Change Your Image
1930s_Time_Machine
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Working Girls (1931)
A fresh perspective on a familiar story
There's a lot to commend Dorothy Arzner's simple film about two out of towners trying to survive in the big bad city. Virtually everyone involved in making this were women so you'll not be seeing the usual misogynistic moralistic preaching about how to be a decent girl or the horrors that will befall you if you're a naughty one!
Whilst you can appreciate that it is superbly directed, scripted, photographed, edited and reasonably well acted, it doesn't emotionally grab you as much as you'd expect. Arzner favoured depicting realism rather than melodrama and whilst realism gives a wonderful insight into life at the start of The Depression, it can also feel a little drab.
Another "problem" is the two leads: Judith Wood and Dorothy Hall. Whether it's because we don't know them or they're just not charismatic enough, it takes a while to engage with them. It's not until the end that you finally start to care about them. Wood is the one who looks a bit like an annoyed Ginger Rogers, Hall is the one with the very annoying voice. Adopting that affected 'baby talk' really was a thing back then! They're both meant for be normal, reflecting the struggles thousands of normal young ladies would have encountered but I'm not sure whether they don't come across as maybe a bit too ordinary.... not that interesting.... apart from that voice!
The theme this picture explores is how women had to conform to the male-written rules of society. It questions a world where a woman can never be independent and only has one option, one life choice only: to get married - almost to become a complete person. But this is a light, good humoured little picture so unlike some of those campaigning Warner films made about this time, it isn't trying to change the system. It's just saying: this isn't fair but if it's played like this, life won't be too bad and you might even have a bit of fun on the way.
It's a reasonably entertaining film but definitely not one of Miss Arzner's or indeed one of Miss Akin's best. Similar storylines have been done much more explosively - I prefer my pre-codes where everything's set to eleven!
The Good Bad Girl (1931)
Don't waste your time with this bad, bad film
Films from the very early thirties needed a really good director otherwise they'd end up like this! This is and looks like a cheaply made "also ran" gangster picture from a director who didn't show he knew how to make a talking picture. To be fair to Roy William Neill, his budget was probably about $5 for this but even so, other people at Poverty Row studios made much more entertaining pictures than this.
He doesn't show anything different, imaginative or innovative. He turns what sounds an interesting story into something so boring you'll hate yourself for watching it. It just trapses like an unwelcome headache of grey monotone white noise through your brain.
The familiar story, the themes and the characters have all been explored much better in much better films than in this tiresome and clichéd colour by numbers z picture but it's not the actors' fault this is so dull, it's production quality. Take Mae Clarke, the star of this for example: in the same year this was made she was fabulous and led us all by the heartstrings in WATERLOO ROAD. She was also in the marvellous PUBLIC ENEMY and in FRANKENSTEIN. Two of these were directed by James Whale, the other by William Wellman - both talented and imaginative directors who knew exactly how to make great entertaining pictures with the advent of sound. Roy William Neil wasn't one of those super-talented directors of that era. Mae Clarke is given absolutely no personality in this. Whereas some other less than perfect directors made their films overly melodramatic, this guy does the opposite - there's absolutely no emotional engagement at all with our tragic heroine. Even in the most syrupy Helen Twelvetrees weepie you feel involved but with this you couldn't care less what happens to her.
There is however one, just one positive aspect about this and that's Paul Porcasi. He was one of the greatest "comedy" gangsters of all time. Robert Ellis, playing the other gangster however is almost as funny - but that's unintentional. His 'Dapper Dan' has to be the most unthreatening, pathetic gangsters ever to plague our screens. A perfect storm of appalling and bad acting make Dapper Dan almost embarrassing to watch. Marcia, our good bad girl decides to leave laughable gangster Dapper Dan for the usual clichéd rich guy on the other side of the tracks. This replacement boyfriend is apparently played by a different actor but since he looks absolutely identical and has as much acting ability, I think they may have scrimped a bit on their cast budget as well.
Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)
1941's Fawlty Towers
Like FAWLTY TOWERS, this is one of THE classic comedies. And like John Cleese's masterpiece, there's that same unstoppable acceleration into absurd chaos. Even if you don't think silly farces are your thing, you'll at least chuckle or maybe even laugh out loud at this one.
Apart from the quick scene-setting prologue, this is all based in the Brewster house because this is a direct adaptation of a stage play. Often that concept doesn't work but this might be the best ever example of putting a stage play on film - it is quite brilliant! From the moment Cary Grant discovers the awful truth it's consistently funny right up to the end credits. It's amazing how it just never slows down, there's not a dull minute in the whole show.
This is definitely not a typical Frank Capra film. Don't expect any of his usual tropes such as the little guy fighting the system. With the war about to engulf the world, Mr Capra just wanted to make something light and silly - something to make people laugh. He showed that he wasn't just able to magically turn the most sentimental mush into thoroughly heartfelt entertainment, he could also make brilliant comedy as well (excluding YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - let's ignore that one, definitely not one of his best!)
Anybody's Woman (1930)
Who wants to marry a millionaire - not her!
Although the only copy seems to be a horribly degraded print on YouTube, it's still worth watching. It's an intelligent and mature, well acted study of the sexism and snobbery which pervaded society in the late twenties. Ruth Chatterton gives an outstanding and inspiring performance which is unusually natural for such an early film.
Clive Brook plays a member of the social elite, he finds himself unexpectedly married to Chatterton's character who might now be called a cheap tart. He thinks he's helping her out of the gutter, she's not too sure. Her suspicions are correct - the social inequality of this impossible mismatch is subtly and skilfully conveyed in Dorothy Arzner's fifth talkie.
Like most of her pictures, this shines a vivid arc light on the unfair attitudes towards women but also on the snobbery of the time. Dozens of films from this period tackled the subject of social injustice but most resorted to sensationalist melodrama, usually with a 'tart with a heart of gold' type being used and abused by an evil moustache twirling villain. Here the rich man in his castle is just as damaged and vulnerable as the poor girl at his gate. Clive Brook's character may seem absurdly pompous by today's standards but he reflected what the upper echelons of society were really like. Since people like that don't exist anymore it's difficult to relate to him but even so, we do develop some emotional empathy for him.
On several occasions, some of Brook's friends try to grope and kiss his new wife but Brook
is completely unable to understand that a "woman like that" could possibly be insulted by such behaviour, They were gentlemen after all. Although she's his wife, she's still just a cheap 'showgirl', that's how you treat such people. "What on earth is wrong with the woman?" His typical for the time attitude that "women like that" cannot have the same sensitivity or respect that "decent women" have is cleverly challenged in this. Although directed by proto-feminist Dorothy Arzner and written by one of her favourite female writers, the great Zoe Akins (who was responsible for many fabulous pictures in the thirties - not just HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE) and even edited by a woman, the film does not present the gentleman as monsters - they're just the way people were and in this film they're actually treated quite sympathetically. Very refreshing.
But it's not all feminist and working class indignation. It's actually an enjoyable story about love blossoming in the most unlikely of circumstances. It's quite unique in that aspect so well worth worth watching - despite to poor YouTube quality.
The St. Louis Kid (1934)
Mindless derivative garbage
This trash really annoyed me. Cagney was one of the greatest actors of the thirties and to see him in nonsense like this is just degrading. This picture was simply a profit generating product without any artistic merit whatsoever. Cagney just plays a parody of himself and Allen Jenkins a completely annoying absurd idiot.
The story was presumably written by a six year old who'd been watching old Warner Brothers films. Ray Enright seemed to think he was directing a comedy. None of the actors are acting - they're just thinking about their pay checks. It's an awful film. Everyone associated with this should have been ashamed of themselves. I can't say anything more - I want to forget I ever had the misfortune to see this.
The Wild Party (1929)
Surprisingly good - a proper film - proper acting, proper characters.
Paramount's first all-talking picture is nothing like you'd expect it to be. It's nothing like its title suggests either. If you've watched BABYLON, with Margot Robbie you might be expecting to see a badly acted, technically inept disaster but this actually a pretty decent movie. This massive hit of 1929 is still a hell of a lot better than a lot of films made one or two years afterwards!
The studio picked their biggest star, Clara Bow to draw in the crowds but this isn't just Miss Bow frolicking around in her underwear - well there is some of that but I was amazed to discover that this was a mature, thoughtful and thoroughly entertaining picture. Made by Hollywood's premiere (ok, only) female director, it's also got a strong feminist undercurrent which is absolutely not something you'd expect in 1929! The famous scene when Clara and her friends nearly get raped "because" they were dressed provocatively in a lot of films from the thirties (not just the thirties) would have been a misogynistic morality tale: "well look at them, they were asking for it." was the pervading attitude back then. Drunk middle-aged men groping girls was often depicted as being perfectly acceptable behaviour but in Miss Arzner's refreshingly progressive picture it's not, definitely not seen as acceptable.
Her direction is innovative and dynamic: it's as removed from being static and stage-bound as you can possibly imagine, it's even got a score (which wasn't normal until years later). The acting is still a little theatrical but as the film progresses, you can really see them, especially Clara Bow figuring out how to come across more naturally.
You watch some really old films simply out of interest, like museum curios. Some people might just want to see what Clara Bow was like (watch the superb CALL HER SAVAGE if you do...or better still, an Alice White film - the real 'it girl' of the twenties!) but this is so much more than something to tick off your list. You can watch this as a real piece of genuine entertainment. It's not quite one of those few classics of 1929 but it's still one of the best. It gives you a lovely sense of the age with an intelligent, enjoyable and surprisingly thought provoking script.
The Mayor of Hell (1933)
Once upon a time...
The subject of this picture put me off watching it for years - didn't fancy watching a film about a bunch of teenage actors pretending to be hoodlums. I'm glad I changed my mind - this isn't just better than I thought, it's actually a really enjoyable typical-ish Cagey movie.
Originally it was conceived to be another hard-hitting social shocker like ....FROM A CHAINGANG but Zanuck chickened out of making a "no famous stars" picture just with the kids in the 'school' and morphed it into a Cagney vehicle. Cagney really wanted to do this picture. He was passionately committed to doing something about this subject of injustice towards kids from the slums so threw himself with 100% commitment into the role so gives one of the classic Cagney performances.
Whereas ....CHAINGANG was made to make the audiences so angry with the system they'd demand change, by 1933 America had a new president, FDR, so like a political Pandora's box, amongst the despair of The Depression there was now hope. That new mood of optimism meant that audiences didn't need a film to make them indignant, they needed something to show them that things were going to get better. This approach works perfectly in this - Archie Mayo gives us a superbly entertaining picture still with a strong social message.
Incidentally, a few weeks later William Wellman did make the worthy successor to ...CHAINGANG with his wonderful WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD again with young Frankie Darro.
Although this is surprisingly entertaining, the actual plot is, as was often the case in the early thirties, is astonishingly simplistic and naive. It's as realistic as one of Grimm's fairy tales but you just have to go with it. Essentially the evil child catcher has imprisoned hundreds of kids in his dark castle then Price Charming comes along, makes everyone happy and marries the beautiful princess. Yes, the story is beyond stupid but it's so well done, for ninety minutes you honestly do believe in fairy stories!
The Strange Woman (1946)
If Scarlet O'Hara had been born in the north?
This has a feel of those 1940s Gainsborough pictures such as THE WICKED LADY. Hedy Lamarr's Jenny however isn't particularly wicked, bad or strange - she's just a very determined, very selfish damaged young lady
In the good old pre-code days, a character like Jenny would have demonstrated her sexuality in a much more explicit way and doubtlessly have had a scene in a skimpy negligee. Now in the forties such oozing sensuality had to be done with acting instead and nobody does this better than Miss Lamarr. Anyone who thinks that Hedy Lamarr was just a pretty face must watch this. In the hands of her old friend from the old country, she gives an incredible performance. Of course she is a pretty face - one of the prettiest faces ever - but how she makes her character the most captivating, exciting and alluring sexual object of desire is an absolutely astonishing piece of acting.
A decade earlier a 'bad girl' like this might just have been that: a bad girl. Now in the days of 'the code' she has to have a lot more depth. Bad girls now are remorseful of their misdeeds, they're conflicted, they're trying to do the right thing. 'The Code' certainly had a positive effect - it gave films an extra and interesting dimension. Writers had to be that little bit smarter. Her character in this however feels a little derivative, it seems inspired by Scarlet O'Hara but with a little less charm. She even ends up in a loveless marriage to a guy who owns a lumber firm. Despite what some reviewers have said, she's nothing like as selfish or mercenary as Scarlet - but just as adorable.
The film itself is a little predictable and formulaic but it's a good formula but that's not a bad thing - that expectation adds to your enjoyment. I can't say it's particularly memorable but it's thoroughly entertaining. You don't get more 'classic Hollywood' than this!
Street of Chance (1930)
Not what you'd expect from a 1930 film
Unlike a lot of very early talkies, this was made by a director for whom the introduction of sound didn't make him forget how to make films. It's clearly not as technologically advanced as pictures made just a year later but it's a remarkably professionally executed and well acted film.
Like the previous picture John Cromwell made for Selznick, THE DANCE OF LIFE, this also has none of those awful traits which blighted the very early talkies. It's dynamic, it's realistic and its dialogue feels natural. Scenes are allowed to develop and play out - there's none of that: switch the camera on - say the lines - switch the camera off technique common in say some Warner Brothers pictures where every foot of celluloid had to be accounted for. You're given the luxury to fully absorb what you're seeing - and indeed hearing. Such a pace could in a lesser movie result in a static, talky meandering malaise but fortunately this film's lively script and realistic characters keep your interest.
In an era of often simplistic stories, this is a surprisingly mature and intelligent offering. It's a serious and somber film about serious and somber issues but it successfully manages to distill all of that neatly into ninety minutes. Many years later Warners tackled the problem of gambling with its Edward G Robinson vehicle, DARK HAZARD. That had a much more light hearted approach which made it more accessible but although this isn't as enjoyable - you'll not smile much watching this - it's just as engrossing.
It's a real revelation to see William Powell not playing the usual debonair sophisticated cool guy. For a change, he's a somewhat damaged and unpleasant character but William Powell of course is just so likeable you're immediately on his side. The one loose wheel in this picture is, as is so often the case, Kay Francis. She was pretty good in a few films but her default affected acting style, gazing wistfully into the distance to speak her lines feels out of step with the rest of this film. I don't think she was quite ready for a lead part just yet in her career.
It's a good film, it's entertaining and it skilfully builds up the tension to an astonishing level towards the end but it's perhaps a film you appreciate more than you actually enjoy.
Sons o' Guns (1936)
Well that was a pleasant surprise!
Joan Blondell only has a small part in this - it's virtually a pure Joe E Brown film but despite that it's actually a really good fun little movie. Had I realised that this was solely a Joe E Brown vehicle I'd probably have skipped it but I'm so glad I didn't.
Despite the utter silliness of this story (which I loved), unusually for a film of this era, there's a very strong pacifist theme running through it. Although tens of thousands of people would have been watching this desperately trying to believe that their husbands and sons didn't die in vain, this, through Brown's pacifist character asks the obvious question: why is America fighting Germany and Austria? Even though there were unfortunately valid reasons why Europe went to war, it's difficult to see any logical reasoning or justification to explain why Germany provoked Wilson to get involved. Especially in America, by the mid-thirties, when this was made, the whole exercise was being thought of as a big stupid mistake and this silly bit of fun with its pacifist anti-war hero and idiot commanders captures that particular zeitgeist. This film isn't however a savage satire on geopolitics, it's just a silly comedy... it does make you think though.
Apart from having the best line in SOME LIKE IT HOT, I'm not too familiar with Joe E Brown but I enjoyed his performance in this. He had a very engaging presence and knew what it took to be entertaining without being annoying. Al Jolson was originally signed up to play 'Jimmy' which might have been interesting but I don't think this film suffers at all from the switch to Brown - especially with his Jeeves-like sidekick, Eric Blore. Some, well to be honest, most comedies from the mid-thirties are decidedly unfunny when watched today but this one still holds up remarkably well. It's directed professionally and economically by reliable Lloyd Bacon and the script - adapted from a very successful stage play works perfectly on the screen.
I admit the only reason I watched this was because of Joan Blondell and there's no greater reason on earth than that. Her flirty French barmaid with that crazy accent could have been the inspiration for Yvette in TV's 'Allo 'Allo - she's fantastic in this and nice to see her doing something a little bit different. Although she's only on screen for about fifteen minutes, if you're a Joan Blondell fan, those fifteen minutes might just be the greatest fifteen minutes of your whole life. Whatever other ambitions or goals you have, forget them because you have got to watch this - it's the pinnacle of your life, if not the pinnacle of the existence of mankind. Do whatever it takes to see this - sell your house, sell your children into slavery, rob a bank in order to buy Warner Brothers so you can get yourself a copy - it'll be worth it. She is utterly, utterly, utterly gorgeous in this.
Not Now Darling (1973)
Well I thought it was funny... but I do like 'Allo 'Allo!
It takes something special to make a miserable old git like me laugh out loud but this managed it. Farces like this (in many ways identical to this!) have been filmed since Ben Travers' Aldwych Farces back in the thirties so it was a tried and tested formula. This might actually be the apex of that genre.
Sophisticated and cerebral humour this isn't but neither is it, as some people labelled it, 'a 70s sex comedy.' Just because various attractive young women end up hiding in cupboards in their underwear does not place it in the same category as those dreadful 'Confessions of' films. This is very much a superbly honed, very funny comedy in the tradition of bawdy old fashioned English farce.
Whether or not this is for you would depend on whether you find Barbara Windsor, carrying a bird cage asking people if they'd like to see her tits, an outdated disgraceful example of sexism or silly schoolboy humour.
Three Men on a Horse (1936)
Might have been funny on stage....
I'm sure the Broadway audiences in 1935 found this hilarious but it's a classic example of a filmed stage play not working as a film. This doesn't even attempt to look like a movie, it's exactly as the original Broadway hit was presented - an interesting idea but not a good one.
It's also a particularly niche type of humour which you might not think is the most annoying, puerile abomination you've ever seen but unless you've just had a lobotomy, you will.
A few years ago I saw The Play That Goes Wrong at the West End - never laughed so much in my life - the funniest thing I've ever seen. A year later it was on TV but in that format , it hardly raised a smile. Just filming a comedy exactly as it would be on stage can, as this demonstrates just seem wrong.
Good Dame (1934)
Another classic from the great Marion Gering
A fabulous character driven, superbly acted and atmospheric romance set in the gutter of society struggling through The Depression. Despite this picture's (unjustified) relative obscurity, it's amongst the most evocative depictions of America during the early thirties.
This isn't your typical Warner Brothers Depression movie.... although it looks like one, surprisingly it isn't! It's a Paramount picture. B P Schulberg at Paramount could, when he put his mind to it, make movies just as seedy and gritty as anything Zanuck at Warners could do. Whilst I loved what WB did, this is much more character driven rather than action driven which gives it an added captivating dimension. Rapid machine gun fire is replaced with rapid dialogue but it's just as fast moving.
We have two well written characters played by two of the best actors of that era directed by one of the very best directors. Whilst Marion Gering never displayed any particular innovative style or achieved the recognition of say Mamoulian or deMille, everything, yes everything he made in the early thirties was superb. Even with this very simple story he draws out of his cast's depths of personalities which brings them to life.
Sylvia Sidney isn't the stereotypical one dimensional 'good girl' the title of the film suggests. She's confused and uncertain who she is, she doesn't really know what she wants, she thinks she's a good girl but knows she isn't. She makes her Lillie so much more complex than you often find in most pre-code movies and is fascinating to watch.
Fredric March received a lot of criticism for not being Fredric March in this. He wasn't playing his usual matinee idol role. His fans didn't appreciate him playing the sort of loveable rogue Cagey was doing 'better' at Warners. But his character is not meant to be like the cheeky chappie Mr Cagney specialised in. Although lacking the internal conflict of Sydney's Lillie, March's Mace is just as real. Whereas Cagney would have been a loveable rough diamond right from the start, Mace is just an ignorant, unscrupulous yob. What this film is about is how his horrible character develops, how he becomes, perhaps not loveable but at least likeable enough for Lillie. It's a very unsentimental, unromantic romance about real people who could only exist in a long-gone era.
If you want a grown-up, well made, thoroughly entertaining and realistic snapshot of early thirties America, check this out.
Bureau of Missing Persons (1933)
what - What - WHAT!
You hear Pat O'Brien's character asking: have you been smoking pot? Clearly he's addressing this to the writers of this utterly insane, inane hallucination. This should carry a heath warning because like witnessing a disaster, you can't turn away from it until it's over.
This is truly terrible but somehow it's also truly...well not good but addictive. I'd previously seen the awful and interminably dull FROM HEADQUARTERS with a similar plot and thought this might be similar. This is just as bad but it's so mad it's an unintentional comedy. The story doesn't really get going until about halfway through - the first half is a kind of fly on the wall sort of thing showing the workings of this police department.
Lewis Stone is in charge of the bureau and he seems to behave like all this is normal. For example, when he's told that a blackmailer demanding ransom money wants it tied to the legs of several homing pigeons he calmly suggests that his team get some planes and follow them through the skies of New York. Dick Dastardly comes to mind!
Pat O'Brien is more obnoxious than he's ever been - his interview technique is: tell me or I'll smash your teeth out. He's a complete charmless thug so of course inexplicably Bette Davis falls head over heels for him within about three minutes. None of this makes sense... but you don't care!
Until the contrived Bette Davis story starts halfway through, you'd think that Roy del Ruth had just left a camera running in a dingy storeroom and every Warner bit player around that day accidentally wandering in and felt obliged to say something. It almost works but it's hard to take seriously. Essentially this is all padding for the short story you get at the end but you get the impression that they were all having so much fun with this they forgot that they only had a few feet of film left to squeeze the plot into. Everything which subsequently happens, happens at double speed but being a Warner Brothers movie, it kind of works.
This is probably not a picture anyone would want on their CVs, it's absolute trash but there's no denying that it captures the spirit of the early thirties.
Thunder in the City (1937)
Edward G Robinson does a Jimmy Stewart!
If you imagine a whimsical Frank Capra film but without any of the cheesy sentimentality you're imagining this. For once EGR plays a normal, natural and completely believable character but he's far from dull. You can forget sometimes that because he often played over-the-top roles what a good actor he was. He makes this normal, nice guy seem completely real and likeable. It's not EGR being EGR, this could be your best mate.
Like a typical Capra/Riskin movie, the plot doesn't really make sense but when skilfully made, even the daftest storylines are believable and this is no exception. What makes it work is top quality production. Here we have direction from one of Hollywood's best - yes best directors, Marion Gering (you'll never find one of his films which isn't either excellent or at least very good). He came to England to make this for his friend, the Hungarian director Alexander Esway who had decided to set up his own independent film studio in England.
For Esway's first production he picked a top director, a top actor and a top writer. The result was a very classy, gentle uplifting picture. Audiences at the time however didn't appreciate EGR's nuanced delivery they didn't want him subtle acting like a normal actor - they wanted explosive EGR. When looked at today that nuanced thoughtful style of acting which he demonstrates in this seems much more akin to the style of acting we see these days rather than what was common in the 1930s.
It's not an especially memorable film. It's not a classic but it's got that same charm and warm feeling you get from a Capra film. You'll never see another Atlantic Pictures production - 1937 wasn't the best time to start up a new film company but considering that this was a brand-new start up the quality is comparable with what the likes of Paramount and Gaumont-British were doing.
Portrait of Jennie (1948)
The greatest ghost story ever told.
What was wrong with people in the late forties? Both this and the best film ever, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE were huge flops at the time! If you have any romance in your soul but can't abide mushy melodramas, this wonderful, whimsical surreal story is just for you.
There are no Dr Who-like twists like you get in THE OTHERS or THE SIXTH SENSE, just a beautifully made straight forward romance - albeit with a ghost.... although there are actually similarities between it and the Dr Who episode, THE GIRL IN THE FIREPLACE!
If you try to explain the story to someone it ends up sounding like a ridiculous fairy tale but because of the expert way this is made, when you're watching it, it all seems completely believable. Such a lovely film!
Although a fantasy, William Dieterle directs this as a straight drama - no silly comedy, no annoying songs and no chichéd sentimentally but as it progresses reality surreptitiously evolves into a dreamworld. You're completely drawn into this intriguing story, you're completely accepting of the fact that Joseph Cotton's girlfriend is a ghost. Or is she? There's hints that all of this is in his mind. There's hints that elderly Ethel Barrymore could be Jennie herself. There's hints that he can even change the past.
Besides the top rate acting, amazing cinematography and innovative direction what is particularly outstanding is the script. When you listen to most romances made around this time you can often feel your teeth beginning to rot because of the sickly saccharine laden script. Whilst this script absolutely epitomises the apex of sentimentality because of the dreamlike atmosphere it actually sounds utterly natural. This might be down to Selznick's decision to get wordsmith Ben Hecht on board to fine tune the script. Instead of making you reach for the sick bucket, these beautiful words make your skin tingle with absolute delight.
Jennie Gerhardt (1933)
At least it's better than An American Tragedy
Unfortunately even with its superb acting and outstanding direction from Marion Gering, it's impossible to condense Dreiser's 900 page epic into 90 minutes. As so often with screen adaptations, it ends up simply telling us what happens without telling us why it happens. Sylvia Sidney is fabulous but the role she's given doesn't have enough depth for us to get to know her well enough to care.
A year earlier Sylvia Sidney starred in Paramount's first Theodore Dreiser adaptation, AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY. Whereas that exemplified "creaky, crappy 1930s melodrama," this is professionally made and beautifully crafted....but still as miserable as hell.
Theodore Dreisler's naturalistic and depressing tragedy was given the glossy Paramount treatment - naturalism was completely jettisoned, the social inequality aspect was toned down but the misery was ratcheted up to eleven transforming it into nothing more than a formulaic weepie. Were this made by Warners, maybe it could have been a little more punchy, gritty and realistic but God help us, they might have shoehorned Hugh Herbert in there so perhaps it's for the best that it wasn't.
This is directed by unsung genius Marion Gering and stars his favourite actress Sylvia Sidney so there's no question that it's not superbly made. The way Mr Gering conveys so much narrative with imagery or with an expression on Miss Sidney's face is extraordinary but this is not one of his best. Unfortunately the story, particularly the diluted adaptation he had to work with is just too shallow, too rushed and tried too hard to be simply a tear jerker. Without depth it feels contrived and is difficult to engage with on an emotional level - which is the one thing a tear-jerker needs to do.
Being it's a period piece, it doesn't have that characteristic early thirties atmosphere but it's a good example of the escapism which pulled the audiences in to the picture houses back then. Such relentless misery like this was so popular during The Depression because however terrible the lives of those watching were, at least they weren't as bad as Jennie Gerhardt's. If this wasn't so well made and perfectly acted (unlike the dreadful AMERICAN TRAGEDY) it would just be another mushy, pointless melodrama. As it is, it's very watchable but at the end of the day, it's still a mushy, mindless misery-laden melodrama.
Fire Over England (1937)
Swashbuckling with style
I saw this years ago and didn't think much of it at the time dismissing it as a third rate Errol Flynn rip-off. I'm glad I revisited it - I found it a real exciting, superbly produced intelligent swashbuckler.
Laurence Olivier shows that he wasn't just a great dramatic actor - he could also be a fabulous dashing romantic action hero as well. It seems a stupid thing to say but he sure could act. Good old reliable Leslie Banks and Vivien - the most beautiful woman in the world, ever - Leigh provide good believable support. As for Flora Robson, she is Queen Elizabeth.
Historical films are usually guaranteed to get those of us with some historical knowledge shaking their fists at the slightest inaccuracy. Unlike Korda's earlier SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII however, this film isn't too bad on that score. (SIX WIVES was a clever comedy anyway so doesn't really count). Apart from the timing of the famous Tilbury speech, it's surprisingly how historically accurate this film actually is. Although we can't really know exactly how these people thought, that sense of impetuousness and that sense of certainty that their beliefs were the absolute truth is reflected well in this.
The contrast of England's freedom of thought with the repressive totalitarianism of Philip's Spain is an obvious analogy with what was happening in Germany. Whilst American films in theory had to be politically neutral, no such undertaking existed in England so this no doubt helped to stir us up to stand up against that chap over in Berlin. It's very stirring stuff and still after all these years manages to engage emotionally.
From Headquarters (1933)
More police reenactment than movie!
This feels more like a promotional video for the police than a feature film. 'See our cutting edge technology, our integrated communication systems, our state of the art forensic laboratory and meet our dedicated and intelligent personnel.'
Tension, excitement and suspense is abandoned in favour of systematically explaining how crimes are investigated and of course solved. If you're interested in police procedures in the early thirties you might find this interesting but if you're expecting entertainment then don't bother with this. It's hardly SILENT WITNESS!
Surely this was made to appease the criticism about pictures depicting the boys in blue as corrupt and incompetent idiots. In this, Warners seem to have done a complete 180 degree turn in making them the epitome of integrity, smarter than Einstein and with more compassion than Jesus.
It's an interesting idea but not an interesting film.
Ready for Love (1934)
In Through the Out Door
If you like early thirties movies, you'll really enjoy this. If you know someone who's never watched a film from this era who asked: what's a good example to see? You'd suggest this. It's hardly a classic but it's such a lovely, silly and genuinely funny picture you'll be unable not to love it.
One reason to watch this is because it's directed by Marion Gering. Not someone who's well known today but he the guy who fled Soviet Russia in the twenties for a new life in American theatre before being lured to Hollywood. I haven't seen one single film from him that wasn't either good or very good. He could turn his hand to anything - from gritty, realistic crime thrillers to frothy musicals....and, as this demonstrates, uplifting light romantic comedy. Seeing his name on a film's credits is a definite sign that you should watch it. Check out his 24 HOURS (1931) and you'll be a fan too.
The other reason to watch this is Ida Lupino who's brilliant in this. That she's only 16 is a bit disconcerting because she's absolutely gorgeous (and looking a lot like Jessie Matthews) but it's her vibrant, intelligent and amusing personality which makes her so endearing. Mitigating the age thing, her character is an eighteen year old, the legal age then was sixteen (check out what it was before 1929 - you'll be horrified) and people grew up faster back then, especially if they'd been treading the boards for the last ten years - this makes you feel a little less like Woody Allen! Even so, it's hard to believe she's so young because her performance is so natural and nuanced.
This was her third American film after appearing in the truly, truly, truly terrible SEARCH FOR BEAUTY and COME ON MARINES (they were so disappointing after seeing her in the great little English film, I LIVED WITH YOU the year before). She absolutely sparkles in this giving a masterclass in acting.
Who else have we got? The surprisingly effective male lead is Richard Arlen. He was also in Paramount's worst film ever with her (COME ON MARINES) so I wasn't expecting much but I was pleasantly impressed. He's perfect in this as the 'nice' editor of the local paper. Since most of the writers in Hollywood were ex-newspaper men, it's no surprise that there's so many newspaper men in those movies. For a change the newspaper man is the hero in this.
Marjorie Rambeau is wonderfully over the top as the typical stage mother although that stage make-up she wears at the beginning is utterly bizarre. Americans especially get offended by 'blackface' but the whole world will be completely gobsmacked by the sheer weirdness of the sight of her in an evening dress with a totally coal-black face. This might not be that memorable a film but you'll never forget that crazy image. The even weirder thought is that act presumably was based on reality!
For a rom-com, especially from the early thirties, it's rare to get such thoughtful performances from everyone. This must be due to Mr Gering so let's all get the guy remembered by watching this.
Fog Over Frisco (1934)
Davis the tough guy
She ain't nursing no machine gun sister but she sure is as mean and soulless as Paul Muni in SCARFACE. This is a dark crime movie disguised as a woman's drama. It doesn't paint a particularly pleasant picture of mankind, it doesn't cheer you up but it's very expertly put together.
Just because something is well-made, acted very intelligently and beautifully photographed doesn't make it enjoyable. It's just personal taste but I found this a little too bleak. Now I love a good bit of bleak despair and unmitigated misery as much as the next man but to reach those Tennessee Williams levels, that misery has to be so over the top, so hyper emotional that your brain tells you that such desolation could never happen in your world. This isn't quite crazy enough here, it's just horrible enough to be real. Bette Davis is particularly believable as the sociopathic candle, luring her moths to her cold as ice flame.
What's different, almost modern about this for an early thirties film is that the supporting characters are all well thought out proper people. They have real personalities and story arcs. In this melange of moods and atmospheres we get to know who these are. The police aren't all ignorant imbeciles, the newspaper men aren't all arrogant vultures, the criminals aren't all one-dimensional heavies. Occasionally Lyle Talbot put in a fabulous performance but this was not one of those times. In this he tries to act - he tries to be a broken man, eaten away the pernicious darkness of his'relationship with Bette Davis. The way he shows his erosion to an empty husk, denuded of any spirt however comes across as so lifeless that you can't feel anything for him. Even so, this approach gives this picture extra depth and authenticity.
Hugh Herbert - who is running at level 11 on the irritating scale, isn't just the annoying, unfunny bumbling idiot he seems to be. His utter disregard for the horrific events going on around him and his sole focus on getting a picture and lack of empathy for anyone else is actually quite a biting bit of satire. Just a shame he's so annoying!
The weak link in this picture is Margaret Lindsay. Her character, the naive goody-goody nice sister just isn't strong enough to give us someone to root for. She's genuine enough but sometimes being ordinary doesn't grab you, you don't engage emotionally.
Lady with a Past (1932)
An RKO pathétic picture.
One day I'll realise that the giant chicken standing on the Earth is a sign: it's a 1930s dreadful film alert. Constance Bennett does the same thing Constance Bennett always did in the early thirties and we instantly think: can I endure another hour of this bland, predictable drivel?
I don't get Constance Bennett - she can act and she's not unattractive but I can't think why she was THE biggest female star of 1931/32. The downside of super-stardom meant that she could do any old rubbish and her millions of fans would be guaranteed to flock to the cinemas ensuring that everything she did a smash hit.
The problem with this picture is that nothing happens and it has nothing to say. Miss Bennett goes to Paris to spice up her love life - that's it. An episode of FAMILY GUY did this story better - and in just twenty minutes. Heavens to Betsy, this is dull: this might just be the longest eighty minutes of your life. OK, Constance Bennett is a reasonable actress and she gives quite lively performance but with such a lifeless and uninteresting character and a mind numbing story, she has a real uphill battle. Ben Lyon adds a bit of life to this cadaver of a film but 'the other man,' dull-David dull-Manners seems like he's still suffering from being bitten by Dracula. What's even more unbelievable than Constance Bennett being so undesirable is that she could fall madly in love with Mr Dull.
Millions must have watched this and probably loved it but I can see nothing in this: story, atmosphere or insight into the age, to justify anyone watching it today unless for some weird reason you're a Constance Bennett fan.
His Woman (1931)
It's a 1930s Three Men and a Baby
Well, this was an unexpectedly entertaining and thoughtful film. Don't look up the story first or you'll not feel the jolts of the clever and quite unpredictable twists. For 1932, this is a lot more realistic than was common then giving us a perfect reflection of that age. This has easily as much seedy grime as anything they were doing at Warners.
Gary Cooper is uncharacteristically lively in this. Not sure his management style which ranges from negotiation by fists to smashing a glass bottle into a guy's botty with a crowbar would be that acceptable now though. Not sure his sexist arrogance: the purpose of a man is to work, the purpose of a woman is to bring up a man's child, would make him particularly endearing either but under that alpha-male macho man there's a kind hearted ...gorilla below. Gary Cooper can sometimes be so lugubrious that he can send you to sleep but under the dynamic direction of Edward Sloman (no, never heard of him either) Cooper is like an erupting volcano of testosterone.
He steals every scene including those with the divine Miss Colbert - and that's coming from her biggest fan! It's not just Mr Cooper or Miss Colbert who give excellent, realistic and natural performances, all of Mr Sloman's actors seem like real people with real and authentic personalities. If this is representative of Edward Sloman's work then the guy should be more well known. He doesn't just make his characters come to life, he makes what you're looking at become reality. You can smell the stench of the filthy streets of the port, you almost have a sense of danger yourself.
Two familiar 1930s themes are tackled here. The somewhat sexist title itself: HIS WOMAN is purposely controversial. OK, we're a hundred years ago so don't expect equality but questioning Cooper's Captain Sam's misogynistic attitudes are central to this picture. The other trope is snobbery - in this case taken to the extreme. When Claudette Colbert first meets Gary Cooper she makes him believe that she's the daughter of a missionary and that's fine and dandy. When however he discovers that she's worked in a brothel then that's too much for this fine, upstanding, morally righteous Christian...and frequenter himself of brothels. It's interesting to wonder what inner conflicts are going on in his mind, to wonder how he can justify what he believes or to wonder whether he's just an idiot.
The focal point of the whole picture centres on a crewman trying to rape Colbert's Sally having discovered her occupation. The question - as utterly ludicrous as it seems to us now is: is it ok to rape a young woman if she had once worked as a prostitute? Bizarrely the consensus seems at the time to be a definite yes! There's not even any suggestion that the crewmen was out of order - she was the guilty one! The 1930s wasn't just another time, it was another world!
All this commentary makes this sound like it's a very deep and heavy film but nothing could be further from the truth. Edward Sloman's manages to set off all these little explosions in your brain whilst still maintaining an almost upbeat light-hearted mood.
Doctor Who: Flux: Chapter One - The Halloween Apocalypse (2021)
What the flux!
It's funny how when we get a new Dr Who, we look back more fondly on the previous doctor. When she was doing it I didn't have much time for Jodie Whittaker but I thought I'd revisit FLUX which I remember made no sense - so glad I did. Wow, what an experience!
Enough time has passed now to allay the disappointment of her not being Peter Capaldi which allows us to appreciate that she was a pretty decent doctor after all. FLUX at the time was criticised for being ridiculously over-complicated and confusing. Indeed it does seem like Chris Chibnall realised he only had one more series to make but had five different stories he wanted to do so shoe-horned them all into one.
The plot isn't actually that complex - well it is but once you realise that: a) someone's created a big nasty thing that's destroying the universe and b) all the baddies see this mayhem as a chance to do a bit of conquering, it all makes sense (apart from the bloke from LINE OF DUTY with the snakes - I'll figure that out next time!) Just in case that's too simplistic, this has concurrent stories happening in 2021, 1967 and 1901 and 1855 which are interlinked along with everything else happening in a universe outside of time - simples! But honestly it does kind of make sense.
John Bishop was born to play this role - his scouse humour fits perfectly into this story adding just enough light relief that's needed for such an intense story. It's not he however that provides the funniest Dr Who moment ever - that's the Sontaran who discovers chocolate! We've also got Kevin McNally putting in a great performance as the 1960s professor and stunningly beautiful Annabel Scholey as his assistant from 2021 but superstar performance has to be Craig Els as the big dog!
It's weird that I thought this was contrived pretentious nonsense when I first saw it but now it's great. Give it a second chance!
Fast and Loose (1930)
Rich people are bad, poor people are good, apparently!
Considering that this was adapted from a play (by nailing a camera to the end of the stage), you'd think the characters would have been more rounded. Shallow one-dimensional characters and a tiresome cliched story isn't the best combination for an entertaining movie.
The most disappointing aspect of this picture is that it doesn't convey any of the atmosphere you often get in a film from 1930. Maybe that's because of its stagey origin or maybe it's because it's based on a stuffy play from the early twenties? The plot has been done a million times and usually done a lot better than this. The acting is fine - not naturalistic but ok for 1930. Miriam Hopkins, in her first talkie is the most impressive and almost believable but the rest are just a bunch of actors reading lines from a script they've seemingly just been handed. It's not their fault but they're just poorly written parts.
We have stock stereotypes: stuffy, entitled and snobbish parents, spoilt, entitled and irresponsible youngsters and pure as the driven snow salt of the earth types. It's one of those lazily written films where the rich are all horrible and the poor are perfect. Not perhaps an obvious theme from Paramount considering their typical audience demographic but the rich eventually and predictably become unfeasibly lovey, lovely people so that willing appease their consciences.
I've seen worse but I'll not be searching out any more films from Fred Newmayer.