Category: Nominees – 1930s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She Done Him Wrong – 1932 / 1933

I wasn’t sure what to expect with this one.  After all, it is the first movie I have ever seen with Mae West.  Of course, we all know the kind of bawdy reputation she had.  She was a woman who was known for her raw sexual prowess, quick wit, scandalous reputation, and yet, her classy persona.  And let me tell you, she didn’t disappoint.

West was the clear star of this film, a film which, I have learned, is responsible for the saving of Paramount Studios.  The Studio was on the verge of financial failure when She Done Him Wrong grossed over $2,000,000 on a $200,000 budget.  It was full of sexual references and double entendre.  Line after witty line was delivered masterfully by Mae and the audiences loved every one of them.

This was the film in which the famous line “I always did like a man in a uniform. That one fits you grand. Why don’t you come up sometime and see me? I’m home every evening.”  There were dozens of more great lines, too many to mention them all in this review, that were explicitly sexual references thinly disguised as flippant comments.

However, I will mention a few of my favorites.  When Captain Cummings asks her “Haven’t you ever met a man that could make you happy?”  She replies, “Sure, lots of times.”  Another time she is told “I am Delighted.  I have heard so much about you.”  She smoothly replies, “Yeah, but you can’t prove it.”  Or in another great line, she says, “I wasn’t always rich.”  “No?” asks her maid.  “No,” she says with a smile.  “There was a time I didn’t know where my next husband was coming from.”  And lastly, when an old woman says to her, “Ah, Lady Lou, you’re a fine gal, a fine woman,” she quickly retorts, “One of the finest women ever walked the streets.”

But on to the plot.  The film was about Lady Lou, played by West, a singer in a saloon.  Her crooked boss, Gus, played by Noah Beery, is in love with her.  Her jailbird ex-lover, Chick Clark, played by Owen Moore, is in love with her.  Every man she knows seems to be in love with her.  All except for Captain Cummings, played by a very young Cary Grant, who runs the Salvation Army Mission.  He admires her but is on a mission to bring down Gus and his criminal empire.

To make a long story short, Chick escapes from jail and comes for Lady Lou.  Gus is brought down and arrested by Captain Cummings, who turns out to be a federal agent who had been after him all along.  He also catches Chick and takes him back to jail.  But once his job is done, he pretends to arrest Lou just so he can get her alone.  As they ride off together in a cab, he slips a diamond engagement ring on her finger and proposes to her.  Then he says, “You bad girl.”  A delighted Lou smiles and replies, “Mmmm.  You’ll see.”  Romance was apparently pretty quick in those days.

Mae West looked fantastic.  Her hour-glass figure was incredibly curvy and voluptuous.  Her dresses were always sparkly and skin tight.  In fact, she had to be sewn into most of the dress she wore.  And, of course, we got to hear her sing some great and memorable songs for her act in the saloon.  The two that caught my attention were A Man What Takes His Time and Frankie and Johnny.  I can think of specific examples of where these songs are still being used in films today.

This was actually Grant’s 2nd film role and already his famous wit and personality were fun to see.  He is always a pleasure to watch.  He was young and handsome, and knew how to deliver those tricky lines with an easy, charming attitude, and a debonair smile.  His lines always seem to just roll off his tongue.

I really enjoyed this film.  It was entertaining and funny in a way that few movies of today even come close to.  It is interesting to note that the script was based on a Broadway show that starred West called Diamond Lil.  In order to get all the bawdy lines past the censors, the script was toned down considerably.  But all the racy lines that made it into the film make me stop and wonder.  What was the original Diamond Lil really like?  It really must have been something to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Private Life of Henry VIII – 1932 / 1933

Based on the title, I was actually looking forward to watching this film.  I have always had a passing interest in English history.  However, about half an hour into the movie, I began to suspect that history and historical fact was not so important to the film makers.  By the end of the film, I had come to the conclusion that this was not a film about history, but a film about how to have a happy marriage.  It just used the story of Henry VIII as a backdrop.  Here’s why.

This was a comedy!  It was never intended to be a historical drama.  The film starred Charles Laughton as King Henry.  Laughton won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance.  Knowing that, I have to admit to being pretty disappointed.  I wanted a historical drama, and I didn’t get what I wanted.  But I suppose it was my own fault.  I should have done my research before watching the movie.

He played the part of Henry VIII as a bumbling buffoon.  He was clumsy and lecherous, and in the end just wanted a good woman to love him.  Of course, as we all know, Henry had 6 wives.  The first was Catherine of Aragon, but the movie completely skips over her, saying that she was a respectable woman whom he divorced.  Second was Anne Boleyn, played by Merle Oberon, and the film starts out at her execution.  Immediately upon her beheading, he marries wife number 3, Jane Seymour, played by Wendy Barrie.

After Seymour dies in childbirth, he marries his 4^th wife, an arranged marriage to a German Princess, Anne of Cleaves, played by Laughton’s real wife, Elsa Lanchester.  She does not want to be his wife, so in an amusing sequence, she makes faces to make herself appear ugly.  He rejects her for her looks and gives her a healthy annulment settlement, which she wins by besting him in a game of cards.

Catherine Howard, played by Binnie Barnes is his 5^th wife.  But she has an affair with a member of Henry’s court and is executed.  And finally, wife number 6 is Catherine Parr, played by Everley Gregg.  She is portrayed as a nagging shrew who mothers him, smothers him, and finally leaves him alone.  And finally we come to the biggest joke of the film.  At the last, Laughton turns to the camera and breaks the fourth wall.  He speaks directly to the audience saying, “Six wives, and the best of them is the worst.”

Before I knew this was intended to be a comedy, I thought it was a bad movie.  Now, I have a different opinion.  It was amusing enough, had a funny message, and a fine comedic performance by Laughton.  In short, it makes sense as a comedy.  Elsa Lanchester was also pretty funny to watch as she made ugly faces in the mirror, trying to get them just right.

That being said, I must acknowledge the historical accuracies that are surprising from a spoof or comedy.  I would have expected the writers to take a little more liberty with certain events, but they kept a lot of things remarkably accurate such as the sequence of events and the personalities and motivations of certain characters.

There was only one very minor thing that I didn’t particularly care for: the costumes.  They looked very… fake.  I mean, Henry’s costumes were incredibly detailed (for that matter, Laughton looked amazingly like the real Henry VIII) but nearly everyone else had a costume that looked like it belonged in a school play… a grade-school play.  There was very little detail and very little realism.

Aside from that one minor detail, the film worked as a comedy.  I just wish I would have known that going into it.  I would have enjoyed the movie much more.  Upon reflection, there is one other thing I would have changed.  After doing my research, I found that Henry’s first wife was originally his older brother’s wife.  When Arthur died at age 15, Catherine of Aragon was expected to become Henry’s wife for political reasons.  Henry was only 11 at the time.  But this is a historical spoof.  They couldn’t find anything funny to do with that?  I can think of several things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Little Women – 1933

This is the first adaptation of Little Women that I have seen and I have never read the book.  So, the story is new to me.  The film was based on Louisa May Alcott’s most beloved book of the same name.  This was actually the third film adaptation of the novel, the first one being a silent film from 1917, and the second, another silent film from 1918.  Two more film versions were to follow: one in 1949 and another in 1994.

It is a sweet story, but let’s be honest.  It was as rather dull.  There were never any real complications except for a death from weakness brought on by scarlet fever.  There was no conflict, no bad guys, no one to blame, even, for the death.  It made the story sad, but not terribly interesting.

The story follows the March family with Spring Byington playing the matriarch Margaret “Marmee” March.  Her husband Robert is off fighting in the Civil War.  The children are all girls, Margaret “Meg”, Josephine “Jo”, Elizabeth “Beth” and Amy, played respectively by Frances Dee, Katharine Hepburn, Jean Parker and Joan Bennett.

The daughters each have their own special slightly negative personality trait that they have to deal with, though the story is told mostly through the perspective of the second daughter, Jo.  Meg is vain.  Jo is a tomboy.  Beth is shy.  Amy is selfish.  Aside from these little issues, the four girls are practically perfect in every way.

In the same respect, they each have their own special skill.  Meg is a peace-maker.  Joe is a writer.  Beth plays the piano.  Amy is an artist.  The whole thing is starting to seem a little overly-fabricated.    I guess what I am trying to say is that the characters were all pretty one-dimensional and slightly fake.  But I’ll be the first to admit.  That isn’t a flaw with the film.  It is a flaw with the book.

If the sisters have any disagreements, they are always resolved quickly and sweetly.  If anyone needs help, the girls are all going out of their way to do their part.  Eventually, when they grow into young women, they develop romantic intentions with various men.  But even then, there are few conflicts.  The men they end up with are all perfect gentlemen who treat them perfectly.  The relationships are all full of love and happiness.

Like I mentioned earlier, the biggest conflict in the film is when Beth gets sick with scarlet fever.  Her first encounter with it does not kill her, but it leaves her severely weakened.  Even that was handled gently.  By the time she is ready to die, she is not only at peace with her impending death, but her family has had years to get used to the idea.

Aside from that, though, the biggest conflict in the film was when Aunt March takes Amy to Europe instead of Jo.  Jo is in tears, but only for a moment.  She is too happy for her sister to be upset about her own situation for long.

And speaking of Aunt March, once again, playing the crotchety old woman so well, we have Edna May Oliver.  She was obviously typecast into this kind of a role, as she keeps popping up whenever a cantankerous old lady is called for.  But she just does it so well!

So, nearly all of my review has been about the dullness of the plot.  But I should also mention that the parts were all well cast and that the actors certainly did a fine job with the lack-luster material.  Hepburn received top-billing, and she is always a pleasure to watch.  But this was one of her earlier movies and I don’t think she stood out any more than the rest of the cast.  But apparently her name was already enough to give the film a boost.

Like I said earlier, this was a sweet movie, but ultimately a dull one.  Then again, it is one of those stories that is apparently immensely popular.  It would have to be.  How else would we have 5 separate movie adaptations over the years?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lady for a Day – 1932 / 1933

Lady for a Day was not a great or profound movie, but it was certainly a sweet one. It had a simple plot and feel-good ending. Right from the start, I was struck by the wonderful acting of May Robson. She played the part of a poor woman called Apple Annie. She was so good in the way that she played… well, slightly crazy. It was not overdone. On the contrary, she was incredibly believable.

She was called Apple Annie because her only income was made by selling apples on the street. But fortune smiled on her when she met Dave the Dude, played by Warren William, a gangster and con-artist who was very superstitious. He believed that as long as he bought an apple from Annie before each gambling bet or business deal, things would go his way. He refused to do anything without one of her apples. So when Annie was in trouble, the Dude went out of his way to help her. Way out of his way.

Her problem was that she had been writing to her daughter in Spain, telling her that she was a rich woman in New York high society. But when her daughter Louise, played by Jane Parker, becomes engaged to the son of a Spanish Count, her lie is certain to be exposed.   Robson was simply wonderful. The whole plot almost sounds like a shoe-in to be a comedy, and though there were some pretty comedic moments and funny lines, the character of Annie has the most dramatic moments of the film. She fears that her secret will be revealed and the shame that would certainly accompany such an exposure drive her deeper into depression and hysterics. You really feel for her in her dire straits.

But the Dude’s fear of losing his good luck charm prove to be the saving of Annie and her daughters dreams of marrying the Count’s son. He borrows a friend’s mansion, buys her beautiful clothes, pays a pool shark to pose as her husband, and hires all his mob connections to be her high-society acquaintances. But everything goes awry when he has to kidnap three news reporters to prevent them from investigating Annie’s rich alter ego, Mrs. E. Worthington Manville. Of course, when the reporters turn up missing the police get involved.

The plot was not overly complicated and the acting was pretty good. Warren’s right hand man, Happy McGuire, played by Ned Sparks, did a good job. I actually have to mention him here because he was also in another Best Picture nominee from 1934, Imitation of Life. I didn’t care for him in that film because he played a business man exactly like he played the gangster in this movie. He was fine as a gangster, but not so much as the honest business man.

Another stand-out member of the cast was Guy Kibbee, playing the part of Henry G. Blake, otherwise known as Judge Manville, Annie’s “husband.” He was smart, witty, cool under pressure, and quick with a smile. He was a very likeable character, and Kibbee did a fine job.

There was one scene in particular that stood out to me, in which the Count asks Judge Manville about Louise’s dowry. Blake tries to talk his way out of it, knowing that the Dude can’t afford a fifty thousand dollar dowry. As the two men are walking down the corridor of the mansion, they happen to pass a billiards room. Being the professional pool-hall shark that he was, he easily turned the tables. By the time their match was done, he has gotten the Count to pay for the dowry himself. It was quite amusing.

All in all, it was a good movie. In the end, Annie got to keep her secret and everybody got a happy ending. Of course, the movie was over before we saw Annie have to give back all the clothes and rented jewels, leave the mansion, and return to her poor hovel of a home. We all know that when the fantasy is over, she will be back on the streets selling her apples.

If you think about it like that, it is a depressing idea. But director, Frank Capra, let us all off the hook by leaving us our happy ending. By doing that, he also gave us a tiny sliver of hope. Maybe Henry Blake has fallen in love with Annie for real and is willing to take care of her. Who knows what might happen when the cameras stop rolling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang – 1932 / 1933

I was really pleasantly surprised by this Best Picture Nominee, though the title was enough to put me on my guard.  I mean, I wasn’t terribly interested in a film about a chain gang.  But I have to admit that I was focusing too much on the chain gang part, and pretty much ignored the fugitive part.  In reality, the later had just as much prominence in the film as the former.

Paul Muni took the lead and he really did a fantastic job.  His performance was delivered with a calmness and dignity that belied the horrible circumstances the character was forced to endure.  He played the part of James Allen, a man who had aspirations of becoming an engineer, but who could not find work during the depression era.  Penniless and homeless, he becomes unwillingly involved in a robbery and a murder.  He is wrongfully sentenced to ten years hard labor as part of a chain gang in Georgia.

But he escapes and flees to Chicago.  While there, he changes his name and gets a job as a laborer on a construction site.  He eventually works his way up to become a prominent engineer and an upstanding member of society, just as he had wanted.  But there is a fly in the ointment.  He becomes involved with Marie Woods, played by Glenda Farrell.  She discovers his secret and blackmails him into a miserable marriage so that she can ride his success and take his money.

When he threatens to leave her, she tells the authorities of his true identity.  He tells the media about the true conditions of life as part of a chain gang.  In an effort to clear his name and leave his past behind him, he agrees to return to the chain-gang for an agreed upon period of 90 days.  But the Georgia authorities lied and failed to release him as promised.

I remember thinking that he needed to get the 90 day sentence in writing.  But being a trusting man by nature, Allen did not.  And really, that was what got him in trouble in the first place.  The Georgia Police refused to release him, so he had to escape again.  But this time he could not risk establishing another public life.

He visits his girl, Helen, played by Helen Vinson, with whom he is in love, to say his final good-bye before disappearing into the shadows forever.  She desperately tries to get him to stay, asking him, “How do you live?”  James, unseen in the darkness, replies, “I steal.”  This made for a rather profound and almost horrifying ending.  Allen’s will to be free was not broken, but his ability to live an honest life, free from his past was destroyed.  Happiness could never be his.

The pacing of the plot was actually very well done.  There were plenty of times when it was slow enough to create a story that was meaningful and well told.  But there was also plenty of action to keep the interest and excitement going.  There was dramatic tension in the parts leading up to the two escapes.  The two women each did a fine job, but the real star was Muni.  He was great as both the beaten criminal and the honest engineer.

But there was one member of the cast who, from his first appearance on the screen, got on my nerves and made my skin crawl.  It was the character of Reverend Robert Allen, James’ brother, played by Hale Hamilton.  This guy seemed to be trying too hard to be a good actor, and the result was an overdone performance.  He consistently over-pronounced his words and never stopped smiling.  He came across as manipulative, controlling, and ultimately creepy.

It is interesting to note that this film actually had a bit of a cultural impact.  It made audiences begin to question the legitimacy of the United States Legal System.  In January of 1933, the film’s protagonist, Robert Elliot Burns, who was still imprisoned in New Jersey, and a number of other chain gang prisoners nationwide in the United States were able to appeal and were released.

And finally, I have to mention that was up against 9 other films, including that year’s winner, Cavalcade.  Honestly, if it were up to me, this would have given Cavalcade a run for its money.  I thought it was a better film!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Farewell to Arms – 1931

I was surprised by how much this movie sucked me in.  I have never been overly sentimental when it comes to Hollywood films, but the passion of the romance portrayed in this film was done perfectly.  It was strong without being overwhelming.  It was dramatically desperate without being sappy

The two big stars of the film were Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes.  Cooper played the part of Lieutenant Frederic Henry, an American serving as an ambulance driver in the Italian Army during World War One.  Hayes played Catherine Barkley, an English Red Cross nurse.  They had a great on-screen chemistry.

I’ll say right off the bat that I have never been a huge Gary Cooper fan, but only because I have not seen many of his films.  Also, I’ve always thought that everyone seems to go severely overboard when commenting on how attractive he was.  I have always considered him to be pretty average in the looks department.  But there were moments in this movie in which he showed an incredible emotional vulnerability which, I thought, made him more appealing.

Helen Hayes was also very pretty and acted her part well with a grace and poise that we rarely see in most modern actresses.  She had an air of sweetness about her that did nothing to diminish the strength of her character… with one exception.

Someone needs to tell Lieutenant Henry that when a girl repeatedly says no, pushes you away and even slaps you across the cheek, then it is not OK to force her to make out with you.  But her weakness is that after she slaps him for forcing her to kiss him, she immediately apologizes and asks him to try again.

Despite this rocky start, and despite the fact that Army regulations forbid such a romance, they both fall deeply in love.  They steal every moment they can on the sly, even going so far as to be informally married by the Army Chaplain, played very well by Jack La Rue when he finds out about their affair and her pregnancy.

There was one place where the plot was a little confusing.   Lt. Henry is on the front lines of the War.  He is captured by enemy soldiers, which allows him to escape and become a deserter in order to run to his love, fearing that she is in danger.

His instincts prove to be correct.  There are complications in delivering the baby, which is unfortunately stillborn, and in the end she dies in his arms. The scene is very cleverly done.  In his grief, he lifts her from the hospital bed and turns away from the camera.  The white bed sheet is draped dramatically, making it appear very much like a wedding dress.  The image is that of Frederic holding the limp form of his fallen bride.

Frederic’s best friend and drinking buddy is a confusing character.  He is Major Rinaldi, an Italian surgeon, played by Adolphe Menjou.  At first he doesn’t like that they are together.  Then he doesn’t mind.  Then he manipulatively splits them up.  Then he helps them be together.  Then he intercepts their letters to each other to split them up again.  Then when he learns of the baby, he helps them reunite once more.  But he had a rather charming demeanor, so I liked him anyway.

There was one scene in the film that was done in an interesting way.  When Frederic is wounded at the front, he is taken to the hospital.  The director, Frank Borzage chose to show the scene from Frederic’s perspective.  The camera is looking at the ceiling of the hospital as the gurney is wheeling from room to room.  The heads of various officers and nurses pop into view and speak directly to the camera while Cooper’s voice can be heard responding to them.  Then when Catherine enters the room and falls on him to shower him with kisses, for a few moments, all we can see on the screen is her giant eye.

But ultimately, I ended up liking the film.  The war scenes were apropriately chaotic and exciting with lots of explosions and falling soldiers.  The romance was good and I was surprised with the quality of Cooper’s touching performance.  The film was based on an Ernest Hemmingway novel which was semi-autobiographical.  That being the case, it gives the film that much more emotional impact.

The film was remade in 1957 starring Rock Hudson and Jennifer Jones, though the remake was not nominated for the Best Picture award.  It was also remade into a mini-series in 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42nd Street – 1932 / 1933

This film is an icon of the American Film Musical. It starred Warner Baxter as Julian Marsh, the harsh Broadway director who puts his heart and soul into putting on the best show of his career during the great depression, a risky move. With him was Bebe Daniels as Dorothy Brock, the aging star hired to take the lead in his show. George Brent played Dorothy’s love interest, Pat Denning. The inexperienced chorus girl who could dance rings around any other dancer was Peggy Sawyer, played by Ruby Keeler. And finally, Billy Lawler, played by Dick Powel, took on the role of the show’s leading man who falls in love with her.

From there, the plot is a little shallow, but that’s OK, because it is really secondary to the dancing. After all, first and foremost this is a dance show. Any time you put over 40 women who know how to dance and show off their legs on the stage at the same time, everything else is secondary. And that fabulous kick-line is the money-shot, what we all came to see.

And boy, does this film deliver. There were more legs in this movie than I could count. Ruby Keeler did a great job tapping her tootsies and singing her heart out. The big number in the show is the name of the film, 42nd Street. It is really an exciting number, both visually and aurally.

It is important to note that in 1980 this incredibly popular 1933 movie musical was turned into an actual stage show that won the Tony Award for Best Musical and became a long-running Broadway hit. It was revived again in 2001, winning another Tony Award for Best Revival, a performance, I was lucky enough to see. Obviously, the show has credibility and staying power.

One of the problems I have with most movie musicals of that era is that the songs are completely unmemorable. But that is part of the magic of 42nd Street. It has several songs that stick in your head and heart. There is the title song, of course, along with You’re Getting to Be a Habit With Me and Shuffle Off to Buffalo. In my opinion, a memorable song or two is absolutely necessary to make a successful musical.

The plot, while deceptively simply (or maybe not so deceptive…) is fun and light-hearted. There are a few lines of the stereotypical catty nature of women in competition with each other, my favorite one being, “It must have been hard on your mother, not having any children.” But for the most part, the women were all ladies of integrity and honesty.

In that respect, it is always pleasantly surprising when the character of Dorothy Brock fractures her ankle the night before the opening performance, and the rich financer of the show wants to replace her with his new girlfriend Ann Lowell, played by a very young Ginger Rogers. She actually shows an uncharacteristic strength of character. She acknowledges that Peggy is a better dancer than any of them and actively gives up her chance of becoming a big star so that Peggy can play the part. She does this all for the sake of the show.

And you might think that Dorothy would hate Peggy for “stealing” her part, despite the broken ankle, but she visits Peggy before the show starts. With grace and kindness, she encourages the inexperienced actress and gives her advice on how to become a super-star. She says that she’d had her chance and now it was the younger girl’s turn. It left me with a nice feeling.

Dick Powel was particularly fun to watch. He was handsome and could keep up with Keeler’s dance steps easily. Keeler, herself did a fantastic job, and was a pleasure to watch.

One last thing that made little sense to me was a choice made by director Lloyd Bacon and choreographer Busby Berkeley. When they had the women on the stage of their show, they had them in the formation of a circle making moving patterns with their legs that nobody in the fictional audience would ever be able to see. Only a movie camera placed above the dancers looking down into the center of the circle would be able to see the intricacies of the choreography. It was a fantastic visual for the film, but made no sense in the fictional plot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Smiling Lieutenant – 1931 / 1932

This was a strange film.  Here we are with Maurice Chevalier again.  Apparently he was a very popular guy back then.  I think he was either a good friend of, or was under contract along with director Ernst Lubitsch.  I seem to always see their names together.  Again, Chevalier plays a man in the military, in a position associated with the monarch of some European country.  Again, he marries into the royal family and is miserable.   Hmmm… this is starting to sound very familiar.  This film had these and other similarities to the film The Love Parade.

The plot was simple enough to follow.  I’ve never seen a Chevalier film without a remarkably simple plot.  So, here we go.  This shouldn’t take long.  Chevalier plays Lieutenant Nicholas “Niki” Von Preyn.  He falls in love with Franzi, played by Claudette Colbert, the conductor of an all-female orchestra.  But Niki is in the Emperor’s guard.  While standing at attention for the arrival of a foreign King and his daughter Princess Anna, played by Miriam Hopkins, he smiles and winks at Franzi.  But the wink is intercepted by the princes, who throws a crying fit because a commoner dared to smile at her.  He is forced to marry the Princess to satisfy her honor, despite his love for Franzi.  They go back to live in the fictional country of Flausenthurm.

Franzi follows them just to get a glimpse of her man as he is wed to the Princess.  When a miserable and depressed Niki discovers that Franzi is near, he begins his affair with her all over again.  Anna finds out and has Franzi arrested.  The two women fight over Niki, and in the end, Franzi finds that she likes the other girl.  She gives Princess Ana tips on how to be the kind of girl Niki likes, and leaves the country.  Niki comes home to find the homely Anna transformed into a sexy, jazzy, cigarette smoking, silk-clad girl.  He instantly falls in love with her and the marriage is suddenly a happy one.  Franzi who???  The end.

But that was the problem, I think.  The plot was too simple and reinforced several ideals and stereotypes that are outdated for a modern audience.  For example, the notion that it is not only acceptable for a man to cheat on his wife with a younger woman, but even expected.  Then there is the concept that it is better to save face and live a miserable life than to admit a mistake and live a happy one.  Of course, we also have the stereotype that all royalty, or one might say all rich people, are stuffy, old-fashioned, and spoiled.

But all that being said, I have to be honest.  When the end of the movie arrived, I felt myself caring for Franzi’s character when she sacrificed her pride, her future, and her man to resolve the plot’s conflict.  I thought Colbert turned in a great performance.  The frivolous script didn’t give her much to work with, but she pulled it off well, giving it a deeper emotional content than it deserved.

And there was a scene near the end when I found myself laughing out loud.  When Princess Anna has Franzi arrested and brought to the palace, she tells Franzi that she hated her and wanted to kill her.  Franzi says the same back to the Princess.  Anna slaps Franzi across the cheek.  Franzi slaps Anna back.  Then in unison, the two women fall onto the bed, sobbing their hearts out.  Anna wipes her eyes and asks Franzi, “Did I hurt you?”  “No,” Franzi replies.  “Did I hurt you?”  “YES!!  WAAAAAHH!!!”  This whole scene had me cracking up.  Here we just had an early example of an on-screen cat-fight.  This was easily on par with Joan Collins and Donna Mills.  Eat your heart out, Linda Evans!

The movie was not a bad film, just one that I had seen before.  I mentioned the movie The Love Parade.  You see one of them, and you have seen them both.

And just as an afterthought, I have to mention a few things at which I had to role my eyes.  First, they showed Claudette Colbert playing the violin.  She very obviously had no skill in playing the instrument.  Miriam Hopkins, on the other hand appeared to be quite adept at playing the piano.  Second, someone needs to tell the script writer that it is acceptable to say “bravo” when applauding a male performer.  When the performer is female, the proper term is “brava.”  And finally like most other musicals from that era… wait!  This was a musical?  Yeah.  The songs were just that memorable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shanghai Express – 1931 / 1932

This was a film which I instinctively knew I was going to enjoy and I was not wrong.  It had everything a good film from the early 30s is supposed to have.    It had a beautiful woman, a strong and handsome leading man, a cast of unique characters, murder, danger, intrigue, wit, drama, and a moral center.  What’s not to love?

It starred Marlena Dietrich as Magdalen, though her stage name is Shanghai Lily, a professional courtesan with hidden depths and a flawless face.  Playing opposite her was Clive Brook, playing Captain Donald “Doc” Harvey, our handsome hero with a chip on his shoulder.  The two share a secret past in which they were both to blame in a bad break-up.  And what was the main reason for their split?  What was always the reason for break-ups in the 1930s and 40s?  An unrealistic lack of communication.

It seems that a couple in love would rather split than express their true feelings.  She should know I love her, even though I can never bring myself to say it.  If he can’t tell what I am feeling, then I’m certainly not going to let him know.  It defies logic.  But I see it so often in movies and TV that I have to wonder if people actually think like this.

Of course, this leaves the couple apart from each other, but still in love, which is a good thing for Doc and Shanghai Lilly.  It is their love for each other which sees them both through the conflict of the film.  That conflict comes in the form of a Chinese revolution.

They, along with a colorful cast of stereotypes, board a train called the Shanghai Express.  Eugene Pallette played Sam Salt, a man who is obsessed with gambling, and whose every single line was about betting.  Gustav von Seyffertitz, a hypochondriac whose every single line was about being sick.  Louise Closser Hale played Mrs. Haggerty, a stuffy British woman, whose every single line was about being an uptight prude. And lastly, Emile Chautard as Major Lenard, whose every line was in French.  Not one of these four characters had any significant contributions to the plot.

But before they reach their destination, they are stopped by the Chinese police so they can arrest a high ranking officer in the revolutionary army.  If only the police had known that Henry Chang, the Commander in Chief of the revolution, played by Warner Oland, was also a passenger on the train, a lot of trouble could have been avoided.  He makes arrangements for the train to be hijacked, at which time, his true identity is revealed.  To get back his officer, Chang holds the Captain Harvey for ransom.  Chang played a one-dimensional but competent villain.

The prisoner exchange is arranged, but Doc, in order to save Lily’s honor, punches Chang, humbling him.  Chang decides to have the hero’s eyes burned out.  But Shanghai Lily, in order to save her lover from this horrible fate, offers herself in exchange for his safety.  Doc is confused by his sudden release and by Lily’s unexplained desire to stay with the evil Chang.  But it is another train passenger, Lawrence Grant, playing the part of Reverend Carmichael, the man who sees sin everywhere, who is ultimately responsible for Lily and Doc’s reconciliation.

Strangely enough, it is the Shanghai Express’s final passenger, Hui Fei, played by Anna May Wong, who has apparently been raped by Chang, who saves everyone.  In a fit of revenge, Hui murders Chang and everyone safely escapes on the train before anyone knows what happened.  But even then, the two lovers cannot talk to each other, cannot explain the reasons for their actions, leaving Doc with the unfounded belief that Lily had been leaving him for Chang because she did not love him.

The two did a good job with the somewhat far-fetched script, and they were actually fun to watch.  And I must admit that I was surprised with Marlena Dietrich.  For some reason, I always just think of her as a pretty face without too much depth as an actress, but happily, I am always proven wrong.  She created a memorable character and did it with finesse and skill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Hour With You – 1931 / 1932

Here we are once again with Maurice Chevalier, but this time there is finally a significant difference in his character.  In most other films in which I have seen him, he plays a playboy / womanizer.  But here, it was refreshing to see him as a man who is incredibly devoted to his wife.

Chevalier plays Dr. Andre Bertier.  He is very much in love with his wife, Colette, played by Jeanette MacDonald.  The two are caught kissing in the park, which was apparently frowned upon.  But they surprise the police officer by telling him they are married, and therefore are not doing anything inappropriate.  But the officer runs them off anyway.  Being a musical, there are even a few songs about how convenient it is to be married to someone you are so in love with.

The main conflict of the plot comes in the form of Colette’s best friend Mitzi, played by Genevieve Tobin.  She is a woman who is unhappy in her own marriage and decides to steal Colette’s husband for herself.  What follows is her attempts to temp him, and his refusals.

The director, Ernst Lubitsch, made some interesting choices when it came to telling the story.  For example, at several places in the movie, the character of Andre breaks the fourth wall and speaks directly to the audience, giving them a cute and cleverly written explanation of how he feels about the events.  He assures the viewers that he is in love with his wife and does not want to cheat on her, especially with her best friend.  Of course, he does it all with that charming attitude and disarming smile.  The cute French accent didn’t hurt either.

Also, in a scene where Colette and Mitzi, who have not seen each other in some time, first meet, they are both so excited that they start gabbing on like two clucking hens.  Lubitsch had them speaking fast and talking over each other so that the conversation was nothing more than just an incoherent babble.  It was a simple little thing, but it was not over-done or cheesy.

Now all that being said, there were a few things that I would have changed about the film which I need to mention.  First, the movie opens with a little song sung by the local police at the station house about how spring in Paris is the time for lovers, and therefore, many people will be behaving inappropriately all over the city.  This entire scene was unnecessary.  Maybe the movie should have opened by simply showing the different couples necking in the park before focusing on Andre and Colette.

Another thing that I actually found slightly annoying was the spoken rhyme songs.  There were several songs in this musical in which the actors didn’t sing at all.  They would speak to each other with some light music playing in the background.  At first you think that they are just delivering their dialogue.  But then you start to realize that some of what they are saying is coming out in rhymes.  Oh, this is a song!  Except that there is no melody.  Well, maybe they are just speaking… in rhythm.

Macdonald did a good enough job.  She was, at times, amusing to watch, but at other times, like when she had to cry, her acting seemed a little fake.  And I thought that the point of acting was to be believable.

Still, the movie was enjoyable enough to watch.  As musicals go, the songs, such as they were, were pretty unmemorable. But the plot had a few left turns that kept pace flowing nicely, and Chevalier is always good on the screen.

Interesting quote:  Police Officer:  “You can’t make love here.”  Colette:  “Oh no, officer.  My husband can make love anywhere.”  Apparently kissing was known as making love in the early 30s.  Not today!