Tol’able David (1921)

Tol’able David (1921)

“You won’t be a man for a spell yet, David. But you’re tol’able… just tol’able.”

Synopsis:
A young man (Richard Barthelmess) in a close-knit West Virginian family must take on adult responsibilities when violent new neighbors (Walter P. Lewis, Ernest Torrence, and Ralph Yearsley) critically injure his married brother (Warner Richmond) and precipitate the death of his father (Edmund Gurney).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • Silent Films

Review:
I’ll admit to being slightly puzzled about the status of this popular silent melodrama as a beloved favorite of many, and as a film specifically selected for preservation by the National Registry as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”. It tells the rather simple tale of a pastoral existence rudely shattered by a family of bullying thugs (is there significance to their last name being Hatburn, so remarkably close to Hatfield?), paralleled by an adolescent’s desperate desire to come of age — in part to impress the pretty girl next door (Gladys Hulette). To that end, the sweet budding romance between Barthelmess (rightfully acknowledged as one of the most beautiful of all male silent stars) and Hulette remains the film’s primary selling point, though it’s overshadowed by numerous other melodramatic plot elements. Torrence is appropriately menacing as the main baddie of the piece, but his performance ultimately lacks nuance; I prefer his role as the villainous Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes (1932) instead.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Richard Barthelmess as David
  • Gladys Hulette as Esther Hatburn

Must See?
No. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book. Available for free viewing at www.archive.org.

Links:

Holy Matrimony (1943)

Holy Matrimony (1943)

“Don’t you understand? You’re burying the wrong man!”

Synopsis:
Desperately seeking to avoid media attention, a famous but reclusive painter named Priam Farll (Monty Woolley) assumes the identity of his deceased valet, Henry Leek (Eric Blore), and marries the woman (Gracie Fields) Leek had recently contacted via a matrimonial agency. His peaceful life of anonymity is soon disrupted, however, when an ambitious art dealer (Laird Cregar) begins to sell his latest paintings, and suspicions arise that “Priam Farll” isn’t really dead.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Comedy
  • Laird Cregar Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Monty Woolley Films

Review:
Monty Woolley is perhaps best known for his starring role in Moss Hart and George S. Kaufman’s acerbically madcap play The Man Who Came to Dinner (turned into a film in 1942) — yet his titular performance as the too-nasty-for-words theater critic Sheridan Whiteside doesn’t display him in anything close to his best light. I much prefer Woolley’s Oscar-nominated role in the wartime adventure drama The Pied Piper (1942), as well as his work in this gentle “comedy of errors”, about a world-class painter so desperate to be left alone that he willingly adopts another identity altogether. While Nunnally Johnson’s Oscar-nominated screenplay (based on a novel by Arnold Bennett) strains credibility time and again, it presents such an appealing scenario in the unlikely marriage between Woolley and Fields that one willingly suspends disbelief and criticism.

Comedienne and singer Gracie Fields was once one of England’s most popular performers, and her appeal is in full evidence here. From the moment she mistakes Woolley for his valet and rescues him from a trip to the jailhouse, we can’t help breathing a sigh of relief for the good fortune Woolley — who’s accustomed to having all his needs taken care of by someone else — has chanced upon. Their marriage-of-convenience is nothing short of charming, thanks in large part to Fields’ unceasing good grace and common sense, and Woolley’s clear appreciation of said characteristics. The complications that inevitably ensue — including the appearance of Blore’s estranged wife (Una O’Connor) and grown sons, and Fields’ sudden need to earn additional money for house payments — simply allow Fields to show us once and again why Woolley’s character is a damned lucky fellow. (And fortunately, he knows it!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Gracie Fields as Alice
  • Monty Woolley as Priam/Henry

Must See?
Yes, for the lead performances.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Man in the Iron Mask, The (1939)

Man in the Iron Mask, The (1939)

“To any other man in this kingdom, twin sons would be a blessing.”

Synopsis:
When cursed with the birth of twin sons, King Louis XIII (Albert Dekker) sends his second-born son away to live with his loyal musketeer, D’Artagnan (Warren William), and grooms his first-born, Louis, as the French dauphin. Upon learning of his brother’s existence, grown Louis (Louis Hayward) schemes to have his twin (also Hayward) “disposed of”, in the most diabolical way possible.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Hale Films
  • Historical Drama
  • James Whale Films
  • Joan Bennett Films
  • Louis Hayward Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Twins
  • Warren William Films

Review:
It’s interesting to note that iconic horror director James Whale — best known for helming Frankenstein (1931), The Invisible Man (1933), and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) — was responsible for this adaptation of the third part of Alexander Dumas’ final novel about the loyal Musketeers of France, given that it shows little evidence of his distinctive stylistic presence. With that said, it remains a solidly enjoyable — if slightly over-long — adventure tale, and features a truly noteworthy set of lead performances by Louis Hayward as both despotic King Louis XIV and his exiled twin brother, Philippe.

To an extent rarely seen in such portrayals, Hayward is utterly convincing playing two completely different, though physically identical, men: Louis is vile, narcissistic, and very likely psychopathic (though this is only gradually revealed), while Philippe is loyal, brave, and goodhearted. (It’s especially fun to see how Hayward subtly handles the moments when Philippe is pretending to be Louis.)

Also enjoyable is Joseph Schildkraut’s portrayal as Louis’ scheming right-hand man, Fouquet, who will seemingly do anything to achieve his ambitions, but who nonetheless reacts with appropriate alarm upon hearing Louis’ nefarious plans for his twin brother’s imprisonment. Joan Bennett is suitably beautiful and regal (but ultimately not all that distinguished) as the conflicted and confused Maria Theresa of Spain (who can’t figure out why her betrothed changes his personality each time she meets him); whenever the screenplay focuses on her romance with Louis/Phillip, things generally grind to a halt.

Meanwhile, the musketeers themselves — D’Artagnan (William), Porthos (Alan Hale), Aramis (Miles Mander), and Athos (Bert Roach) — aren’t on-screen very much of the time, but do get to play a critical role later in the storyline.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Louis Hayward as Louix XIV and Philippe

  • Joseph Schildkraut as Fouquet
  • Fine period sets
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, simply for Hayward’s performance(s). Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Student of Prague, The (1913)

Student of Prague, The (1913)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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: