionary army, they think their troubles are over.  But unbeknownst to them, their airplane has been hijacked by a mysterious man.

He keeps them in the air for days, flying over mountain ranges.  When the plane runs out of fuel, it crashes high in the Himalayas.  With the pilot dead, the terrified passengers brace themselves for death.  But as luck would have it, they are found by a group of men and taken to a hidden city in the mountains.  Despite the bitter freezing cold of the mountain range, the city lies in a valley of sunshine and eternal spring.

And there begins the main body of the film.  It is the legendary city of Shangri-La.  The mythical city is, of course not real.  It is a city known for its perfect peace, its utopian society, its air of calm tranquility.  According to the film, it offered nearly eternal youth and vitality.  Never-mind that it had plenty of aged inhabitants.

But what the film did so well, was that it kept secret whether the magic of Shangri-La was real or not.  At the end, George convinces his brother that it is a lie.  As a viewer, even I was convinced that it was a dream that couldn’t be real.  The brothers leave and it isn’t until it is too late that they find that it was all quite true.

The film didn’t have any big special effects, no mind bending imagery.  But the narrative was very well constructed, allowing the imagination of the view to fill in the blanks.  Also, the great score by composer Dimitri Tiomkin was ethereal and other-worldly.  The movie was filmed in black and white, though it was originally intended to be filmed in color.  However, the use of black and white stock footage in scenes involving the Himalayas prevented director Frank Capra from doing this.

Now, here is something interesting about the film.  Before the movie began, a message came on the screen to inform the viewer that no copy of the complete film exists.  However, a complete copy of the sound-track was found.  When the film was restored by the UCLA Film and Television Archive in 1973, the closest they could get to Capra’s original film was to show still shots of the speaking characters as their dialogue played out whenever the film footage was not available.

And that is just what happened.  For a cumulative total of over 7 minutes, still shots and production photos of the actors in costume were displayed on the screen as their voice tracks continued playing.  It was very cleverly done and greatly appreciated to have the complete narrative of the original script to remain intact.

Other notable actors in the movie were Jane Wyatt as Sondra Bizet, Ronald’s love interest in Shangri-La, H.B. Warner as Chang, their mysterious host and Sam Jaffe as the High Lama, leader of the mythical city.

It was actually very refreshing to see a movie in the list of Best Picture Nominees that was a true science-fiction film.  It was thought provoking and insightful.  However, the fact that it’s main message was of peace, contentment, kindness and brotherhood was not lost on me.  The film came out in a time when WWII was looming on the horizon.  I am not surprised that a movie with such an enlightened point of view was so popular.

Also, I have to add that the opening sequence on the airfield and the scenes that took place in the cold mountains of the Himalayas were particularly well done.  Chaotic scenes like that must have been a real challenge for the director.  Well done, Capra!  Incidentally, a musical remake was done in 1973.  It flopped horribly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Old Chicago – 1937

How do I describe this film? Well, watch the 1936 Best Picture Nominee San Francisco and you have seen In Old Chicago.  I would say that it was about 85% the same film.  It had a few notable deviations but had a very similar plot.

Here it is, in a nutshell.  There is a wealthy but corrupt business man who owns a saloon.  He finds a star singer in a competitor’s saloon and steals her for his own show.  The business man and the singer become involved in a rocky romantic relationship.  He begins to dabble in politics to further his corrupt endeavors.  She leaves him just before a huge catastrophe occurs which destroys the city.  The disaster makes the two realize just how important they are to each other.  The end.

That description could apply to both films very easily.  But, I don’t want this review to be a long comparison between the two movies.  Instead, I want to focus on how this was a good film, able to stand on its own two feet.  In Old Chicago takes place in 1871, the year of the great fire.  It starred Alice Brady as Molly, the mother of the O’Leary family.  She was the stereotypical Irish mother who had the distinction of owning the infamous cow who allegedly started the great Chicago Fire.

Tyrone Power as Dion (pronounced as Die-on) O’Leary, played the corrupt saloon owner.  He had two brothers, but the important one, Jack, was played by Don Ameche.  He was a lawyer whose professional career was starting to take off.  But corrupt Dion manipulates him into entering politics to achieve his own goals.  However, Jack is a good man who, when elected as the Mayor of Chicago, strives to use his position to actually improve the city.  This leads to conflict between the two brothers.

And finally, we get to the woman who Dion falls for.  She was actually the best part of the film.  She was gorgeous and had a beautiful alto singing voice.  Alice Faye played the part of Belle Fawcett and she did a fantastic job.  She was believable and honest in her performance.  What was fascinating about the character of Belle was that she knew about Dion’s criminal behavior and actually helped him at times.  In fact she only left him when he ended up betraying her to get what he wanted.

The plot was believable as it stood and the actors did a fine job.  But as is usually the case when a movie depicts a historical event, I had to do a little research and find out how true to life the film makers were.  I the case of In Old Chicago, I’m sorry to say, not very.  But there were a few things that did stand as true.

First, the fire did start in a barn owned by Patrick and Catherine O’Leary.  But it was not started by a cow knocking over a lantern.  True, that was a rumor which started while the fire was still burning, but in 1893, the man who started that rumor actually retracted his statement and Mrs. O’Leary was exonerated.  Nobody really knows how the fire started and many theories exist, some of which sound pretty far-fetched.  Whatever the cause, about two thirds of the city at that time was destroyed.

Second, the O’Leary family’s patriarch did not die in an accident with horses.  On top of that, he and Catherine had only two children, not three: one boy and one girl.  That son, James, was never Mayor of Chicago, but he did become successful as a gambler and saloon owner.

The big climax of the film, naturally, was the great fire.  This was handled in a pretty spectacular fashion.  In 1937, this was one of the most expensive films ever made.  Director Henry King did an impressive job of spear-heading the whole thing.  The fire was appropriately massive and ominous as it caught and grew with alarming rapidity.

But there was one thing which I felt he missed.  He really shied away from showing any actual death, except for one, and even then, it was never actually shown.  Jack’s death was handled as a dramatic plot point, making him a heroic and self-sacrificing figure.  In truth, 300 people lost their lives in the conflagration.  Not one of them was shown.

So what am I saying?  The film was good… but not great.  If not for Alice Faye, this would have been a very average movie, at least by today’s standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Good Earth – 1937

This movie was pretty much everything I expected. I have never read the source material, written by Pearl S. Buck. I know the book is considered a classic, so I expected the story to be good. Also, the two lead actors were Paul Muni and Luise Rainer. I have seen both of them in other films, so I expected the acting to be good. And it was.

But if I had any complaints about the movie, it would be that Paul Muni was completely wrong for the part. The story took place in China, in a village in the north. Muni plays the poor farmer Wang Lung. The reason I say he was wrong for the part is two-fold. First, his face was too American. In a movie full of Chinese people with their Asian eyes, his wide, round eyes stood out like sore thumbs. Sure, he got the Chinese peasant haircut, but he still looked like an American.

Second, I was a little disappointed in his overall performance. He seemed to be trying to use a Chinese accent and adopt their cultural mannerisms. For example, when a Chinese native learns English, the speech patterns are sometimes jerky and the vocal inflections are a little off. Muni tried to emulate these traits, but he went a little overboard and his resulting accent sounded unnatural. And there were times when even that fell away and his natural speech patterns were revealed.

That being said, he still turned in a good performance, though I think a Chinese actor could have done the part more justice. Now, Luise Rainer was another matter. She was incredible as Wang Lung’s wife O-Lan. She not only looked the part, but her accent was not over-exaggerated. I would never have known the actress was not Chinese if I didn’t know the actress. And I wasn’t the only one who thought her performance was remarkable. She won the Academy Award for Best Actress that year for her portrayal of O-Lan.

The story is the tale of Wang Lung and O-Lan as they struggle through the twists and turns of fortune, both good and bad. They work hard and enjoy the benefits of good harvests, and they suffer together through famine and extreme poverty. But through it all, they have the land. The earth. At times it is bountiful and at times it is barren, but in the end it sustains them and lifts them up out of their lowly stations. It makes them rich and powerful in their village.

But as often happens with great success, Wang Lung changes and becomes a different man. He tends to forget that his success and wealth did not come only from himself but also from the hard work and devotion of his wife. And the gods, in his culture. He changed into a man who was unkind and hard. He turned into the kind of lord who he once despised.

But fortunately, he was redeemed. The gods sent him something that would ruin him, something that was the bane of every farmer. Locusts. I have to say that the scene depicting the locust swarm was incredibly well done. I was impressed with the cinematography and the realism of the spectacle. I’ve personally never seen a locust storm before, but I hear it can be pretty horrific. In that respect, I imagine that the film did such an event justice.

In the end, much of Wang Lung’s crops were defended and his fortune was saved. And as an extra added bonus, his time in the fields fighting the deadly swarm reminded him of where he came from. He remembered that he was a simple farmer at heart. It also put into perspective what was truly important in life. And what he found was that it was not material possessions, wealth, property, status or even fortune. It was family, honor and love.

The story told was a good one and the actors did a good job. Despite what I said about Paul Muni, he still turned in a competent performance. But for me, it was Rainer that really stole the show. She was mesmerizing to watch. The inner strength of her character was wonderfully portrayed. The only other actor of note was another American actor. Walter Connolly played Wang Lung’s good-for-nothing uncle. He did a good enough job, though the character was an annoying one. I must also give a special nod to the director Sidney Franklin for a job well done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dead End – 1937

This was a very odd movie, but I ended up liking it. It was a plain old drama, so right off the bat it was a refreshing difference from all the screwball comedies that I have been watching lately. Also, it was not a historical drama, which even further set it apart from its peers. Apparently the film was based on a successful stage play of the same name which was written by Sidney Kingsley.

In fact, right from the very beginning, I could tell that it was really a filmed version of a stage play. The set looked very stagey, which was not a bad thing. The entire plot took place in one dead-end street in the slums of New York next to the dirty water of the East River. It was easy to see how a stage set would have been constructed, where the entrances and exits would be place. It gave the entire film a very intimate feel, as if you were there in a theatre.

Another stagey effect was the fact that not all the action took place on-screen. For example, when some street hoodlums took a rich kid into a warehouse to beat him up and steal his watch, they exited through the warehouse door and we never actually see the fight. But after some other characters have their little scene, we see the rich kid run back onto the stage in tattered clothes – just like we’d see it in a live theatre.

The film starred Humphrey Bogart as Baby Face Martin, a dangerous gangster who is on the lamb but returning to the neighborhood in which he grew up to visit his mother and an old girlfriend. The point is made that he has murdered eight men. But though he is the big name and star of the film, his character is really only a part of the tapestry that mad up the film as a whole. The film gives Baby Face no more screen time than any other character, though I will concede that most of the emotional content of the movie was centered on him.

The poor slum is the home of a number of other characters, each of whom has their own story, their own part to play in the tapestry. One side of the dead end street is the back of an apartment building that houses wealthy families. Because of renovations being done to the front of that apartment building, the affluent tenants must walk through the dirty slums to go out.

The poor hoodlums I mentioned earlier were played by a bunch of kids who all did a fantastic job. In fact, they all had done their roles on the Broadway show before the film. They did such a good job, they were officially named the Dead End Kids and they all went on to be in other films together but under different names like the Little Tough Guys and The East End Kids. The gang was made up of Tommy Gordon (Billy Halop), Dippy (Huntz Hall), Angel (Bobby Jordan), Spit (Leo Gorcey), T.B. (Gabriel Dell), and Milty (Bernard Punsly).

Each of the various stories going on were interesting in their own right, but my favorite was that of Baby Face Martin. He was tired of being a gangster on the run and was looking to find a girl to settle down with. But the old adage proved to be true. You can never go back. His mother, played by Marjorie Main, knew of his crimes and rejected him in a very touching scene saying, “I have no son.” Next he meets with his old flame Francie, played by Claire Trevor, and tells her that he wants her back. But even she rejects him, telling him that she is now a prostitute in the late term stages of syphilis. The depression that he experiences is understandable.

There was also a nice romance between Tommy’s older sister Drina, played by Sylvia Sidney and the local nice guy, Dave Connell, played by Joel McCrea. He is a struggling man who is hard working and educated. Drina loves him but he only sees her as a good friend. Dave has been seen spending time with a woman from the wealthy apartment building named Kay Burton, played by Wendy Barrie. The little love triangle is intriguing and was very well played.

All in all this was a very good movie. It stays with you and makes you think about it when it is over. And the more I think about it, the more I realize how much I enjoyed watching it. The tapestry that was created when all the different stories were put together was intricate and beautifully constructed. The acting was very good and the various stories were well told.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Captains Courageous – 1937

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. I think it was in large part due to the acting skills of young Freddie Bartholomew. MGM Studios advertised the film as a coming-of-age classic with exciting action sequences. I’ll actually give the film credit for one mildly exciting action sequence, but no more.

The film is based on the novel by Rudyard Kipling with Bartholomew playing the lead role of Harvey Cheyne. He is the son of a very wealthy single father, played by Melvyn Douglas. Harvey has little to no relationship with his father. Like many children, he has learned to be manipulative towards adults, and a bully to his fellow students at school. His behavior not only gets him into trouble, but makes him an incredibly unpopular young boy.

So, his father, in an effort to spend more time with his son, takes him along on a business trip. Unfortunately, he is too busy with his business to spend any real time with him. Through a series of events, Harvey falls off the side of the ship and nearly drowns in the ocean. Fortunately, he is rescued from the water by a lowly fisherman. He is Manuel Fidello, played by Spencer Tracy.

From here it is easy to see where the story goes. The fisher folk don’t care who the little brat is, nor do they care who his father is. Harvey learns to be a fisher and becomes a better person for it. He develops a deep bond with Manuel, a relationship he could never have with his father.

The story was handled well. It took its time establishing the relationship between Harvey and Manuel, giving the audience a chance to understand it and believe it. Not only is this to Kipling’s credit, but also to the film’s director, Victor Fleming. If this movie had been made today, it probably would have skipped over some of the more character driven parts and really played up the scenes with the action. But in the 1930s more attention was given to character development than modern movies. It is unfortunate, but movies are rarely made that way anymore.

As in the Best Picture nominee of 1935, David Copperfield, Freddie Bartholomew did a really fantastic job for a child actor. He really showed a natural talent for acting and was believable. He handled a range of emotions from petulance to excitement to tears and sorrow very well. He did a great job in front of the camera, despite his very young age.

But for me, the real star of the film was Spencer Tracy. I have to start off by saying that I am not very knowledgeable about his body of work, but I have liked him in everything in which I have seen him. Here, he really turned in a great performance. He had to maintain a Portuguese accent, and though you could tell it was not a natural accent, he was at least consistent which made it acceptable. Spencer Tracy is a very good actor and he made Manuel into a delightful character that anyone would want to know, which made his death scene that much more impactful, both to Harvey and the audience.

Lionel Barrymore also did a wonderful job as the captain of the fishing schooner, Disko Troop. He was perfect as the crusty and yet gentle-hearted seaman. He ruled his vessel with fairness and compassion. His son, Dan, was played by Mickey Rooney. Rooney did a great job. I liked him much better here than as Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. In fact, though his role was fairly small, he played his part very believably and made the character a memorable one. Well done Barrymore and Rooney!

Unfortunately, the more I think about it, I more I come to believe that Manuel’s death was really caused by Disko’s obsessive competition with another schooner captain. You see, the two skippers were racing through the water and so Disko ignored the warnings regarding his damaged sail, which ultimately killed Manuel. Oh well…

But even that is only a minor complaint. I really did enjoy the film. It was a story that was well told and easy to follow. The acting was top notch and very believable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Awful Truth – 1937

Once again we are given a screwball comedy. This one stars Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. Grant is always fun to watch, so I have to admit, I was pre-disposed to like this film. But the story left me a little flat. It wasn’t bad, but it was also no better than average, no better than any other screwball comedy.

The plot follows Grant and Dunne as Jerry and Lucy Warriner. They are a couple that is happily married, except that they have issues. The main issue is trust. Now, it seemed that the screen-writer may have been trying to give equal weight to both sides of the issue, however, I think he failed. I’ll explain.

Jerry Warriner is shown as devil-may-care, witty and charming. His wife is shown as honest, strong-willed and yet generally submissive. It seems like they are the perfect couple. But all the conflicts in the plot stem from the fact that Jerry has a suspicious mind and does not trust his wife. Right from the very beginning, we find the Jerry is lying to his wife about a trip to Florida. He is getting a fake tan to make her believe he was the Southern state. He buys a fruit basket full of oranges to give the lie more credibility.

He comes home to discover that his wife is away as well. His friends automatically suspect her of adulterous behavior. When she comes home, she tells her husband the truth. She was with her voice teacher and the car broke down. They spent the night in a hotel and came home when they were able. Jerry assumes she is lying.

But here is where I take issue with the plot. When Lucy catches Jerry in his lie, he gets angry and says, “Don’t change the subject!” He then jealously proceeds to accuse her of being the liar. The two agree to get divorced on the spot and the next thing we see is the two in court before a judge. But it seemed to me that the conflict was very one-sided. The film never explained where Jerry had actually been when he was supposed to be in Florida. So it is really alright for a man to be an adulterous liar, but if a woman even appears to be cheating, she is automatically guilty?

But remember, this is a screwball comedy, so the zaniness just goes from there. A few scenes actually had me laughing out loud, so in that respect, I suppose the movie did its job. Lucy’s voice teacher Armand Duvall, played by Alexander D’Arcy, shows up to speak to her about her voice recital that Jerry nearly ruined. Jerry shows up, so Armand hides in the bedroom. Lucy’s new boyfriend, Dan Leeson, played by Ralph Bellamy, arrives with his mother to apologize for doubting her honesty, so Jerry quickly hides in the bedroom. As Dan is trying to say he is sorry, we hear the sounds of a violent fight coming from the bedroom. Glass is being smashed, furniture is being destroyed. Sounds like falling pipes and crashing bricks, which belonged at a construction site could be heard as well. The fight is never shown, but Lucy, Dan, and Dan’s mother try to ignore the cacophony, which Lucy explains away as remodeling. Suddenly Armand sprints out of the room being chased by Jerry. As they race to the front door, Lucy’s Aunt Patsy, played by Cecil Cunningham dryly quips, “They forgot to touch second.”

But unfortunately, there just wasn’t very much that was special about the film that made it stand out as better than any other screwball comedy. In fact, if I am being critical, I might call it a little dull. Sure the dialogue was clever and witty, but that’s not enough to make it a great movie, as a Best Picture nomination should be. And as long as I am being completely honest, I have to mention the costumes. The movies have always been the perfect way for new fashions to be introduced to the general public. So every scene features the lead actress in a different outfit. But some of the fashions that they had Lucy wearing were frumpy and almost matronly, especially when looked at with a modern eye.

In the end, as if there were ever any doubt, Jerry and Lucy are back together. They both realize that they are made for each other and are completely in love. But it is too late. The divorce proceedings become final during the ending scene. The movie ended by implying that Jerry was going to spend the night in Lucy’s room. But I thought a cuter ending would have had Jerry proposing to Lucy just after their divorce became final.

And finally, we could have done without the kooky cuckoo-clock sequences… But you’ll have to watch the film to understand that one.  Honestly, I didn’t get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Smart Girls – 1936

Here we have another screwball comedy.  It is becoming apparent to me that the genre was a popular one in the 1930s and it is easy to see why.  The screwball comedy is fluff.  It has a happy ending and a light-hearted air about it.  It doesn’t require you to feel too much or think too hard.  The plot is clever but not complicated.  The dialogue is witty and humorous.  There is always at least one couple that you cheer for that will end up with each other.

But it also has another quality that is unique to the category.  There is an element of zaniness and wackiness to it.  The situations are farcical and over the top.  The characters are ones that rarely exist in the real world.

Three Smart Girls is a perfect example.  The film stars three young women as sisters in the Craig family.  Barbara Reed plays Kay, the oldest of the siblings.  The middle daughter, Joan, is played by Nan Grey.  Deanna Durbin plays the youngest sister, Penny, though despite what the poster says, not in her film debut.

The three young women live with their mother, Dorothy Craig, played by Nella Walker.  Their incredibly rich father is out of the picture.  He lives in New York after having divorced the mother ten years prior to the story taking place.  The three girls and their mother read a news article which tells of the father, Judson Craig, played by Charles Winninger, getting engaged to a beautiful woman of the New York upper-crust.

Here is where the zany element comes in.  The mother begins crying when she reads the news.  The saddened girls concoct a scheme in which they will fly to New York and break up their father’s engagement in order to get their parents back together.  But really, think about it.  Who in their right mind would actually do such a thing?  A child might fantasize about doing something like that, but to actually put it into action?  That can only happen in the movies.

I mean, the premise is cute enough for a lark, but realistically, it would never happen.  For example, the kids have no idea why their parents split up in the first place, nor did the movie provide that information.  What if the divorce had taken place because the father had caught the mother cheating?  What if she had a ken placehe split up had been because the father had caught the mother cheating?  What if she had st place, nor did the movie problem with spending too much of her husband’s money?  What if the father was an alcoholic?  What if he had been an abusive husband?  Or what if the answer was even simpler than that?  What if the parents were just fine as friends, but had irreconcilable differences in a marriage relationship.

In embarking on their childish plan, the three girls were actually being incredibly naive and inconsiderate to both their parents.  But then we wouldn’t have much of a movie.  So they whisk themselves away to New York and descend upon their unsuspecting father, who hasn’t seen any of them in 10 years.  His beautiful fiancée, Donna Lyons, played by Binnie Barnes is at first annoyed, and then angered by the three sisters’ shenanigans.  And why wouldn’t she be angry.  In the real world, she would have every right to be furious.

Fortunately, she is nothing but a common gold-digger.  She is always ready to pounce on the richest man in her immediate vicinity.  She is obviously the wrong woman for Judson to marry.  But what if she had been a good woman who truly loved him?  How would the sisters have known?  The three “smart” girls would have destroyed their father’s happiness.

But fortunately, the plan was a success.  Donna goes away and Dorothy comes to New York, though I found it interesting that upon seeing his ex-wife, Judson does not look terribly enthusiastic about the reunion.

However, along the way, two of the sisters find their own true loves, one of whom was played by the handsome Ray Milland.  And the third sister (you guessed it), Penny, uses her exquisite voice to charm everyone, including Judson.  She really did have a set of pipes!  She sang beautifully and with a smile that wouldn’t quit, which was actually a bit surprising, since she was only 15 years old when the movie was filmed.  Well done, Durbin!

The movie was ultimately cute and harmless, but it was also formulaic and predictable.  A better screwball comedy would have had some kind of clever twist that would have caught the audience by surprise.  The acting was good enough and didn’t raise any red flags.  In fact, I particularly liked Charles Winninger.  He was not the lead, but I felt his skills as an actor were far above those of his co-stars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Tale of Two Cities – 1936

I was thoroughly surprised by the quality of this film. Sure, the original novel is one of Charles Dickens’s most lauded works, but I have never read the book. In fact, the only exposure I have to the works of the author is David Copperfield, a Christmas Carol, and Oliver!, which is based on Oliver Twist. Each one of those books, and the subsequent films that were produced had several annoying common threads that always make me role my eyes. They all have a poor and suffering boy who has the heart and demeanor of an angel. All the adults are either pure evil, or unrealistically good. The bad guys always get their just deserts and the good guys end up embarking on a life full of familial bliss.

A Tale of Two Cities had none of these qualities. For those who do not know, I’ll give a very brief outline of the plot. The story takes place in France in the late 1700s during the famous French Revolution. Lucie Manette, played by Elizabeth Allen, is a young woman whose father has been imprisoned in the Bastille for 18 years, and has finally been released. The evil Marquis de St. Evermonde, played by Basil Rathbone, is a noble who cares nothing for the plight of the poor. His nephew, Charles Darnay, played by Donald Woods, is a sympathizer who leaves France rather than be a part of the French Nobility.

While in England, he meets Lucie and her father who have also fled France. They marry and have a daughter. A friend of the family named Sydney Carton, played by Ronald Colman, is a lawyer. He is a fascinating character. He is brilliant, but he is also a drunk who has such low self-esteem that he believes he deserves no better than a life of poverty and inebriation. He comes to believe that he could finally find happiness with Lucie, except that she is in love with Darnay.

When Darnay is tricked into returning to France because of a personal vendetta against his uncle, and therefore his family, Carton makes the ultimate sacrifice. He finds a way to go to the guillotine in Darnay’s place, in order to give Lucie happiness.

That is the short version. The story is much more complex and engaging than that, and I’m sure the book is even more so. It is so different than any other Charles Dickens story I have ever come across. There was action, intrigue, joy and sorrow. None of the characters were completely good or completely evil. They were all believable, and believably portrayed.

Ronald Colman, in particular, did a fantastic job as the man with the suffering soul. He had the potential for greatness in him that he could never realize. He was damaged in a way that was too deep to fully comprehend. The actor played the part very well. His use of facial expression, pacing and pathos were wonderful.
Another few actors who did a wonderful job were Blanche Yurka, Billy Bevan, Isabel Jewell, and one of my personal favorites, Edna May Oliver. Yurka played Madame Defarge, the French peasant who had a personal grudge against the Evermonde family. I loved how she was constantly going through the motions of frantic knitting with her needles, though it was obvious she wasn’t creating a single stitch.

Bevan was a British commoner who was a disreputable but loyal friend of Mr. Carton. Jewell played a small but memorable role as a French seamstress who is wrongfully sentenced to the guillotine for being employed by a nobleman. She was beautiful and wonderful to watch as she comes to terms with her impending death.
And then, there was Edna May Oliver. Goodness gracious! She was a busy woman in the 1930s. Here, she played the part of Miss Pross, Lucie’s devoted servant. When Madame Defarge comes to murder Lucie’s daughter as a descendent of the Evermond house, Miss Pross fights her and kills her in a surprisingly physical confrontation. Who knew the 52 year old actress had it in her?

This was definitely a film worth seeing. Like I stated earlier, it was such a wonderful departure from the Charles Dickens that I know. It was deeper and more suspenseful than I have ever known him to be. Well done Mr. Dickens!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Story of Luis Pasteur – 1936

It takes a strong man to stand firm in his beliefs when the world is laughing at him.  Well, according to this dramatized version of this historical biography, Pasteur is just such a man.  And the actor to play him on the screen has to be just as strong to make the character believable.  Paul Muni once again proves himself to be an actor of talent and skill.  He did a wonderful job as the famous scientist.

Everyone knows that Luis Pasteur was the French chemist that developed the process we know as pasteurization that eliminates deadly microbes from things like wine and milk.  But I was not aware that he developed the vaccines that cured anthrax and rabies.  I was also not aware that he was so ridiculed by his peers.

Of course, I understand that a little license probably had to be taken with history to make the story a little more dramatic.  It is hard to tell.  I read up a little on the real Pasteur and could only find information on his remarkable achievements.  Very little is given regarding the social climate amongst medical practitioners of the time in France.  All the Wikipedia article I read said was that it was not common practice for surgeons to wash their hands or sterilize instruments before performing surgery.  However, in the film, Pasteur actually had fellow scientists calling him a quack and taking every opportunity to denounce him as a faker.  I would think that if this was really the case, the article would have mentioned it.

Instead it mentioned all the schooling he went through, earning a BA degree.  He became a Physics Professor at the college de Tournon at Ardeche and a Chemistry Professor at the University of Strasbourg.  Three of his five children died of Typhoid, which motivated him to learn about and combat infectious diseases.  Almost none of this was mentioned in the movie.

In the film, Pasteur had a daughter named Annette, played by Anita Louise.  She married one of Pasteur’s professional supporters named Matel, played by Donald Woods.  In reality, he had a daughter named Marie Louise who married a man named Rene Vallery-Radot.  Based on these few things I could find, I suspect that there was a bit of artistic license taken with the film to make it more dramatic.  The romance between his daughter and Matel added a bit of a love story to a film that otherwise had no romance at all.  Thank you, Hollywood.

Aside from that, the major points in his story seemed to follow reality fairly well.  One of the most important things was his treatment of Joseph Meister.  A woman had heard of how Pasteur was developing a cure for rabies so she brought her infected son to his home, begging for his help.  Pasteur had reservations about treating the boy without a medical license, knowing that if the boy died, he could be tried for murder.  He had already successfully tested the vaccine on dogs but never on a human being.  But as the boy approached death, he began giving him injections.

In reality, a licensed doctor who was one of Pasteur’s colleagues actually administered the injections under Pasteur’s direction and supervision.  This led to his morals and scientific practices to come under scrutiny in later years, even after his death.

But that’s neither here nor there.  Paul Muni did a fantastic job.  In fact, he won the Best Actor award for the role.  The character he played was a bit older than he, himself, was.  But he played the scientist very believably.  He even realistically portrayed Pasteur after his stroke.  Other actors who stood out were Porter Hall as Dr. Rossignol, one of Pasteur’s main critics, Akim Tamiroff as a Russian doctor who supported Pasteur’s work and Anita Louise as Annette Pasteur.

Much like the 1937 Best Picture winner which also starred Paul Muni, The Life of Emile Zola, this was a dramatized biography which actually retained the key events of Pasteur’s story and took some liberties with the details.  Imagine my surprise when I found that the two films were directed by the same man, William Deiterie.  The format that was common to both films was a good one, but it ultimately made for a slow film.  It was mildly interesting, but only because of the changes that were made to make it a more dramatic film.