|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 17, 2024 15:00:34 GMT
What a great remark:it's a fun precode elevated by Irene Purcell's spirited performance and uber cuteness.I suspect that what happened with her is the studio found her redundant. Her style was similar to Myrna Loy, whom they signed a short time later...AND any sort of sex farces the writers came up with, would have gone to Marion Davies who got first choice of comedy scripts during those years (the more dramatic stuff was given to Garbo, Shearer & Crawford).
Watching her in this film Purcell kept reminding me of someone, and I realized that she seemed to resemble Ruth Chatterton.
The next MGM picture she did, called THE MAN IN POSSESSION, was remade as PERSONAL PROPERTY with Jean Harlow. So I think that while Loy might have been stylistically Purcell's equivalent, it was Harlow who would best embody the spiritedness you refer to, as the studio commodified this type of screen persona going forward.
Purcell did a supporting role in an Ann Harding picture at RKO called WESTWARD PASSAGE in 1932. Then there were two other pictures at other studios, before she went back east. She continued to headline Broadway productions through the 1930s. But she was financially very well off, and while she still did touring stage productions, it seems like she wasn't interested in stardom like so many actresses her generation. So her life went in a different direction.
It really is a shame that she didn't continue to do minor roles like Mae Clarke did, or that she didn't try roles on television later. She was a fine, very skilled actress, especially in these types of comedies. Perhaps if she had been contracted by Paramount, instead of MGM, she would have come to the attention of someone like Ernst Lubitsch and would have been more popular.
I've seen four of Purcell's six talkies and can only repeat that I think she had everything necessary to be a top star. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 29, 2024 14:58:09 GMT
This neglected film is from 1931.
The choreographed confusion of a farce
The best farces, on stage and on film, are the ones where most of the characters exist in a state of hilarious confusion. Typically the audience is in on the jokes with the main character who is a trickster of some sort. In this 1931 comedy from Metro Goldwyn Mayer based on George Randolph Chester’s Wallingford stories, studio contractee William Haines plays the trickster. Haines is continuing his successful transition from the silent era as a man who travels the country, pulling cons before moving on to the next location where the next bunch of unsuspecting suckers await him.
Aiding and abetting his crimes is a pal portrayed by Jimmy Durante, named Schnozzle— appropriate given the nature of Durante’s proboscis. Durante sniffs out trouble, as in cops or marks that have gotten wise to them, and he helps Haines finish executing a scam before hopping the train and hightailing it elsewhere. Usually the authorities and victims are so mixed up about what’s happened, the duo make a clean and easy getaway.
Adding to the confusion are crimes that Durante commits as a long-time kleptomaniac. For you see, he has a penchant for stealing automobiles, thinking that if anything with four wheels and a set of keys in the ignition is parked nearby, it must be there for him to use. Of course, these types of gags work better in an era before car alarms.
In one hysterical scene Durante takes off with a car he finds at a train station and quickly crashes it; the reaction of the vehicle’s owners watching this is perhaps the funniest bit in the movie. If this film were remade today, writers would probably suggest Durante’s character has dementia, because there is no other way to explain the innocence of such grand theft auto.
Usually during this period of his career, Durante was paired with Buster Keaton in high energy comedies. So it’s kind of interesting to see his shtick alongside Haines who has a completely different style than Keaton.
Haines does not get upstaged by Durante, despite the zanier moments involving Durante’s character. Instead, Haines’ own schemes are much smoother and more complex; and while he’s bilking prey, he is falling for a pretty young thing (Leila Hyams). Of course we know that if Haines is going to somewhat reform, he will change because of her.
There are no real surprises, except that when Haines does decide to go straight because of Hyams, he seems willing to take the consequences and has surrendered himself over to the police, along with Durante. But we can never be sure if this will lead to another ruse, as it is awfully hard for such a guy to refrain from pulling more tricks.
Ultimately, Haines and Durante do manage to evade the law because of another mixup that happens on their way to prison. It’s a precode, so they don’t have to actually pay for their misdeeds (and if Durante does have a form of dementia, he’d hardly be held responsible for what he’s done). The filmmakers’ main point in redeeming Haines is to have him settle down with Hyams.
Legal issues have prevented this film from being made available on any home video format. It has only aired once on TCM, back in the 1990s when the channel first began broadcasting. It won’t be long before WALLINGFORD is in the public domain, then plenty of people will be able to view this enjoyable farce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 29, 2024 15:49:09 GMT
![]() 
New Adventures of Get-Rich-Quick Wallingford from 1931 with William Haines, Leila Hyams, Guy Kibbee, Ernest Torrence and Jimmy Durante
In the 1930s and 1940s, Hollywood created an entire genre of stories about urbane con men and women whom you know are crooked, but you can't help liking anyway, which is also why they are good at their "jobs."
In real life, these are vicious thieves who prey on the innocent and, often gullible, stealing their money, businesses and reputations. But on screen, these characters can often be lovable rapscallions who reform for romance or conscience by the end of the picture.
In the awkwardly titled New Adventures of Get-Rich-Quick Wallingford, William Haines stars as the silver-tongued handsome conman who can always spin a tale or come up with an excuse on the fly for some scam he's working.
Haines' team includes a sardonic straight man, played by Ernest Torrence. Also on the team is their gadfly factotum, played by Jimmy Durante, whose talents include pickpocketing, stealing cars and running less-than-honest errands.
A detective, played by Guy Kibbee, has relentlessly, but so far, unsuccessfully been pursuing Haines for years. Kibbee has a dogged but not mean-spirited persistence as he figures Haines has to slip up at some point.
With that setup, Haines and team head upstate from New York City where, using an uncashed scammed check form a prominent banker as "collateral," Haines gets involved in a land "deal."
The early fun is watching Haines create a scam from scratch. He uses his cribbed check to rope in a gullible couple who own some land. He and his team then draw in other locals by creating a "stir" in the town with fake geology reports and "overheard" conversations.
It's exaggerated but entertaining to see how greed takes hold. While the locals are victims, it's their greed that gets them. Haines dangles easy money, which causes the "investors" not to do their diligence as they are too worried about "missing out." It's FOMO 1931 style.
This would be just another scam for Haines except that the daughter of the couple whose land he's stealing is a very pretty blonde, played by Leila Hyams. Love is often the Achilles heel of scammers in Hollywood movies.
As the scam picks up steam, Haines and team have to juggle harder as the investors get anxious, but it's working until Haines, for love, decides to go legit. He wants to give the money back, but that doesn't go over well with Torrence, nor is a scam simple to "unwind."
The climax, no spoilers coming, smartly pulls all the plot threads together as the investors demand their money back, Torrence absconds with the money, Kibbee shows up to arrest Haines and Haines is distracted by amore. Then a deus ex machina appears.
Movies like these are plot and dialogue thick as words and webs of deceit are the most important tools con men and women have. Thus, right up to the end, Haines, Torrence and Durante are spitting out words at a gatling-gun pace to spin their way out of the mess.
It works not because you really believe it, but because you enjoy it. Haines is entertaining as the glib con man who falls in love. Torrence has a big-lug likability and Durante is enjoyably annoying in the way only Durante can be. He built a long career being enjoyably annoying.
Pretty Hyams is the movie's underused secret weapon as she has Haines' number almost from the start. The scenes where she calmly calls him out on his scamming - his spin doesn't work on her - are the most sincere ones in the movie.
The beauty of their relationship is that she knows exactly who he is, but loves him anyway, while he knows he can't love her and continue scamming. You wish the movie had spent more time on this relationship and a little less on some of the wash-rinse-repeat scams.
The lovable scammer is a stock character because there is something oddly appealing about a charming crook. We know in real life these are malignant people, but on screen we can enjoy their criminal talents and joie de vivre from a safe distance.
New Adventures of Get-Rich-Quick Wallingford has some early talkie clunkiness to it and is in need of a restoration, but it's a fun example of a story Hollywood would not only tell a lot in the 1930s and 1940s, but one that it still tells to this day. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 7, 2024 14:10:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Robinson’s great in this one
Edward G. Robinson always gives an exceptional performance, even in a routine programmer like this one. He has a certain way of spinning a line without overdoing things, which puts his character across with flair without detracting from the overall aim of the story. In this case he’s playing Hans Lobert, a real-life ex-third baseman turned scout for the New York Giants.
Robinson does well bonding with younger cast members. We see this in his work with Allene Roberts in THE RED HOUSE and in how he collaborates with Burt Lancaster in ALL MY SONS. He establishes a paternal connection to these newer stars and seems to be offering guidance to them on screen, both in character and as a fellow actor.
That sort of mentoring is advantageous in this type of film. Mostly because he’s supposed to function as a surrogate father figure, encouraging these hopefuls towards their goal of becoming good professional ball players. Not all of them will make the cut at a training camp in Florida, but they will try hard with Robinson pushing them every step of the way.
Some of the supporting cast fare better than others. Richard Jaeckel is wonderful as a brash pitcher. Robinson drops him from the roster then regrets it– especially when Jaeckel joins a rival team and goes up against them in a playoff. It’s easy to see why Jaeckel had a long career in Hollywood.
Meanwhile Jeff Richards, whom MGM was grooming for big things, is just mediocre and somewhat bland…unfortunate, since he’d been a minor league ball player before getting into the movie business.
In addition to Jaeckel and Richards, there are lesser known faces that reflect casting diversity. One is a hick farm boy handed standard comic relief duties. One is a hood from a rough neighborhood who listens to tunes on the jukebox. And one represents Latino athletes– specifically Cubans in the world of baseball. Much is made about his learning English. The cast is all male except for one person.
MGM star Vera-Ellen appears as Robinson’s niece. We are told she knows quite a lot about the sport, though she never really demonstrates this with her actions. I guess she’s too busy falling for Richards. To my knowledge this was Vera-Ellen’s only non-musical role.
The final sequence of the film is particularly good. It’s a playoff game, before Robinson and his bosses announce which guys are being offered contracts with the Giants’ organization. It’s nearly as fun as watching a World Series game, because each one has a lot to prove knowing it’s their last chance to make a solid impression.
When they get on the bus to go home, I admit I was a bit teary-eyed. Their time with Robinson meant a lot to them, because they learned so much from him.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on May 7, 2024 16:54:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Robinson’s great in this one
Edward G. Robinson always gives an exceptional performance, even in a routine programmer like this one. He has a certain way of spinning a line without overdoing things, which puts his character across with flair without detracting from the overall aim of the story. In this case he’s playing Hans Lobert, a real-life ex-third baseman turned scout for the New York Giants.
Robinson does well bonding with younger cast members. We see this in his work with Allene Roberts in THE RED HOUSE and in how he collaborates with Burt Lancaster in ALL MY SONS. He establishes a paternal connection to these newer stars and seems to be offering guidance to them on screen, both in character and as a fellow actor.
That sort of mentoring is advantageous in this type of film. Mostly because he’s supposed to function as a surrogate father figure, encouraging these hopefuls towards their goal of becoming good professional ball players. Not all of them will make the cut at a training camp in Florida, but they will try hard with Robinson pushing them every step of the way.
Some of the supporting cast fare better than others. Richard Jaeckel is wonderful as a brash pitcher. Robinson drops him from the roster then regrets it– especially when Jaeckel joins a rival team and goes up against them in a playoff. It’s easy to see why Jaeckel had a long career in Hollywood.
Meanwhile Jeff Richards, whom MGM was grooming for big things, is just mediocre and somewhat bland…unfortunate, since he’d been a minor league ball player before getting into the movie business.
In addition to Jaeckel and Richards, there are lesser known faces that reflect casting diversity. One is a hick farm boy handed standard comic relief duties. One is a hood from a rough neighborhood who listens to tunes on the jukebox. And one represents Latino athletes– specifically Cubans in the world of baseball. Much is made about his learning English. The cast is all male except for one person.
MGM star Vera-Ellen appears as Robinson’s niece. We are told she knows quite a lot about the sport, though she never really demonstrates this with her actions. I guess she’s too busy falling for Richards. To my knowledge this was Vera-Ellen’s only non-musical role.
The final sequence of the film is particularly good. It’s a playoff game, before Robinson and his bosses announce which guys are being offered contracts with the Giants’ organization. It’s nearly as fun as watching a World Series game, because each one has a lot to prove knowing it’s their last chance to make a solid impression.
When they get on the bus to go home, I admit I was a bit teary-eyed. Their time with Robinson meant a lot to them, because they learned so much from him. It's interesting to note that the theme of BIG LEAGUER had impetus in a real life parallel: Squat Louis B. Mayer conceived the idea of mentoring the sons of MGM pioneers! It was interesting for me to catch some real-life baseball personalities seen within the fictional film with T CM's screening of it recently - including "King Carl" Hubbell. In fact, I thought that I might have caught a glimpse of his said misshaped left arm - possibly erroneously contributed to his meal ticket, the screwball. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 20, 2024 14:45:50 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Would you trust this woman to save your country?
The first glimpse of Marion Davies in OPERATOR 13 shows her performing for a Civil War era audience. She hardly seems like secret agent material. The idea she would be chosen as a Union spy is comical to say the least. But we are led to believe she will have an impact on the battles waged between northern and southern armies. Those pages have somehow gone missing from our history texts.
Soon she is dressed as a maid and put to work on a plantation. We’re told by another character that maids are gossipy, so she starts gossiping to fit those stereotypes and maintain her cover. Despite the ludicrous set-up, the film boasts MGM’s usually great production values– including exquisite costumes and sets to help authenticate the period. Davies is surrounded by some of the best character actors and actresses, but she’s the star and nobody will outshine her.
The story is divided into two parts. In the first half, she’s undercover as the maid while her “mistress” (another Union spy) is found out by the Confederates. And in the second half, Davies is much more glamorous, on a new mission as a well-to-do Southern sympathizer from the north. Both times she crosses paths with a soldier played by Gary Cooper.
He is a Confederate officer who gradually falls in love with her. He doesn’t quite recognize her from the earlier disguise, which might explain why his side will lose the war. One thing in his defense– he seems to have a sense of humor. In fact, Cooper demonstrates an obvious flair for comedy in this picture; though most of the action obscures it, ensuring he remain the romantic ideal, and not an oaf.
Their romance is accompanied by several musical numbers. Early in the film, the Mills brothers are seen as part of a traveling medicine show. They provide entertainment the night a cotillion ball is held; and during this interlude, the action nearly comes to a standstill. Later Davies has a big scene singing ‘Once in a Lifetime’ as Cooper pushes her on an outdoor swing. But these tender moments do not last long; because the action soon cuts to battle scenes which show the violence of war.
Nothing preachy comes across in OPERATOR 13. Betrayal runs deep on both sides of the war, but none of that is over-emphasized. We know the main characters’ feelings may be sacrificed until the fighting is over. But we can be sure that once peace has returned to the land, they will be back in each other’s arms. Until the U.S. government asks Marion Davies to help bring John Wilkes Booth to justice and negotiate a few peace treaties out west.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 20, 2024 15:01:58 GMT
Operator 13 from 1934 with Marion Davies and Gary Cooper
Operator 13 is a bumpy Civil War picture that kinda works as leads Marion Davies and Gary Cooper are engaging, plus the battle scenes are good for the era. You just have to accept that this picture's reason for being is to further the star status of Ms. Davies.
Made by Cosmopolitan Productions, Davies' and boyfriend William Randolph Hearst's company, Davies not only stars in it, but every camera angle, lighting setup, framing, and so on, is for her advantage. If you pay for it, it's yours to do with as you please.
Davies plays a spy for the North who goes into Rebel territory disguised as an Octoroon maid. While her darkened skin and stereotyped voice are hard to take today, it isn't blackface, making it less offensive. Plus, her disguise does fit the story.
Davies, in the South, meets a Rebel Captain, played by Cooper, who himself is a spy for the Confederacy. She succeeds in her mission and returns to the North. Davies is then sent South one more time, now disguised as an aristocratic white woman.
She meets Cooper again, who has a vague feeling he's met her before, but he never connects the dots back to her Octoroon masquerade. They spend time together and begin to fall in love, yet Davies never loses sight of her assignment.
Davies, ingratiating herself to the family she's staying with, obtains and passes information to the North. This turns an upcoming battle into a Rebel rout, resulting in the death of the fiance of a friend Davies made in her host family. Civil Wars are brutal on loyalties.
The climax, no spoilers coming, has Davies outed as a spy and captured by Cooper while trying to escape. The couple is then overrun by the war, which forces the two lover-antagonists to make some difficult decisions under the pressure of battle.
It's an okay story with a modern feminist angle showing that women were spies in the Civil War. These women were no shrinking violets as they faced all but immediate death if discovered. Plus, they had to have brains and nerves of steel to carry out their missions.
Operator 13 is also a musical as Davies and a few others sing some songs, but it's an awkward element that slows down the drama of the spy/war/romance story. One assumes the songs were added to further the Davies brand.
Richard Boleslawsky's directing is uneven as the picture awkwardly slows down or speeds up, giving it inconsistent pacing. Additionally, several transitions are jarring, requiring the viewer to reorient him or herself. Finally, the climax is so rushed it feels slapped on.
The movie does, though, for the time, have some excellent battle scenes, with the one where the Rebels are routed by a big gun of the North's being intense and engaging. The closing battle is good too, but the transition to it is sloppy as it overruns the story.
Operator 13 is, by design, a Marion Davies vehicle. While she's a talented actress who can easily carry a movie, it suffers in spots when the production bends to her cult of personality. Crisper directing and less Davies idolatry would have made for a better movie. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on May 20, 2024 16:13:18 GMT
Operator 13 from 1934 with Marion Davies and Gary Cooper
Operator 13 is a bumpy Civil War picture that kinda works as leads Marion Davies and Gary Cooper are engaging, plus the battle scenes are good for the era. You just have to accept that this picture's reason for being is to further the star status of Ms. Davies.
Made by Cosmopolitan Productions, Davies' and boyfriend William Randolph Hearst's company, Davies not only stars in it, but every camera angle, lighting setup, framing, and so on, is for her advantage. If you pay for it, it's yours to do with as you please.
Davies plays a spy for the North who goes into Rebel territory disguised as an Octoroon maid. While her darkened skin and stereotyped voice are hard to take today, it isn't blackface, making it less offensive. Plus, her disguise does fit the story.
Davies, in the South, meets a Rebel Captain, played by Cooper, who himself is a spy for the Confederacy. She succeeds in her mission and returns to the North. Davies is then sent South one more time, now disguised as an aristocratic white woman.
She meets Cooper again, who has a vague feeling he's met her before, but he never connects the dots back to her Octoroon masquerade. They spend time together and begin to fall in love, yet Davies never loses sight of her assignment.
Davies, ingratiating herself to the family she's staying with, obtains and passes information to the North. This turns an upcoming battle into a Rebel rout, resulting in the death of the fiance of a friend Davies made in her host family. Civil Wars are brutal on loyalties.
The climax, no spoilers coming, has Davies outed as a spy and captured by Cooper while trying to escape. The couple is then overrun by the war, which forces the two lover-antagonists to make some difficult decisions under the pressure of battle.
It's an okay story with a modern feminist angle showing that women were spies in the Civil War. These women were no shrinking violets as they faced all but immediate death if discovered. Plus, they had to have brains and nerves of steel to carry out their missions.
Operator 13 is also a musical as Davies and a few others sing some songs, but it's an awkward element that slows down the drama of the spy/war/romance story. One assumes the songs were added to further the Davies brand.
Richard Boleslawsky's directing is uneven as the picture awkwardly slows down or speeds up, giving it inconsistent pacing. Additionally, several transitions are jarring, requiring the viewer to reorient him or herself. Finally, the climax is so rushed it feels slapped on.
The movie does, though, for the time, have some excellent battle scenes, with the one where the Rebels are routed by a big gun of the North's being intense and engaging. The closing battle is good too, but the transition to it is sloppy as it overruns the story.
Operator 13 is, by design, a Marion Davies vehicle. While she's a talented actress who can easily carry a movie, it suffers in spots when the production bends to her cult of personality. Crisper directing and less Davies idolatry would have made for a better movie. I like the "cult of personality" line, Fading Fast. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 30, 2024 15:35:11 GMT
This film is from 1949.
Regional stereotypes and biases
The main problem I have with William Faulkner’s story, as well as this film adaptation by MGM’s Dore Schary, is that it is a white man’s response to the issue of racism in the south. First, racism is not a social ill confined only to the southern United States, and second, it is not something that can only be solved by white folks.
The fact that racism is still occurring over 70 years after INTRUDER IN THE DUST was made indicates that something keeps renewing it generation after generation. The whole thing goes deeper than this story would have us believe.
The tale fails to recognize the levels of racism and elitism that exist within white society as well as the issues of race and privilege within black society, since there are different skin tones and prejudices within these two larger groups. Making the main conflict white versus black or black against white is incredibly naive and way too simplistic a thesis than the overall subject deserves.
It does not consider different shadings and attitudes regarding racism in our country. Furthermore, setting the drama exclusively in the south plays into regional stereotypes about southern life. Of course, Mr. Faulkner was writing about a part of the country where he grew up. But he is still guilty of perpetuating the stereotypes of the region.
He gives us antiquated notions of what kids do, what sheriffs and lawyers do, what old unmarried women do, and what backwoods country folks do. None of the characters are fully fleshed out human beings.
Certainly we’re supposed to like Claude Jarman’s adolescent character, since he starts to see beyond the color lines. This comes as a result of his strange friendship with the old black man, played by Juano Hernandez. Meanwhile, David Brian is on hand as an intelligent attorney and uncle to Jarman who’ll help try to save Hernandez from a lynching…though Brian still exhibits considerable narrow-minded viewpoints.
The story is predictable. Hernandez will be saved. The drama will not go so far as to make him suffer death or become a martyr, though it might have been a powerful indictment about social conditions if it had. Also, Hernandez has to be perfectly innocent. He is so wholesome that the writing won’t allow him to get cited for obstruction of justice, even though he refuses to tell the sheriff or lawyer who the real culprit is, and he definitely knows who the real culprit is.
Instead, he is presented as unrealistically heroic and sympathetic at every turn, to the point his character becomes a bizarre set of liberal white cliches about how the ideal black man is supposed to be.
The killer in this type of story would never be a different black man. It has to be a white male killer. Therefore, the drama that unfolds is not about a falsely accused individual. It is about a falsely accused black man, due to a crime committed by a white man. There are no shades of gray or moral ambiguity on either side.
I would’ve been much more impressed if the story had been crafted by a black writer or a black filmmaker (and there were some in the late 1940s) who was presenting their own ideas about race relations in America. Why do blacks need whites to tell their story and offer up solutions for them? It’s like the old master trying to control the narrative/destiny of the old slaves.
Mostly INTRUDER IN THE DUST is hokum drenched in regional stereotypes and biases, masquerading as progressive truth and so-called entertainment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 30, 2024 16:22:31 GMT
Below is my very different take on the movie.
Intruder in the Dust from 1949, based on a William Faulkner novel, with Juano Hernandez, Claude Jarman Jr., David Brian, Elizabeth Patterson and Will Beer
Thirteen years before the anti-racism classic To Kill a Mockingbird, Hollywood produced Intruder in the Dust, an equally powerful anti-racism movie that, for some inexplicable reason, is all but forgotten today.
Early in the movie, we see an angry mob of southern white men crowding the outside of the jailhouse where a black man is being held on suspicion of murdering a white man. The crowd, seemingly, is just waiting for night to fall to lynch the black man.
The black man, portrayed by Juano Hernandez, once helped a white boy, played by Claude Jarman Jr., when he fell into a frozen pond on his property. Hernandez now asks Jarman to get his uncle, a prominent local lawyer, played by David Brian, to come to him.
Brian, a reasonably fair man, but still a man of his time and place, thinks, like everyone else, that Hernandez is guilty. He all but ignores Hernandez's claim of innocence, especially when Hernandez himself is not forthcoming with details that could explain what happened.
With fuzzy guidance from Hernandez, Jarman and a quietly indominable older white woman, played by Elizabeth Patterson, follow up on Hernandez' hint of where a clue might be found. This, eventually, leads to Brian questioning his original assumptions.
The story itself, no spoilers coming as you want to see this one fresh, involves a white family in the lumber business, a brotherly feud, honest coincidences and enough prejudice to put a potentially innocent black man in danger from both the law and a mob.
Jarman, Brian, a surprisingly honest sheriff, played by Will Geer, and Patterson slowly work to unravel the story and find, if there is any, exonerating evidence. They work, though, against a clock ticking inside the mob.
None of this is made easier by Hernandez himself who, as we see in the present and through flashbacks, is a proud and, often, stubborn man rightfully unwilling to play, even for a moment, the part expected of a black man in the south in the 1940s.
In just less than ninety minutes, director Clarence Brown creates memorable characters, even most of the bad guys are complex, and powerful scenes that force viewers to think hard about race, prejudice, justice and what they would do in this situation.
One of those scenes has Patterson sitting at the front of the jail with a puddle of gasoline at her feet, poured there by the angry, heavy set white leader of the mob who is holding a match and threatening to burn Patterson if she doesn't get out of the way.
Patterson, nearly eighty, all skin and bones, sits calmly threading her needle for her sewing, but clearly showing fear, which is much better than having her be a cartoon hero. You want to have one moment in your life where you show as much courage and character.
Hernandez - an incredibly talented but forgotten actor as, being black, he couldn't be the leading man he would be today - delivers a memorable performance, in particular, because he isn't easily likable, but you respect him. Again, it's character and courage on display.
Brian is also impressive as the confident lawyer who grows a bit throughout the movie. He, too, isn't a cardboard hero, or maybe a hero at all, but a man who learned about himself and his prejudices by the end. His last scene with Hernandez is as good as movie making gets.
Jarman is fine in the role of the young white boy starting to see the raw and ugly prejudice that was around him all his life. He's there to remind us of youthful innocence before cynicism and prejudice takes hold.
Set in a poor rural community where everything, even the indoors, looks dusty, you can feel the poverty, the prejudice but also the pockets of goodness. Porter Hall, playing the one-armed dead man's father, gives a brilliantly nuanced performance on which everything hinges.
Intruder in the Dust's anti-racism message is equal to To Kill a Mockingbird's. So too are its memorable characters, situations and beautiful black and white cinematography. It's a powerful movie for its time that deserves more attention today.
 
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 30, 2024 16:43:51 GMT
I would like to add an AfterWord here...
I had been planning to share my review for INTRUDER IN THE DUST for awhile. But as I told Fading Fast several months ago, I didn't think it was ready for posting.
I just finally added it on the IMDb. I know it will get a lot of un-likes. But I did let it sit for a few months, and when I went back to it a few nights ago, I realized I still feel the exact same way about this film and I thought my review was smartly worded.
The main pitfall in an era with revisionist political correctness going on, is that I am expecting someone to think I am racist because I don't go along with the left-ish sentiments in the film. And I carefully went over my review to see whether or not it had any unconscious racism in it. I don't think it does.
The most potent claim in my review is that I felt the story should have been told by black filmmakers. Saying that underscores the fact that I am not unconsciously racist and certainly not consciously racist. Also, I don't think the portrayals of the white characters are very meaningful, relying on a lot of stereotypes. The whole story (book and movie) just feels phony to me.
A good analogy is that a person who can talk is doing the talking for a mute person, instead of letting the mute person communicate themself in their own way, what THEIR experience is, and what they think the solutions ought to be. So I do stand by my review for INTRUDER IN THE DUST, even if it gets misunderstood by others and is unpopular. This is a time when I will risk controversy to make claims that I feel need to be made.
Done and stepping off the soapbox. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on May 31, 2024 18:51:54 GMT
INTRUDER is neglected and under-rated. This is a film I think benefits from a smaller budget, it has the feel of a poorer small town which MOCKINGBIRD lost a little, not much by being bigger budget-only Boo's house looked not well maintained.
I wonder who the intended audience was in 1949? I don't think the goal was to reassure the black population that there are a few good white people. I like the movie, though it is not a hard hitting message film. I probably would not like it if it had been. And I don't think pictures in this category are intended to eliminate bias and prejudice because people with the specific bias would have no interest in seeing the film. It's an interesting story and at most spurred me to think how far I would go to stop prejudice?
When I watch INTRUDER again, I'll keep your thought in mind, TB. I didn't see an attempt at speaking for people of color or presenting a solution. I wonder what Ava Duvernay or Spike Lee would do with the script?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on May 31, 2024 19:15:06 GMT
INTRUDER is neglected and under-rated. This is a film I think benefits from a smaller budget, it has the feel of a poorer small town which MOCKINGBIRD lost a little, not much by being bigger budget-only Boo's house looked not well maintained. I wonder who the intended audience was in 1949? I don't think the goal was to reassure the black population that there are a few good white people. I like the movie, though it is not a hard hitting message film. I probably would not like it if it had been. And I don't think pictures in this category are intended to eliminate bias and prejudice because people with the specific bias would have no interest in seeing the film. It's an interesting story and at most spurred me to think how far I would go to stop prejudice? When I watch INTRUDER again, I'll keep your thought in mind, TB. I didn't see an attempt at speaking for people of color or presenting a solution. I wonder what Ava Duvernay or Spike Lee would do with the script? William Faulkner was popular in the 40s, due to his novels as well as his screenwriting. In 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for "his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel." Thus for "who the intended audience" was for the film: I assume it was those that either read the novel (which was released in 1948 and thus there was only a year between novel and film) or those that have read other works by Faulkner. The film closely follows the plot line of the Faulkner novel. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 7, 2024 14:28:00 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
In old Louisiana
In some ways this MGM production is not really trying to adapt Lea David Freeman’s play, the original source material; but rather, the studio is just using the setting and a vague facsimile of the story to place stereotypes about working class folk in the old south. It contains the usual down-on-their-luck tropes that had already been explored in several Marie Dressler vehicles like MIN AND BILL and TUGBOAT ANNIE.
Dressler was nearing the end of her life and unable to handle the workload required, so the part of a tough Louisiana matriarch was assigned to May Robson. However, Robson balked at the decreased importance of the role, since the love story involving the young couple (Robert Young & Jean Parker) would ultimately receive more prominence; so, she bailed. After Robson’s departure, the producers hired Maude Eburne to take over. Eburne has an earthier persona than Robson, but despite her wearing a bonnet like Dressler had worn on screen, she lacks the gravitas required.
The story’s main drama revolves around Young, just recently paroled from prison, who goes down to bayou country to look up the relatives of a pal who died in prison. He quickly learns that the pal had exaggerated tales of the clan’s wealth. In fact they are barely getting by, about to lose their dock platform, facing the foreclosure of their business and home. Young is not exactly a reformed con, and he’s gone there to bilk the family out of its money.
Seeing they have no funds, Young decides to leave but then gets drawn into helping Eburne and her daughter (Parker) hold on to their livelihood. He becomes an unlikely hero, and soon he has given up his old ways.
Two other ex-con friends (Nat Pendleton and Ted Healy) show up who have a tougher time reforming. They’re around mainly for comic relief.
Complicating matters is the fact that Young has been married before, and his estranged wife (Ruth Channing) suddenly appears on the scene, intending to get her grubby paws on Young’s new fortune as a shrimper. This upsets Young’s blossoming romance with Parker, but these problems are neatly resolved at the end, when it is learned Young’s marriage to Channing is no longer valid.
There’s a strange subplot involving some Chinese immigrants (played by white actors in yellow face) who are being brought up to the docks by way of Mexico. Young and his buddies thwart a smuggling ring, which allows for some cliched action scenes on a boat, as well as a few moments submerged underwater when Young gets tossed overboard. The Chinese subplot seems borrowed from United Artists’ I COVER THE WATERFRONT (1933) which did a better and more coherent job of dramatizing a crooked ring.
All in all, this isn’t a terrible motion picture. Parker’s role had been intended for Joan Crawford, but Crawford wisely passed on it. The character might have had a bit more pizzazz if Maureen O'Sullivan, Young’s romantic interest in TUGBOAT ANNIE, had been cast. But Parker does a decent enough job, and she does enjoy some nice chemistry with Young.
|
|
|
|
MGM
Jun 7, 2024 14:30:23 GMT
Post by topbilled on Jun 7, 2024 14:30:23 GMT
Note-- we've recently discussed William Faulkner on this thread. He was hired to adapt LAZY RIVER but was fired by MGM during pre-production for unknown reasons. I think the film would have had a more sensational feel to it if he had written the screenplay.
|
|
