FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A bandit (Arthur Kennedy) visits the home of an impressionable newlywed couple (Eugene Iglesias and Betta St. John) and unwittingly changes their lives forever.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Kennedy Films
• Catalysts
• Edgar Ulmer Films
• Greed
• Thieves and Criminals
• Westerns

Review:
Edgar Ulmer — best known for directing the B-level 1945 thriller Detour — made a handful of cult films throughout his career, including this effective little western set in Mexico. Taking place on oddly isolated terrain (likely a function of its low budget), the story focuses directly on the effects an “outsider” (Kennedy) has on the humble, seemingly happy marriage of two hardworking peasants, Manuel (Iglesias) and Maria (St. John).

Manuel was previously content to simply work his land and plan for a family with his beautiful wife — but once Santiago (Kennedy) unwittingly involves him in a bout of theft and violence against a fence (Roy Engel), Manuel finds himself lusting after the money Santiago seems to obtain so easily.

Meanwhile, Maria — who, it turns out, was essentially purchased by Manuel, along with the land they live on — is smitten by the idea of freedom with Santiago, and longs to leave with him.

Santiago (wonderfully played by Kennedy) is a most fascinating central character: a violent but even-handed bandit, his motivations stem from cynicism over failed revolutionary promises to provide land to all who fought for freedom. He shows genuine compassion when ministering to his dying partner (Tony Martinez) during the movie’s opening scene:

… and never intends to disrupt Manuel and Maria’s lives the way he ultimately does; indeed, Santiago is more of a catalyst than anything — an “innocent” spark who taps into both Manuel’s baser, greedy instincts, and Maria’s deeply rooted unhappiness.

His reactions to their sudden revelations are refreshingly uncliched, and help to turn this modest little western into a most enjoyable “menage a trois”.

P.S. Truffaut famously noted that this film was an inspiration for his Jules and Jim (1962), but don’t look for literal similarities.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Arthur Kennedy as Santiago
  
• An intriguing storyline
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Ulmer’s most enjoyable B-movies. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
A crippled puppeteer (John Barrymore) named Tsarakov channels his desire for fame as a dancer into an adopted young boy (Frankie Darro); but his unwillingness to allow grown Fedor (Donald Cook) a chance for love with a beautiful ballerina (Marian Marsh) leads to tragic consequences.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aspiring Stars
• Boris Karloff Films
• Corruption
• Dancers
• John Barrymore Films
• Michael Curtiz Films
• Play Adaptations

Review:
Warner Brothers’ follow-up to the box office success of Svengali (1931) afforded John Barrymore another scenery-chewing role as a demented impresario who will stop at nothing to achieve his dreams of fame and fortune.

While the story itself feels somewhat contrived — after all, what proof does Tsarakov have that Fedor’s “serious” relationship with Nana (Marsh) will ruin his chances for success? — Barrymore remains a pleasure to watch, and Barney McGill’s shadowy cinematography creates an appropriately stylized air of imminent doom. Cook, unfortunately, is instantly forgettable as Tsarakov’s young protegee (perhaps he was intentionally cast as someone without much personality?):

but Marsh is at least beautiful to look at, and Luis Alberni as Tsarakov’s drug-addicted musical director is appropriately over-the-top.

Film fanatics take note: Boris Karloff appears briefly in the beginning of the story as Fedor’s abusive father, though only his distinctive voice emerges as proof that he’s part of the proceedings.

Note: It’s always enjoyable to look for evidence of “Pre-Code” sensibilities in early Hollywood films; the following comment — made by Nana’s new lover, Count Renaud (Andre Luguet), as they travel together on a train for the first time — is a good example:

Listen to this one, Nana: It was their wedding night. The timid bride knelt by their bedside, saying her prayers. The Groom waited patiently beside her. At last she said, “And now I lay me down to sleep,” and the groom said, “Oh, yeah?” Good, eh?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Barrymore as Tsarakov
  
• Barney McGill’s atmospheric cinematography
  
• A refreshingly risque pre-Code script
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoilers alert)
• SciFilm Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A chorus girl (Marion Davies) is wooed by a wealthy suitor (Lawrence Gray), who mistakenly believes she’s a gold-digger.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Class Romance
• Gold Diggers
• Marion Davies Films
• Musicals
• Showgirls

Review:
Marion Davies is primarily remembered today as William Randolph Hearst’s long-time lover, and for being the inspiration behind talentless opera singer Susan Alexander in 1941’s Citizen Kane. As many have noted, however, these unfortunate associations are a shame, given that Davies was actually an accomplished comedic actress who deserved much more recognition for her considerable talents. Film fanatics hoping to catch a glimpse of Davies at her comedic best need look no farther than this innocuous tale of cross-class romance, which doesn’t break much new ground plot-wise (boy meets girl, loses girl, wins girl back, loses girl, then… well, take a guess), but affords Davies multiple chances to show off her winsome charms: besides having her priorities set straight, Davies’ “Daisy Dell” (a fictional member of the musical “Floradora girls”) seems like a hoot to hang out with, primarily because she’s so willing to clown around in public and act like “just one of the guys”. One can only imagine how much fun Davies herself was at Hearst’s well-publicized celebrity bashes.

Note: The picnic scene in which Daisy “conducts” a group of singing men — and the ensuing scene in which she fakes being rescued while swimming — showcase Davies’ Lucille Ball-like talent with physical slapstick humor.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Marion Davies as Daisy Dell
  

Must See?
Yes, simply to see the sadly infamous Marion Davies in one of her best roles. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
A steamboat operator (Will Rogers) and a “swamp girl” named Fleety Belle (Anne Shirley) try to locate a key witness (Berton Churchill) before Rogers’ nephew (John McGuire) is unjustly hung for murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Class Romance
• Deep South
• Falsely Accused
• John Ford Films
• Race-Against-Time
• Will Rogers Films

Review:
Will Rogers’ final film (released after his tragic death in an airplane crash over Alaska) is similar in many ways to his previous two collaborations with director John Ford: once again, Rogers plays a down-to-earth, laid-back guy who is more than willing to go against social norms to do what’s “right”. His character isn’t quite as noble this time around — rather than a doctor (as in Doctor Bull) or a judge (as in Judge Priest), he’s initially a snake oil salesman (a fake “doctor”) hoping to transition into managing a steamboat — yet it’s impossible to find fault with him, particularly once he takes his nephew’s “swamp” girlfriend (a wonderfully wide-eyed Anne Shirley) under his wing, and puts his own dreams on hold to help save his nephew from the gallows of unjust death. Two dramatic highlights of this ultimately rather insubstantial film include Rogers demonstrating the educational merits of his newly acquired Wax Museum (!!!) to a group of small-minded Southerners:

and the grand finale: a steamboat race down the Mississippi (guess who wins?).

As with their previous two collaborations, Steamboat… ultimately doesn’t seem quite worthy of either Rogers’ or Ford’s talents, but it will likely be of minor interest to fans of either man.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Will Rogers as “Doctor John”
  
• Anne Shirley as Fleety Belle
  

Must See?
No; check out Judge Priest (1934) instead to see Rogers in a (slightly) better Ford film.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A judge (Will Rogers) in turn-of-the-century Kentucky helps his nephew (Tom Brown) romance a fatherless neighbor girl (Anita Louise).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Courtroom Drama
• Deep South
• John Ford Films
• Judges
• Will Rogers Films

Review:
Judge Priest — the second of Will Rogers’ three collaborations with director John Ford — is considered by many to be the best of the bunch. As the long-time judge in a small southern town (circa 1890), Rogers’ Judge Priest — like his Doctor Bull — is perhaps a bit too complacent in his status, taking for granted that his well-meaning nature will prevent nay-sayers from complaining about either his decisions or his laid-back demeanor. From the very beginning of the film, we learn that Priest is the type of judge who would rather read a newspaper than listen to pompous lawyers grandstanding in his courtroom:

and who feels no compunction at all about going fishing with an accused thief (Stepin Fetchit) who was on trial in front of him not half-an-hour earlier. His insistence on helping his love-struck nephew (Brown) romance a fatherless young woman (Louise) against his snooty sister’s protestations is further proof that “Judge Priest” (a strategically chosen name, no doubt) is able to see beyond the petty constraints of social prejudices.

It should be noted that while Fetchit’s role in this film — as well as that of Hattie McDaniel (Priest’s housekeeper) and other “happy” African-American servants — falls into stereotypically offensive territory, Rogers’ interactions with both Fetchit and McDaniel allow for a slightly more nuanced representation of race relations than was usual for the time. His laid-back friendship with Fetchit implies that he cares more about enjoying life than maintaining the illusion of racial superiority, and his participation in McDaniel’s “call and response” singing while she’s cleaning once again shows that the pure joy of music making means more to him than either class or race.

While minor, these tiny deviations from the norm make it clear that Rogers really did try to live by his famous credo of “never meeting a man [sic] he didn’t like”. It’s too bad, then, that Ford’s decision to end the film with a group of black man cheerily bursting into “Dixie” outside the courtroom ultimately turns the film into yet another naively revisionist depiction of Southern history.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Will Rogers as Judge Priest
  
• Many subtly humorous moments

Must See?
Yes, but only to see Rogers in one of his most notable screen appearances; the film itself remains flawed. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Classic Film Guide Review (Spoilers Alert)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A country doctor (Will Rogers) dating a widower (Vera Allen) must endure the mean-spirited gossip of his dissatisfied small-town clients.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Doctors and Nurses
• John Ford Films
• Small Town America
• Will Rogers Films

Review:
In the first of his three collaborations with director John Ford, famed showman and journalist Will Rogers (the “most popular actor in America” in 1934) embodies the homespun persona so beloved by his many fans: a down-to-earth, quick-witted individual who must fight quietly yet insistently against provincialism. His Dr. Bull is a well-meaning, laid-back physician whose refusal to indulge the whims of his small-minded patrons — or care much about their incessant gossip — ultimately puts his career in jeopardy; while he eventually “saves the day” (in classic Hollywood fashion), he’s never portrayed as anything other than a three-dimensional, flawed human being. Far from heroic, Dr. Bull is in fact boyish and immature in many ways: he still lives with his elderly aunt, is unable to get serious with his long-time “acquaintance” (Allen), and enjoys — perhaps a bit too much — tweaking the sensibility of his priggish female neighbors (when passing by a group of churchgoing women standing near a graveyard, he nonchalantly mortifies them by asking, “What’re y’all gathered here… Whatsa matter — somebody get out?”). While Dr. Bull is widely considered to be the least of Rogers’ three films with Ford, it will — naturally — be of interest to fans of this early American icon.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Will Rogers as Dr. Bull
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re a Will Rogers fan or a John Ford completist.

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
While living in exile in Holland, King Charles Stuart (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) falls in love with a local farmer (Rita Corday) and tries to escape the clutches of his enemies, the puritanical Roundheads (led by Henry Daniell).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Class Romance
• Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Films
• Henry Daniell Films
• Historical Drama
• Max Ophuls Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Royalty and Nobility

Review:
Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., wrote, produced, and starred in this Anglophilic imagining (based on Cosmo Hamilton’s novel His Majesty, the King) of King Charles Stuart II’s life in exile before the Restoration in 1660. The plot focuses primarily on Stuart’s (fictional) romance with a Dutch girl (Corday), and, ultimately, his dilemma over whether to maintain his blissful working class existence with her, or return to the throne of England to serve his “larger” purpose in life. In the meantime, the indomitable Charles is pursued by Oliver Cromwell’s supporters (embodied primarily by the bloodthirsty character of black-hatted Colonel Ingram — a perfectly cast Henry Daniell), and must persuade Corday that a former flame (Maria Montez) no longer holds any sway over his heart. [Montez is simply delightful — and typically over-the-top — in her few shorts scenes midway through the film.] Fortunately, director Max Ophuls (in his first American production) adds his inimitable touch to the proceedings, elevating what would otherwise be a mundane historical drama into something slightly more involving; by the end of the film, we can’t help caring about Charles and the fate of his country.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as exiled King Charles
  
• Rita Corday as Katie
  
• Maria Montez as a visiting French countess
  
• Henry Daniell as Colonel Ingram
  
• Ophuls’ unique directorial touch
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Eye for Film Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A botanist (Michel Simon) with a secret identity as famed crime novelist “Felix Chapel” goes undercover with his class-conscious wife (Francoise Rosay) when his sanctimonious cousin, Bishop Soper (Louis Jouvet), accuses him of spousal homicide; meanwhile, a serial killer (Jean-Louis Barrault) vows to murder Chapel in revenge for provoking his baser nature.

Genres:

• Black Comedy
• French Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Murder Mystery
• Writers

Review:
Director Marcel Carne — best-known for his luminous wartime epic Les Enfants du Paradis (1945) — made more than 20 films in his lifetime, yet only a few (such as Le Jour se Leve and Le Quai de Brumes, not listed in GFTFF) are well-known to American audiences. Carne’s Bizarre, Bizarre (literally “Strange, Strange”) is an elaborate farce premised upon mistaken identities, calculated murder, and a generous skewering of class relations; it won’t appeal to all tastes, but its cast of esteemed French actors are all in prime comedic form, with hangdog-actor Michel Simon well-cast in the lead (double) role, and Jean-Louis Barrault (star of Les Enfants…) having fun with a radically different persona. Also known as Drole de Drame, ou L’etrange Aventure de Docteur Molyneux.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Michel Simon as Molyneux, a.k.a. “Felix Chapel”
  
• Louis Jouvet as Molyneux’s self-righteous cousin, Bishop Soper
  
• Jean-Louis Barrault as William Kramps, the “butcher murderer”
  
• Several truly “bizarre” images and sequences
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Retrospective Review

Synopsis:
When detectives inform him that a serial killer known as the “Moon Killer” is one of the scientists working at his renowned laboratory, Dr. Xavier (Lionel Atwill) decides to conduct an experiment which will reveal the true identity of the madman. Meanwhile, an intrepid reporter (Lee Tracy) hoping for a big scoop falls in love with Dr. Xavier’s daughter (Fay Wray) while placing his own life in serious jeopardy.

Genres:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Fay Wray Films
• Horror
• Journalists
• Lionel Atwill Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Michael Curtiz Films
• Murder Mystery
• Play Adaptation
• Serial Killers

Review:
As one of the first movies to be filmed in “two-strip Technicolor” — and one of Warner Brothers’ earliest horror films, made in direct competition with Universal Studios’ immensely popular chillers — Michael Curtiz’s Doctor X holds a special place in cinematic history. Its fame increased during the decades after its release, when only black-and-white copies were available for viewing; it wasn’t until 1973 that the original color version of Doctor X was restored. Unfortunately, the story itself hasn’t held up very well: for the most part, the dialogue and acting are both stilted and clumsy, and there are precious few genuine chills until the final 20 minutes or so (once the identity of the killer is finally revealed). Comic-relief Lee Tracy is simply annoying, and his romance with beautiful Fay Wray (who, as usual, glows on the screen) is nothing more than pure cinematic convenience.

With that said, Lionel Atwill (in one of his first major screen roles) is appropriately regal and mysterious as “Doctor X”; his presence, along with reasonably atmospheric set designs and cinematography, are the redeeming features of this otherwise disappointing murder mystery.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lionel Atwill as “Dr. X”
  
• Effectively atmospheric sets and early “two-strip” cinematography
  
• The climactic sequences
  

Must See?
No, though hardcore film buffs will likely be curious to check out the movie that eluded fans in its Technicolor iteration for so many years (now available as part of a box set of Warner Brothers’ horror films called “Legends of Horror”). Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review (spoilers alert)
• Time Out Capsule Review