Browsed by
Month: March 2012

Student of Prague, The (1913)

Student of Prague, The (1913)

Comments 1 comment

“I agree that Mr. Scapinelli shall take from this room whatever he chooseth for his own use.”

Synopsis:
A poor university student (Paul Wegener) in love with a countess (Grete Berger) unwittingly gives his reflection to a sorcerer (John Gottowt) in exchange for gold, and soon finds that his reflection is committing crimes in his name.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • German Films
  • Horror
  • Pact With the Devil
  • Silent Films

Review:
The Student of Prague (a.k.a. A Bargain With Satan) holds the distinction of being the second-oldest film listed in GFTFF, after Quo Vadis (1912). It’s primarily of interest to film fanatics for its status as what may be the first “horror” film ever made, and as a forerunner to the German Expressionist movement — but as a narrative, it hasn’t held up all that well. Indeed, it’s oddly difficult to follow what’s happening on screen (the clunky inter-titles don’t help), and other than innovative use of double exposure during the scenes when Wegener confronts or runs into his “reflection”, the direction is rather static. None of this is particularly surprising for a film made so early in the history of cinema, but film fanatics should simply be forewarned.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A provocative premise

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its historical relevance.

Links:

It (1927)

It (1927)

Comments 1 comment

“Sweet Santa, give me him.”

Synopsis:
A wealthy fop (William Austin) becomes smitten with a perky shopgirl (Clara Bow) who he believes epitomizes a certain brand of sexual magnetism known as “It”; meanwhile, Bow falls for Austin’s handsome friend (Antonio Moreno), whose parents own the department store where she works.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clara Bow Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Morality Police
  • Silent Films

Review:
Clara Bow (arguably cinema’s first sex symbol) is best known for her leading role in this iconic silent film, playing a shopgirl whose possession of “It” lands her an indirect opportunity to pursue the man of her dreams. While the narrative itself is not all that inventive (there’s little here we haven’t seen before in other romantic comedies), what makes the film worth a look is the presence of Bow, who starred in dozens of enormously popular flicks throughout the 1920s, but whose must-see filmography likely can be boiled down to this film and Wings (1927). I find Bow charming and cute, and understand her iconic status as the ultimate Flapper, but I’ll admit to not particularly understanding why she alone — among all the many beautiful shopgirls the camera pans during an early scene — epitomizes “It” (or at the very least, how one can know this from simply looking at her).

With that said, she does a fine job playing the film’s spunky, loyal heroine — a woman who willingly lies about being her roommate’s son’s mother, to prevent him from being taken away by authorities — and thus she eventually convinces us she’s very much an “It” girl worth desiring.

Note: Film fanatics interested in learning more about Bow’s tragic life story should check out the informative and compassionate 1999 documentary Clara Bow: Discovering the It Girl (narrated by Courtney Love).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Clara Bow as Betty Lou Spence

Must See?
Yes, simply to see Bow in her most iconic role. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Joyless Street, The (1925)

Joyless Street, The (1925)

Comments 0 Comment

“One cannot open a door without seeing misery in all its nakedness.”

Synopsis:
During the depths of the post-WWI Depression in Austria, two young women — the daughter (Greta Garbo) of a councillor (Jaro Furth), and a secretary (Asta Nielsen) eager to marry her poor fiance (Henry Stuart) — degrade themselves in order to survive.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Corruption
  • German Films
  • Greta Garbo Films
  • G.W. Pabst Films
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that G.W. Pabst’s “adaptation of Hugo Bettauer‘s novel” — about “how postwar inflation resulted in the financial and moral breakdown of the middle class in Austria and the exploitation and victimization of young women without money” — is “muddled and at times boring”; indeed, it’s frustratingly difficult to follow the “two loosely connected storylines”. While we can more or less make sense of Garbo’s role as the daughter of a man who gambles all his money on the stock market, her romance with Einar Hanson is underdeveloped at best; meanwhile, the more complex storyline involving Asta Nielsen as a secretary-turned-prostitute who witnesses a murder is cluttered with too many minor characters (how many women is Stuart romantically involved with, anyway?). However, it’s true that “the cinematography is superb” (it’s especially fascinating to see how Pabst and his creative team “mixed realism with expressionism”), and “the social themes are still relevant” (albeit dealt with in an overly heavy-handed manner). Meanwhile, film fanatics may be curious to see the film which is perhaps “most famous for bringing Greta Garbo to the attention of Hollywood”; as Peary notes, “those stunning eyes, that mournful expression…, and her mysteriously erotic quality made her a natural for Hollywood love stories.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Greta Garbo in a soon-to-be-star-making supporting role
  • Edgar Ulmer’s Expressionist/realist sets
  • Fine, atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No, though diehard film fanatics may want to check it out.

Links:

Sparrows (1926)

Sparrows (1926)

Comments 1 comment

“Please come and take us away from the Grimses cause they are awful mean to us.”

Synopsis:
A teenaged orphan (Mary Pickford) cares for a group of younger children hidden away on a swamp-filled “baby farm” run by cruel Mr. Grimes (Gustav von Seyffertitz) and his wife (Charlotte Mineau). When Mr. Grimes takes in the kidnapped baby (Mary Louise Miller) of a millionaire (Roy Stewart), Pickford decides it’s time to finally help her “siblings” try to escape.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Child Abuse
  • Deep South
  • Kidnapping
  • Mary Pickford Films
  • Orphans
  • Silent Films

Review:
Mary Pickford’s next-to-last silent film represented a return to her earlier success playing heroines much younger than her actual age (which was 34 at the time). Sparrows is now widely acclaimed as not only one of Pickford’s best titles, but as a top-notch “horror” film of the silent era, given its wonderfully atmospheric Expressionist sets and its almost fairy tale-like portrayal of a group of innocents seeking escape from their tyrannical oppressor. Interestingly, it was directed by the notorious William “One-Shot” Beaudine, whose laughably awful later films (see here, here, and here) show absolutely no indication of his earlier success in silent cinema (and to be fair, he simply must have done multiple takes when shooting this film — how could he not, when working with a passel of child actors?). Meanwhile, the storyline itself remains fascinating simply as a glimpse of the practice known as “baby farming” (a term no longer in use, but sadly once quite prevalent).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Mary Pickford as “Mama Molly”
  • An interesting depiction of the evils of “baby farming”
  • Fine art direction and sets
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, to see Pickford in her final “child” role. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Racket, The (1928)

Racket, The (1928)

Comments 1 comment

“This is the last murder you’ll ever get away with in my district!”

Synopsis:
During the Prohibition era, a police captain (Thomas Meighan) is determined to nab a prominent bootlegging gangster (Louis Wolheim) who has consistently used political connections to elude arrest.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bootlegging
  • Cat-and-Mouse
  • Corruption
  • Gangsters
  • Play Adaptation
  • Police
  • Silent Films

Review:
This early Academy Award-nominee for Best Picture — produced by Howard Hughes, directed by Lewis Milestone, and based on a popular Broadway play by Bartlett Cormack — gained renewed attention several years ago when Turner Classic Movies collaborated with the University of Nevada at Las Vegas to restore it; it’s still unavailable on DVD, but naturally can be viewed on TCM. It remains a fine if undistinguished tale of crime and corruption in a city much like Chicago, and clearly serves as a harbinger of the wave of 1930s crime dramas. Pug-faced Wolheim — a “former mathematics instructor” (!) — is perfectly cast in the lead role as smug “Nick Scarsi” (he would be right at home in a Scorsese flick), and Marie Prevost displays sassy pre-Code sensuality as a cynical moll. Unfortunately, The Racket is a classic example of a silent film that would have greatly benefited from the use of sound, given how much pithy dialogue we instead must read from inter-titles; my favorite is “voiced” by Prevost, as she says to a naive suitor, “I wonder what’ll happen if you ever have a baby, and nobody’s tipped you off about storks.” (It doesn’t quite make sense, yet somehow conveys exactly what she intends to get across.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Louis Wolheim as Nick Scarsi
  • Marie Prevost as Helen
  • Fine direction by Lewis Milestone

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its status as a forerunner to the cycle of 1930s crime flicks. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

It’$ Only Money (1962)

It’$ Only Money (1962)

Comments 1 comment

“I love private investigators! I want you to investigate me!”

Synopsis:
While apprenticing with a private eye (Jesse White), a clutzy television repairman (Jerry Lewis) accidentally discovers he’s the long-lost nephew of a millionairess (Mae Questel) whose slimy fiancee/lawyer (Zachary Scott) is colluding with her butler (Jack Weston) to acquire her money at any cost.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Amateur Sleuths
  • Comedy
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Frank Tashlin Films
  • Inheritance
  • Jerry Lewis Films
  • Zachary Scott Films

Review:
This Frank Tashlin-directed private-eye spoof is prime Jerry Lewis material, affording his nebbishy alter-ego plenty of opportunities to engage in broadly humorous slapstick antics. Tashlin fills the screen with numerous inventive sight gags, and the supporting cast members all portray their characters with appropriately cartoonish flair: Zachary Scott conveys a steady level of barely concealed contempt for his bride-to-be, the pudgy but relentlessly good-natured Mae Questel (voice of Betty Boop and Olive Oyl):

while Jack Weston is gleefully homicidal as Scott’s accomplice:

and Jesse White demonstrates unexpected sex-appeal as the aptly named “Pete Flint”.

Less successful is buxomy Joan O’Brien as Questel’s personal nurse, whose character seems to waver between genuine concern for Lewis’s safety and an undeniably gold-digging itch (does she really love him?).

Ultimately, this one is only must-see viewing for diehard Lewis fans, but film fanatics likely won’t feel their time has been wasted.

Note: Among the fifteen Jerry Lewis titles included in GFTFF (too many!), I recommend that ffs check out the following: At War With the Army (1950), Artists and Models (1955), The Bellboy (1960), The Nutty Professor (1963), and King of Comedy (1982); The Errand Boy (1961) is also worth a look simply for its brilliant “orchestra pantomime” scene.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Many fun, cartoonish sight gags

Must See?
No, though of course Jerry Lewis fans will want to check it out.

Links:

Unfaithfully Yours (1948)

Unfaithfully Yours (1948)

Comments 1 comment

“Oh Alfred, what is the matter? You’re acting like a crocodile with a toothache.”

Synopsis:
When a renowned conductor (Rex Harrison) is led to believe that his beautiful young wife (Linda Darnell) is cheating on him with his secretary (Kurt Kreuger), he concocts several elaborate scenarios for revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Black Comedy
  • Infidelity
  • Linda Darnell Films
  • Preston Sturges Films
  • Revenge
  • Rex Harrison Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “Preston Sturges comedy about the fury beneath the serene façade of supposedly happy, trusting marriages” is “uncharacteristically cynical”, pointing out that it “lost money and got mixed reviews when it came out”, but that “many modern critics regard it as a masterpiece”; however, he concedes that “while there are some sparkling moments … it’s the worst of Sturges’ forties comedies”. He argues that “the subject itself [is] distasteful”, and that “the throat-slashing of Darnell in the first fantasy is too gruesome for a comedy” — indeed, “it’s impossible to forgive Harrison after he conceives such an act”. He also points out that “except for Harrison’s difficulties with a recording machine” (an extended sequence which comprises “the most chaotic slapstick routine in any Sturges film”), the slapstick is “annoying” rather than funny. Finally, he argues that “Darnell’s character is [not only] given little humorous to say” but is “miscast anyway”, and he laments that “the supporting parts aren’t worthy of the fine actors who play them”.

I’m almost entirely in agreement with Peary’s review of this pitch-black comedy, which I recall finding off-puttingly distasteful as a teenage ff (and which still doesn’t sit quite right with me today). While I’m much better able at this point to appreciate Sturges’ darkly cynical sense of humor (I now find his clever screenplay creatively conceived, at the very least), I’m frustrated by my inability to relate to the central protagonist. Sure, we’ve probably all imagined some form of unpleasant revenge during our darkest moments of fury — but Harrison’s reactions are simply over-the-top, given that he never actually confirms Darnell’s betrayal. Indeed, while I disagree with Peary that Darnell is miscast (I think she does a fine job in a tricky role), we can’t help wondering why she’s so willing to forgive him time and again for his atrocious (real-life) treatment of her. Ultimately, this is a film most ffs will be curious to check out — given that all of Sturges’ films possess moments of brilliance — but not one I’d consider must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Linda Darnell as Daphne
  • Edgar Kennedy as Detective Sweeney
  • An often-clever (if simultaneously off-putting) screenplay by Sturges

Must See?
No, though Sturges fans will clearly want to check it out, and it’s worth a one-time look.

Links:

Intolerance (1916)

Intolerance (1916)

Comments 1 comment

“Our play is made up of four separate stories, laid in different periods of history, each with its own set of characters. Each story shoes how hatred and intolerance, through all the ages, have battled against love and charity.”

Synopsis:
Four stories set in different time periods — ancient Babylonia, 16th century France, the era of Christ, and early 20th century America — portray the toxic outcomes of intolerance and inhumanity.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • D.W. Griffith Films
  • Episodic Films
  • Falsely Accused
  • Historical Drama
  • Morality Police
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is almost uniformly positive in his review of D.W. Griffith’s “most ambitious work”, an “epic consist[ing] of four stories that show ‘intolerance’ (religious, political, social) at work”. He refers to it as an “amazing, thrilling movie” (at least when “seen on a large screen”), and calls it, “in the limited terms of visual storytelling, probably the greatest of all films”. He notes that “Griffith exhibit[s] unparalleled visual power during the individual segments”, but that “his real strength is in editing”, given that he’s “able to build suspense within episodes by strategically mixing perfectly timed long-shots and extreme close-ups”, and to build suspense “for the entire film by cutting back and forth between the various episodes so that they all build to their climaxes at the same time”. He points out that Griffith’s “montage techniques were studied and copied worldwide”, making this an undeniably ‘historically relevant’ film, one which all film fanatics will surely want to visit at some point.

With that said, there’s no denying that this three-hour-long silent movie will, for most ffs, feel like a bit of a long haul to get through. While Peary’s only complaint about the film is that Griffith’s “theme of ‘intolerance’ is a feeble link between the episodes” (he notes that Griffith “seems passionate only about the modern story”), I would argue that Griffith’s overly pedantic presentation style comes across as terribly dated throughout, and will be off-putting to most young ffs. Meanwhile, his groundbreaking attempt to weave numerous stories together has the unfortunate side effect of shifting our attention away from each scenario just as we’re beginning to make sense of it (and the characters). Indeed, despite its undeniable historical value, it’s difficult for me to agree with Peary that “this film has greatness written all over it”, simply given that it doesn’t touch me on an emotional level. I’m ultimately much more aligned with the sentiment of Time Out’s reviewer, who argues that despite the film’s “overwhelming” “visual poetry”, its “thematic approach no longer works”, and the “title cards are [both] stiffly Victorian and sometimes laughably pedantic”. As Chris Edwards argues in his “Silent Volume” blog, Intolerance “is not a silent film for someone new to the medium.”

Of special interest, however, is what Time Out’s reviewer refers to as “the unbridled eroticism of the Babylon harem scenes”, which “demonstrate just what Hollywood lost when it later bowed to the censorship of the Hays Code”; indeed, these scenes are presented with such surprising casualness and lack of moral approbation that one can’t help feeling a renewed respect for Griffith’s sensibilities. Meanwhile, the enormously expensive, expansive sets truly are astonishing, and the lengthy recreation of a Babylonian battle is especially impressive in its rigor and attention to detail. I’m also fond of Mae Marsh’s performance as the female protagonist of the modern episode, playing a young woman whose falsely accused husband (Robert Harron) simply can’t seem to get a break in life; while her travails are presented in an overly melodramatic fashion, we remain fascinated throughout by her uniquely expressive face.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Stunningly grandiose sets
  • Refreshingly unbridled Pre-Code sensuality (during the Babylonian “Love Palace” scenes)
  • Mae Marsh as the Dear One

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical relevance. Available for free viewing at www.archive.org.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

My Best Girl (1927)

My Best Girl (1927)

Comments 1 comment

“You wouldn’t have kissed me if I weren’t your best girl.”

Synopsis:
A stockgirl (Mary Pickford) in a five-and-dime falls in love with a new employee (Charles Rogers), not realizing he’s really the wealthy heir of the store, and already engaged to a society girl (Avonne Taylor).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Mary Pickford Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that “Mary Pickford’s last silent film is perhaps her best”, noting that she “plays one of her few adult parts” (not quite a true statement, actually) “and shows surprising sophistication as both a light comedienne and a romantic lead” (definitely true). He points out that “with her appealing combination of spunk, nobility, vulnerability, and tenderness, she recalls Janet Gaynor (whom she resembles slightly)”. He refers to the comedic film itself as “extremely charming”, noting that the “courtship of Rogers (who never was better) and Pickford (on the back of a truck, in a crate in the stockroom) is very sweet and convincing”, and reminds us that “Rogers and Pickford would marry 10 years later” (for life). He accurately notes that there are “funny sight gags” and “some excellent use of L.A. streets”.

In his Alternate Oscars book (where he gives Pickford the Best Actress award for the year), Peary points out that My Best Girl is a “semi-remake of the recent It, starring Clara Bow”, with both films featuring a likeable young shopgirl who falls in love with the store’s wealthy heir. However, one minor problem with My Best Girl is that the otherwise charming Rogers prolongs his real identity from Pickford for far too long. While we understand that he must maintain his deception until he’s proven himself worthy to his father (by advancing his career at the store without the help of his name), there’s no excuse for his continued deception after this; we can’t help feeling sorry for Pickford as she’s kept in the dark by the man she loves — and we certainly don’t blame her for her complex, conflicted reaction upon learning the truth. Regardless, if one can accept this discomfiting narrative hitch, the film remains an enjoyable cross-class romantic comedy, one which allowed Pickford to play a character perhaps closest to her own life story.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Mary Pickford as Maggie
  • Charles “Buddy” Rogers as Joe
  • Fine cinematography by David Kesson and Charles Rosher

Must See?
Yes, for Pickford’s fine performance.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Blood and Sand (1922)

Blood and Sand (1922)

Comments 1 comment

“In a man’s life there is sometimes a good love and a bad love.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring bullfighter (Rudolph Valentino) marries his childhood sweetheart (Lila Lee), but breaks her heart by having an affair with a vampish noblewoman (Nita Naldi).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bullfighting
  • Femmes Fatales
  • Infidelity
  • Rudolph Valentino Films
  • Silent Films

Review:
This enormously popular Rudolph Valentino vehicle (directed by Fred Niblo, and based on a novel by Vicente Blasco Ibanez) was purportedly one of Valentino’s personal favorites, but hasn’t held up all that well for modern audiences. Other than some refreshingly candid Pre-Code sadomasochism (with Naldi biting Valentino’s hand in an act of aggressive erotic pursuit), the cliched storyline is largely uninspired, and the bullfight scenes come across as patently inserted external footage. Meanwhile, pedantic attempts to convince audiences that bullfighting is a bloodthirsty sport worthy of condemning (“The wide world over, cruelty is disguised as sport to gratify man’s lust for excitement”) are insufficiently explored, and ultimately just feel hypocritical, given the clear valorization of Valentino’s character. Remade by Rouben Mamoulian in 1941 with Tyrone Power, Linda Darnell, and Rita Hayworth.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some surprisingly candid pre-Code sensuality

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply to see Valentino in one of his best-known roles. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: