FilmFanatic.org

Tales of Manhattan (1942)

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:30:31 +0000

“Do you know what it is to look into a woman’s eyes when she’s lying?”

Synopsis:
An actor (Charles Boyer) embroiled in a dangerous love triangle with a woman (Rita Hayworth) and her suspicious husband (Thomas Mitchell) is the first owner of a tailcoat which is eventually passed down to a variety of individuals in diverse circumstances.

Genres:

Review:
Episodic (or omnibus) films can be notoriously difficult to get “right”, often leaving one with a wish that certain segments had been deleted altogether, or others expanded. Julien Duvivier’s delightful Tales of Manhattan remains an exception to this rule. Only one vignette (a comedic skit with W.C. Fields) doesn’t really seem to “fit” — and lo and behold, it was actually taken out before the film was originally screened! (How in the world was such good sense actually exercised?!) The connecting “storyline” (the fate of a tailcoat) is thin but sufficient to hold the narratives together — beginning with an opening segment involving Boyer’s doomed romance with a dubiously committed married woman (Hayworth) whose husband owns a scary number of guns. This story is likely my least favorite of the bunch, but “works” on a visual level (Joseph Walker’s cinematography is appropriately noir-ish) and provides a neat twist ending.

The second vignette — a comedic gem involving Ginger Rogers’ discovery of a love note in the pocket of her fiance (Cesar Romero), who quickly calls in his friend (Henry Fonda) to cover for him, with truly unexpected results — is probably the film’s highlight, neatly showcasing how to move a zingy storyline from A to Z within just over 20 well-used minutes. The next story — about a poor composer (Charles Laughton) given a life-altering opportunity to conduct an orchestra, only to find that the too-small second-hand tailcoat his wife (Elsa Lanchester) has purchased for him causes him unexpected grief — is decidedly bittersweet and surreal, ending with a powerful visual statement. (Indeed, this vignette could easily have been filmed without dialogue.)

The fourth vignette — about a down-on-his-luck man (Edward G. Robinson) who dons the patched tailcoat to attend a college reunion, making up tales about his recent successes — is the one most often cited by viewers who remember the film, and it is indeed a bittersweet, surprisingly touching tale; watch for George Sanders in a typically caddish supporting role. The fifth story (the one cut from the original screening version) is the shortest, and — as indicated previously — the least satisfying. W.C. Fields embodies a variation on his classically tippling self, though with the ironic twist that his character’s tee-totaling lecturer gets drunk accidentally when the coconut milk he’s touting to his audience is spiked with liquor. It goes absolutely nowhere, and fails to entertain on any level (though it’s always nice to catch a glimpse of Margaret Dumont, here playing the event’s hostess).

The sixth and final vignette involves a crook (J. Carroll Naish) who steals the tailcoat, robs a casino, then drops the coat from his getaway plane when it catches fire, pockets full of stolen cash. It lands in the hands of a poor sharecropper (Paul Robeson) and his wife (Ethel Waters), whose faith leads them to believe that they should share the money with their neighbors, only doling it out for items that were sincerely prayed for. It was criticized by Robeson himself as demeaning to Blacks by presenting them as “childlike and innocent”, but while I sympathize with his perspective, I can’t quite say I agree. Rather, the characters here seem to me to be fully human, with the best interests of all at heart — and the closing scene, in which the tattered tailcoat meets what is likely its final fate, is surprisingly moving. This segment is an entirely fitting finale to a most enjoyable film overall.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

A series of uniquely touching and/or humorous vignettes
Fine performances throughout
Joseph Walker’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a delightful omnibus film.

Categories

Good Show

Links:

Male and Female (1919)

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:08:04 +0000

“Would you put a Jack Daw and a Bird of Paradise in the same cage?”

Synopsis:
A butler (Thomas Meighan) with a crush on the aristocratic Lady (Gloria Swanson) he works for is given an unexpected chance to romance her when she and her family are shipwrecked on a deserted island, and Meighan becomes their de facto ruler.

Genres:

Review:
Despite Gloria Swanson’s status as one of the most popular and beloved actresses of the silent era, Peary only lists two of her pre-Sunset Boulevard titles in his GFTFF: Erich von Stroheim’s notoriously unfinished Queen Kelly (1929), and this much earlier Cecil B. DeMille title (which is credited with helping the 20-year-old Swanson achieve fame as a romantic lead). Adapted from J.M. Barrie’s play The Admirable Crichton, it tells a farcical fable about what might happen if all class-based trappings were suddenly stripped away, leaving both the nobility and the working class to fend for themselves in nature. Naturally, the aristocratic ninnies in this story haven’t the first clue how to survive, leaving it conveniently up to Meighan to take charge and show them how to build a fire, construct shelter, etc. Things turn undeniably silly when Meighan abuses his privileges to become a petty tyrant, fending off advances from not only the reformed Swanson, but a pretty young maid (Lila Lee) with a ferocious crush of her own on Meighan. However, while this film hasn’t dated well enough to remain must-see viewing on its own merits, it’s worth a look simply to see beautiful young Swanson in one her best-known early roles.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

An amusing exploration of class relations

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look to see young Swanson at the height of her beauty. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Dangerous (1935)

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:49:34 +0000

“I’m bad for people. I don’t mean to be, but I can’t help myself.”

Synopsis:
A down-and-out actress (Bette Davis) seduces an admiring architect (Franchot Tone), who breaks off his engagement with his socialite girlfriend (Margaret Lindsay) to help revive Davis’s failing career.

Genres:

Review:
Bette Davis’s Oscar-winning performance in Dangerous may be one of the first instances of an Academy Award being given to an actor or actress as a consolation prize for not winning the previous year, when he or she more clearly deserved it. In this case, most (including Peary) believe that Davis should have won an Oscar instead for her breakthrough performance in Of Human Bondage (1934), which is certainly the much better film. Indeed, Dangerous — based on Laird Doyle’s story “Hard Luck Dame” — remains a poorly written and conceived melodrama with a ludicrous ending and no clear sense of who to root for or why. Tone comes across like the ultimate fool: from the moment he naively believes he can bring a beautiful but notoriously damaged young actress back to his country home for the weekend and not cause potential risk to his happy engagement with Lindsay, we lose all respect for him, making it difficult to care much about either him or the story’s resolution. Yet Davis’s performance shines through the dross of the narrative, presenting us with a fully dimensional, deeply flawed femme fatale with a host of “dangerous” demons in her closet. She alone makes this film worth seeking out for a one-time look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Bette Davis as Joyce Heath (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for Davis’s Oscar-winning performance.

Links:

Shining Victory (1941)

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:28:09 +0000

“There’s no sentiment in science, Mary — just the operation of natural laws.”

Synopsis:
A moody psychiatrist (James Stephenson) working at an asylum is at first displeased by the new assistant (Geraldine Fitzgerald) assigned to him, but gradually grows to respect and love her; meanwhile, his search for a cure to dementia leads him to take increasingly drastic measures.

Genres:

Review:
Based on the play Jupiter Laughs by A.J. Cronin, Irving Rapper’s directorial debut remains a less-than-satisfying affair on most accounts. The primary problem lies with the uneven (and ultimately uninteresting) storyline, which begins by showing us Stephenson’s unfair ouster from a Hungarian laboratory run by corrupt Professor Von Reiter (Sig Ruman), who brazenly takes credit for Stephenson’s work, then arranges to have him deported. One imagines this harrowing narrative thread will lead somewhere, but it never does — rather, it seems intended primarily to show us how put-upon poor Dr. Venner (Stephenson) has been, perhaps as an excuse for his decidedly mercurial and pigheaded attitude thereafter. Other than his Relentless Search For a Cure, the plot primarily revolves around his increasingly romantic relationship with Fitzgerald — yet this, too, proves unsatisfying; besides her appreciation for his genius (and perhaps a hint of compassion), what exactly does she see in him? Meanwhile, a pivotal subplot involving a disturbed employee (Barbara Reid) at the asylum seems like nothing more than a calculated attempt to inject a sense of psychological menace into the proceedings. Feel free to skip this one.

Note: Bette Davis purportedly appears in a brief cameo role as a nurse in this film, but I couldn’t spot her.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Geraldine Fitzgerald as Dr. Mary Murray
James Wong Howe’s cinematography

Must See?
No; you don’t need to bother seeking this one out.

Links:

Three Smart Girls (1936)

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 02:27:39 +0000

“I’m not pig-headed, I’m strong-minded.”

Synopsis:
Three sisters (Nan Grey, Barbara Read, and Deanna Durbin) try to prevent their estranged father (Charles Winninger) from marrying a gold-digger (Binnie Barnes) by hiring a man (Ray Milland) they believe is a destitute count to woo Barnes.

Genres:

Review:
Teenage singing sensation Deanna Durbin — perhaps best known as Judy Garland’s one-time “competitor” — rose to international stardom in this chipper romantic comedy about a trio of can-do sisters desperate to prevent their father from marrying a calculating gold-digger. A little of Durbin goes a long way, and given that she’s only one among three sisters equally invested in the situation, this is the perfect introduction to her talents (see my review of One Hundred Men and a Girl for an example of too much Durbin in one sitting). Barnes is amusingly predatory, Alice Brady is perfectly cast as Barnes’ meddling mother, and the mistaken-identities storyline involving Milland’s impersonation of a destitute count is nicely handled (if, naturally, terribly far-fetched). However, I have a hard time buying the film’s overarching subplot involving Winninger’s relationship with his daughters: would they really react with such unmitigated glee — rather than, say, muted anger or conflicted emotions — upon seeing him for the first time in ten years? And why, exactly, has he stayed away from them for so long? (This point is never explained.) Regardless, this type of escapist fluff was appealing enough to audiences at the time to help bring Universal Studios out of near-bankruptcy, and remains worth a look simply to see Durbin at her freshest.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Deanna Durbin as Penny
Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady as “Precious” and her mother
Ray Milland as Michael

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as the film which made Durbin an international star.

Categories

Historically Relevant

Links:

Variety (1925)

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:46:36 +0000

“You can consider yourself lucky — you’ve got a charming little wife.”

Synopsis:
A side-show manager (Emil Jannings) leaves his wife (Maly Delschaft) and infant child to run away with a beautiful orphan (Lya De Putti), and they begin a new life together as trapeze artists. Their happiness is compromised, however, when a world-famous performer (Warwick Ward) asks them to join his team, and Ward seduces De Putti.

Genres:

Review:
Directed by E.A. Dupont, Variety — a.k.a. Jealousy (a more fitting title) — was one of the most popular films in the world the year it was released, though it was notoriously censored and cut down severely in length before American audiences were allowed to view it (see the All Movie review for more information). It remains a little-seen yet engaging tale of betrayal and jealousy, set within the seamy-by-default world of carnivals and circuses, with one particularly hair-raising scene taking place during a death-defying trapeze act. Jannings is likely best known for his central role in The Blue Angel (1930) with Marlene Dietrich, and there are certainly parallels between the two sorry protagonists, each of whom allow seduction by a young temptress to lead to their downfall. Dupont, working with D.P. Karl Freund, films the story with Expressionist flair, incorporating hints of neo-realism as well (as in the shot of the downtrodden young women Jannings manages in his sideshow).

Note: Interestingly, Jannings is presented here as somewhat of a feminized caretaker, given that we watch him changing his infant son’s diaper (surely the earliest instance of this on screen!), and in general taking more ownership over his son’s well-being than one would expect; it’s unfortunate that all narrative threads relating to his former marriage and family are dropped once he runs away with De Putti.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Fine central performances
Expressionistic direction
Karl Freund’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a fine silent melodrama. Listed as a film with Historical importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Good Show

Links:

Three Bad Men (1926)

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:14:52 +0000

“Don’t ever be afraid o’ nothin’, Missy — because the three of us will be watchin’ over you.”

Synopsis:
In the 1800s, three bandits (Tom Santschi, J. Farrell MacDonald, and Frank Campeau) following a wagon train come to the aid of a young woman (Olive Borden) whose father has just been killed. Soon they decide she needs a suitable husband to care for her, and set their sights on a handsome young cowboy (George O’Brien).

Genres:

Review:
Peary lists no less than 44 of prolific director John Ford’s films in his GFTFF; of these, three — Straight Shooting (1917), The Iron Horse (1924), and this title — are from the silent era, and will primarily be of interest to those curious to see how Ford’s talents developed over the years. Based on a novel by Herman Whitaker, Three Bad Men tells the semi-humorous tale of three petty bandits with hearts of gold, who are inexplicably drawn to caring for the lovely young fatherless woman they encounter along a wagon train. As noted by Mike Grost in his analysis of Ford’s films, there’s an interesting gay subtext in the bandits’ search for Borden’s perfect mate, as they check out numerous men, including one particularly fey dandy about whom they comment, “If a man’s heart is in the right place, it don’t matter what sex he belongs to.” (!) Meanwhile, Ford’s typical “male bonding” theme can also be seen in the bandits’ close friendship with one another. The second half of the film shifts away from humor towards adventure, as an exciting land grab takes place, and a subplot involving Santschi’s sister leads to a murderous manhunt. Throughout, Borden remains refreshingly sassy, O’Brien appropriately hunky, and Ford’s direction solid.

Note: Try to watch the 2007 version with Dana Kaproff’s multi-faceted score; it stands head-and-shoulders above most silent-era soundtracks.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Olive Borden as Lee
The powerful land-grab sequence
Fine cinematography and direction

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly recommended for Ford fans.

Links:

Freshman, The (1925)

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 17:08:00 +0000

“I’ve got a new one on Speedy: he thinks he made the football team, and he’s only the water boy!”

Synopsis:
An enthusiastic student (Harold Lloyd) looks forward to becoming a freshman in college, where he imagines he will be the most popular guy on campus; but much to the chagrin of his new sweetheart (Jobyna Ralston), he becomes a laughing stock instead.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Harold Lloyd usually played cheery characters who wouldn’t be denied success at whatever it is they want” — and his performance here as “Speedy” is no exception. He argues that while the section in which Lloyd “is determined to be the star of the big game” remains “one of Lloyd’s most hilarious sequences”, the “entire film is filled with great comedy” — especially the “noteworthy” party sequence in which “Lloyd wears a hastily sewn tux which unravels a piece at a time”. Peary writes that “other gags remind [him] of Buster Keaton”, and argues that the “film is ideal to be on a double bill with Keaton’s College.” I’m in agreement with Peary’s enthusiasm. While it’s painful to see Lloyd’s character remain a deluded chump for so long, we take solace in the love he receives from his sweet, loyal girlfriend (Ralston), and feel inspired by his inability to let the opinions of others color his own self-worth. Among the many Lloyd titles listed in GFTFF, this remains one of the few — along with Grandma’s Boy (1922), Safety Last! (1923), and The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (1947) — that all film fanatics should check out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Several cleverly conceived comedic sequences
The genuinely sweet romance between Lloyd and Ralston

Must See?
Yes, as one of Lloyd’s most famous and popular films.

Categories

Genuine Classic

Links:

One Hundred Men and a Girl (1937)

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:51:46 +0000

“Maybe we need more orchestras!”

Synopsis:
The daughter (Deanna Durbin) of an out-of-work classical trombonist (Adolph Menjou) convinces a wealthy socialite (Alice Brady) to fund the creation of a new orchestra — but when Brady’s husband (Eugene Pallette) finds out, he refuses to let the scheme move forward; meanwhile, the great conductor Leopold Stokowski is equally adamant in his refusal to help Durbin or her father.

Genres:

Review:
Deanna Durbin’s follow-up to her breakthrough role in Three Smart Girls (1936) was this hyperkinetic fairytale about a can-do teen with enough tenacity and persistence to overcome literally any obstacle placed in her way. For Depression-era audiences, a story about how nearly impossible it is for the have-nots to gain access to a world of employment and privilege must have felt right on target, but today the film simply comes across like a Vehicle — both for Durbin (who, naturally, is asked to sing a few random songs) and for Stokowski (who, naturally, gets to conduct a few pieces with his orchestra). While there’s something undeniably admirable about Durbin’s fearless performance (she rarely pauses to take a breath), her character eventually wears on one’s nerves; she’s like Judy Garland in overdrive, minus the vulnerability. All film fanatics should be familiar with Durbin’s work, given what an erstwhile phenomenon she was — but I recommend sticking with Three Smart Girls instead.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Deanna Durbin’s enthusiastic (if ultimately wearying) performance as Patsy

Must See?
No; this one is really only must-see for Durbin enthusiasts.

Links:

tom thumb (1958)

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 03:36:55 +0000

“He’s not for sale; he’s my son!”

Synopsis:
A poor woodcutter (Bernard Miles) and his wife (Jessie Matthews) wish for a son of any size, and are delighted when the Forest Queen (June Thorburn) blesses them with Tom Thumb (Russ Tamblyn). When a pair of thieves (Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers) convince Tom to help them steal a bag of gold, his parents are falsely accused of the theft, and Tom enlists the help of his friend Woody (Alan Young) to capture the real culprits.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Russ Tamblyn had his best role” in this “classic M-G-M production of the Grimm fairytale, directed by George Pal”. He notes that the “film is colorful, isn’t at all schmaltzy, and has imaginatively designed sets and a spectacular musical number in which the remarkably talented Tamblyn does a great dance with Pal’s puppets”. However, he concedes that “if you’re an adult, you may wish you were a kid again so you could enjoy it as you once did”. I’m largely in agreement with Peary, though not quite as enthusiastic. It’s fun to see Pal’s classic “Puppetooning” on screen, and Tamblyn’s athletic dancing is consistently superb, but his character is poorly conceived; indeed, it’s downright creepy seeing the 24-year-old Tamblyn placed into a cradle by his adoring adoptive parents — and one never quite understands exactly how old he’s meant to be (nor, for that matter, where he came from before magically appearing on their doorstep).

Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers are appropriately buffoonish as the “evil twosome who want to use Tom for their own ends”, but their quibbling schtick eventually wears out its welcome; and while Miles and Matthews make a sweet elderly couple, they aren’t given much screentime after the nicely conceived opening sequences. Meanwhile, the requisite romantic subplot — between lovely Thorburn and Young (who will be forever etched in my mind’s eye alongside Mr. Ed) — is, perhaps predictably, rather insipid. With all that said, there’s enough life and color to this production that ff parents will surely feel fine putting it in front of their kids. Pinocchio it ain’t — but then few films are.

Note: If you think you vaguely recognize Matthews from somewhere, it may be from her starring role 20+ years earlier in the enormously successful British musical Evergreen (1934).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Russ Tamblyn’s athletic dancing
Fine special effects

Must See?
No, though those interested in Pal’s Puppetooning will certainly want to check it out.

Links: