|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 2, 2024 16:25:14 GMT
What a great review.Especially like this paragraph:Director Robert Wise steered his large cast and tension-filled story to a climax worthy of its buildup. When Holden and March go mano-a-mano like Roman gladiators in Brooks Brothers suits at the fateful board meeting, you're on the edge of your seat till the final vote.During the 1976-77 television season, MGM's TV division launched a primetime soap version of Executive Suite. Twenty episodes were produced. Mitchell Ryan was cast in Holden's role and Sharon Acker played the wife. The story picked up a few years after the vote, where Ryan's character was still battling a chief adversary (Stephen Elliott in the March role); and the couple's son was now college-aged, home from travels in Europe and ready for a romance. A daughter was added, played by Wendy Phillips-- she was an idealist mixed up in politics.
The TV version eliminated Stanwyck's character, but made one of the vice presidents a female board member.
Maybe if this version of Executive Suite had come along in the 1980s, it would have been a hit when prime time serials were all the rage. I suppose MGM could always reboot it and try again! |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 12, 2024 15:30:05 GMT
This neglected film is from 1937.
Classic tearjerker with courtroom scenes
It would be interesting to know why MGM decided to remake this classic tearjerker, based on a popular French play, in the mid-1930s after the production code was being enforced. Or why the studio never assigned the title role to Greta Garbo or Norma Shearer. Maybe the actresses said no?
For those not already familiar with the often told story, a wealthy mother (Gladys George) is caught having an affair by her unforgiving husband (Warren William). She is cast out on the streets and turns to a life of ill-repute and poverty.
Meanwhile her abandoned son (John Beal) has been brought up to think she’s dead. As if these melodramatic twists are not enough, the son happens to become a defense attorney following in dear old dad’s professional footsteps. Later, he becomes counsel for the mother, not knowing she is his mother, defending her when she is on trial for murder.
The irony, and this story is loaded with irony to the max, is that she has killed a swinish man (Henry Daniell who seems to have taken out a trademark on nefarious creeps) that was going to expose her true identity to the son.
Then as if that is not enough, we have the explosive courtroom scenes where the father (William) who is the one who probably should have been on trial for what he did to the mother, realizes the woman on the stand is his long-estranged ex-wife and that she is determined to go to the electric chair to spare their son (Beal) the agony of having tawdry family secrets come out in court.
With all these sinful plot points, it is no wonder that MGM which had already produced the story in 1929 with Ruth Chatterton, would be hemmed in by the censors. Most of the mother’s shocking lifestyle choices while she is in New Orleans and later in Buenos Aires are merely hinted at. Not once is the word prostitute uttered, though given the way she is dressed and the company she keeps, it is fairly obvious and the viewer can figure it all out. In addition to her life of ill-repute and her being on the run from the law, she has developed a fondness for booze.
It is somewhat unbelievable when Beal’s character begs the jury to save his client’s life, that he can call her a great and wonderful woman. Her choices have appeared to be anything but great or wonderful. At the end, before she dies in a side chamber, just as a verdict is about to rendered in the case, he is still transfixed by her charms and accepts a “motherly” kiss from her.
Some of this is contrived to the hilt, lachrymose is the word for it, but Gladys George does dandy work in this picture. She gives an extraordinary performance conveying the pathos of the character, to the point that you cannot help but be pulled into such theatrics. Factor in MGM’s production values and you have a winner.
|
|
|
|
MGM
Aug 12, 2024 16:09:49 GMT
Post by NoShear on Aug 12, 2024 16:09:49 GMT
This neglected film is from 1937.
Classic tearjerker with courtroom scenes
It would be interesting to know why MGM decided to remake this classic tearjerker, based on a popular French play, in the mid-1930s after the production code was being enforced. Or why the studio never assigned the title role to Greta Garbo or Norma Shearer. Maybe the actresses said no?
For those not already familiar with the often told story, a wealthy mother (Gladys George) is caught having an affair by her unforgiving husband (Warren William). She is cast out on the streets and turns to a life of ill-repute and poverty.
Meanwhile her abandoned son (John Beal) has been brought up to think she’s dead. As if these melodramatic twists are not enough, the son happens to become a defense attorney following in dear old dad’s professional footsteps. Later, he becomes counsel for the mother, not knowing she is his mother, defending her when she is on trial for murder.
The irony, and this story is loaded with irony to the max, is that she has killed a swinish man (Henry Daniell who seems to have taken out a trademark on nefarious creeps) that was going to expose her true identity to the son.
Then as if that is not enough, we have the explosive courtroom scenes where the father (William) who is the one who probably should have been on trial for what he did to the mother, realizes the woman on the stand is his long-estranged ex-wife and that she is determined to go to the electric chair to spare their son (Beal) the agony of having tawdry family secrets come out in court.
With all these sinful plot points, it is no wonder that MGM which had already produced the story in 1929 with Ruth Chatterton, would be hemmed in by the censors. Most of the mother’s shocking lifestyle choices while she is in New Orleans and later in Buenos Aires are merely hinted at. Not once is the word prostitute uttered, though given the way she is dressed and the company she keeps, it is fairly obvious and the viewer can figure it all out. In addition to her life of ill-repute and her being on the run from the law, she has developed a fondness for booze.
It is somewhat unbelievable when Beal’s character begs the jury to save his client’s life, that he can call her a great and wonderful woman. Her choices have appeared to be anything but great or wonderful. At the end, before she dies in a side chamber, just as a verdict is about to rendered in the case, he is still transfixed by her charms and accepts a “motherly” kiss from her.
Some of this is contrived to the hilt, lachrymose is the word for it, but Gladys George does dandy work in this picture. She gives an extraordinary performance conveying the pathos of the character, to the point that you cannot help but be pulled into such theatrics. Factor in MGM’s production values and you have a winner. I doubt by the second half of the 1930s that Norma Shearer would have even been approached for such a role, TopBilled, as she seems to have later settled into parts that were above such subject matter. It's not that she couldn't be edgy, but there was now the matter of her greatest role to be considered: The First Lady of M-G-M. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 12, 2024 16:21:58 GMT
This neglected film is from 1937.
Classic tearjerker with courtroom scenes
I doubt by the second half of the 1930s that Norma Shearer would have even been approached for such a role, TopBilled, as she seems to have later settled into roles that were above such subject matter. It's not that she couldn't be edgy, but there was now the matter of her greatest role to be considered: The First Lady of M-G-M.
As for Gladys George, she really does give a tour-de-force performance. This story had been done countless times on stage-- not only in Europe but on Broadway and various road show productions-- and it had been filmed a few times previously...so I am sure it was not easy for Gladys George to step into the role. Undoubtedly, her work would be compared to the actresses already associated with playing Madame X.
At least when Lana Turner did the part in the mid-60s, there had been enough of a gap in time between the film versions, so she wasn't going to be compared to the ladies who had done it in the 1920s and 1930s.
Gladys George works her tail off in this movie, and it is a shame that it is kind of a neglected film. MADAME X (1937) deserves to be more widely known in large part due to Gladys George's exemplary interpretation of the character. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Aug 12, 2024 16:58:13 GMT
I doubt by the second half of the 1930s that Norma Shearer would have even been approached for such a role, TopBilled, as she seems to have later settled into roles that were above such subject matter. It's not that she couldn't be edgy, but there was now the matter of her greatest role to be considered: The First Lady of M-G-M.
As for Gladys George, she really does give a tour-de-force performance. This story had been done countless times on stage-- not only in Europe but on Broadway and various road show productions-- and it had been filmed a few times previously...so I am sure it was not easy for Gladys George to step into the role. Undoubtedly, her work would be compared to the actresses already associated with playing Madame X.
At least when Lana Turner did the part in the mid-60s, there had been enough of a gap in time between the film versions, so she wasn't going to be compared to the ladies who had done it in the 1920s and 1930s.
Gladys George works her tail off in this movie, and it is a shame that it is kind of a neglected film. MADAME X (1937) deserves to be more widely known in large part due to Gladys George's exemplary interpretation of the character. You're welcome, TopBilled. Keep in mind that I'm only typing as something of a Norma Shearer fan. I severely lack your knowledge of the 1930s studios... I agree that Norma Shearer would've been quite capable of such a role in the late-1920s as she'd already shown her range and a saucier side in earlier silents. I wonder if it also hurt her being the wife of Irving Thalberg at times despite the well-worn reason for resenting her marital status with the Boy Wonder of M-G-M: Norma Shearer's necessary campaigning for The DIVORCEE role supports that she was treated in such a reverential manner by that time as to impede her as much as help her. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 31, 2024 14:45:44 GMT
This neglected film is from 1945.
Wartime marriage not without love
Watching this it felt like they beefed up the male lead character probably to suit someone of Spencer Tracy’s caliber. Especially if he was going to receive top billing. But of course, this is really Katharine Hepburn’s picture, based on a play written for her by Philip Barry.
Curiously the title is mentioned once, maybe twice, in the dialogue. But given the stars’ abundant chemistry, we can’t really believe these two don’t instantly like each other when they meet despite the fact Hepburn’s character is supposed to be haughty, even rude, towards him. That is until she learns who he is, some important scientist her father had admired.
I got the impression that when Hepburn’s character discussed her father in scenes it was actually Hepburn using the dialogue to talk about her own real-life father. And memories of a first husband came from Hepburn’s own memories of her earlier one-time marriage. It seemed like a form of method acting without contriving to be anything more than honest genuine heartfelt emotion. Such is the beauty of a Katharine Hepburn performance.
I also got the impression there was a lot of sadness inside Hepburn, even in her most radiant, most effervescent moments. This becomes noticeable when you spend time with her on screen. I would say she’s Tracy’s equal in any scene, and that in some ways, she’s a better actor than he is. There’s greatness in her smallest movements and emoting.
The two stars are aided by the film’s strong supporting cast. Felix Basserman has a thankless role as a research boss who oversees Tracy’s experiments in Hepburn’s basement. He provides his customary good cheer. Patricia Morison is excellent in a showy supporting role as a society type. Then there’s Keenan Wynn who plays a relative of Hepburn’s and is involved with Morison.
Wynn’s character is a hapless drunk who seems to find himself, and a life with love, by the end of the picture. Lucille Ball is on hand too. She plays a working woman who gets Wynn, though why she saw him as remotely worth her time for two-thirds of the narrative is anyone’s guess.
Ball comes across well, in an Eve Arden sort of way, but seems too important to be playing a supporting role. Maybe in her early days at RKO this sort of part might have suited her, but at this stage, Ball was a star in her own right. Quite frankly, she seems miscast, though I did enjoy her friendship scenes with Hepburn which felt real. The movie is a bit too long at almost two hours. But the slower scenes do give us substantial glimpses into wartime marriages. Ones without love, ones with love; and ones that probably fall somewhere in between.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 6, 2024 14:53:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Smooth sailing?
LUXURY LINER is a cute piece of fluff that has a rather simple premise. The daughter of a tough captain stows away on an ocean liner he commandeers all the way to Rio. Jane Powell is the girl, and George Brent plays her father. It was a big hit for the studio, probably because of the way these two interact on screen.
For much of the film’s running time, they are pretending not to be related while he metes out her punishment. Punishment means forcing her to peel potatoes and scrub hallway floors. It also means not fraternizing with the other employees or the passengers. She quickly ignores these orders. Otherwise, the movie wouldn’t be any fun!
Meanwhile, there are two musicians that just happen to be cruising on the vessel with everyone else. One is bandleader Xavier Cugat, and the other is operatic tenor Lauritz Melchoir.
Both men get a chance to perform several musical selections. In addition to their numbers, Jane Powell sings a few tunes, too.
Early on, she bursts into song inside the ship’s kitchen, memorably singing ‘Alouette’ with the ship’s no-nonsense cook (character actress Connie Gilchrist) and the other workers. Later, Powell has her own opera solo. When these things happen, you can’t possibly take any of it seriously. But the cast is having such fun, and it’s all so infectious, that it’s not difficult to get swept up in the schmaltz and just enjoy it.
Besides the teen rebellion and musical scenes, there are a few romantic complications. Powell falls for one of her dad’s crew members (Thomas Breen); while a female passenger (Frances Gifford) has taken pity on Powell and goes to the captain’s office to give Brent a piece of her mind. This leads to immediate sparks between them. Later Gifford learns Powell is Brent’s daughter. She decides to pay for Powell’s passage, and from this point forward, she becomes the girl’s chaperone. Obviously, this foreshadows the fact Gifford’s character will probably wind up marrying Brent and become Powell’s stepmother.
At the same time, Powell decides it is now her turn to dole out a punishment for her father (meaning the silent treatment and calling him her “ex-father”). He’s a man she loves but also a man with whom she is in a constant power struggle. Nobody said it would be smooth sailing, even with MGM’s excellent production values.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Sept 6, 2024 18:40:18 GMT
Yea, Luxury Liner is fluff, but it is a fun romp. I wasn't even aware of Jane Powell until about 10 years ago and I really like her screen persona, and she has the talent to go with it.
What I also like is that MGM cast Powell as a daughter or sister, of a major, much older, male star, instead of the love interest of said star.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 6, 2024 19:11:56 GMT
Yea, Luxury Liner is fluff, but it is a fun romp. I wasn't even aware of Jane Powell until about 10 years ago and I really like her screen persona, and she has the talent to go with it. What I also like is that MGM cast Powell as a daughter or sister, of a major, much older, male star, instead of the love interest of said star.
He was never invited back to MGM after that. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 12, 2024 13:49:07 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Wallace Beery’s swan song
BIG JACK marks the end of an era. It is the seventh of seven films that Wallace Beery made with frequent costar Marjorie Main. It also happens to be Beery’s motion picture swan song…he died a few days after its release in April 1949.
Mr. Beery’s success as an actor stretched back to the early 1900s, when he began working on the stage. By the mid-1910s he was appearing on screen in silent comedies. He was always a character actor, but he was one of those rare characters who became a bonafide star.
Producer Irving Thalberg signed him to a long-term contract at MGM in 1930 and cast him as one of the leads in the bleak prison drama THE BIG HOUSE. Beery quickly became one of the studio’s most commercially successful and highest paid personalities. Though there were occasional loan outs, he appeared in at least one big budget MGM film each year from 1930 to 1949. He even earned an Oscar along the way.
By the later stage of Mr. Beery’s tenure at Metro, he had settled into the types of roles that were his bread and butter. Typically, he played a blustering fool whose antics often led him astray, even if his heart was still in the right place. Middle-aged counterparts of the female variety were cast alongside him in these vehicles– strong actresses like Marie Dressler, Janet Beecher and Marjorie Main. These gals kept him in like in case he got wild or too big for his britches!
As the title character Big Jack, Beery is placed into a frontier scenario. He is once again playing a blowhard with a tender side. This time he’s the leader of a gang of outlaws in Maryland circa 1802.
While out robbing, he crosses paths one day with a doctor (Richard Conte) who is using corpses for medical research. Conte thinks conducting experiments on the dead will help save the living when he has to operate on them. Of course, law-abiding folks in the region don’t see it that way. They regard vivisection as a gruesome act, and they want Conte strung up and hanged.
Beery intervenes just as Conte is about to be lynched by an angry mob. They soon become quite chummy.
Conte also becomes involved with the attractive daughter (Vanessa Brown) of an influential politician (Edward Arnold).
While Conte’s busy with his forensic practice, Beery abducts Miss Brown and brings her to Conte in order to speed up the courtship process. At first, Brown is rather reluctant to get cozy with Conte, thinking he put his pal Beery up to the kidnapping. But when she learns it was not his idea, she softens and begins to fall for him.
The subplot with Conte and Brown provides the romantic angle of the story. But most of the action is a hodgepodge of slapstick humor, medical drama and western. Contemporary critics had trouble reconciling the different aspects of the story, and so did some of the audience.
Supposedly the script was intended for Spencer Tracy, who chose to make the much more highbrow EDWARD MY SON instead. It would certainly have been a lot different in tone with Tracy in the lead instead of Beery. But at least with Beery, you know you’ll be amused for an hour and half without the pretentiousness that this is anything more than mainstream studio entertainment.
Beery’s character dies at the end of the film, and I think that’s a rather fitting final note for the actor. He was only 64 years old at the time. How long would he have remained a star at MGM? Would he have transitioned to television? We’ll never know the answers to those questions. But we do know that he left behind a lasting contribution. From THE BIG HOUSE to BIG JACK there are a lot of big memorable Wallace Beery performances to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 18, 2024 14:21:14 GMT
This film is from 1946.
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
There’s an interesting article about THE HARVEY GIRLS on the TCM database. Supposedly MGM was developing the property for Lana Turner. The actress had already costarred with leading man John Hodiak, and this version would have been a dramatic vehicle. But MGM’s musical department saw great potential in adding songs and making it their version of Oklahoma!, which was then an enormous hit on Broadway. So, they pulled Turner off the project, and persuaded Judy Garland to take the lead.
TCM’s article says Judy didn’t want to do it at first, maybe because it wouldn’t be directed by Vincente Minnelli, whom she was married to at the time. But Judy was persuaded to take the role, and it became one of her biggest hits at the studio.
Music’s provided by Johnny Mercer, and his winning tune “On the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe” earned him his first Oscar. It’s probably one of the studio’s most beloved songs from its library of musicals made during the 40s and 50s. If you haven’t seen THE HARVEY GIRLS, watch it for this number alone. Even people who don’t really care for the movie love this song and the way it’s performed on screen.
A few years ago I purchased a book called ‘The Best Old Movies for Families’ written by journalist Ty Burr. Burr’s book mentions THE HARVEY GIRLS twice. In one section, he discusses how his preteen daughters loved the story and kept rewatching it. Perhaps that is due to the wholesomeness in Judy’s performance which strikes a chord with younger viewers, something also evidenced in THE WIZARD OF OZ.
Out of curiosity, I looked up Pauline Kael’s review. She called THE HARVEY GIRLS a lavish high-spirited period musical, which it is. Also, she discusses the contrast between Garland and Angela Lansbury in two main female roles.
Per Kael, one is a force of respectability (Garland); and the other one is the complete opposite (Lansbury). Of course, both gals reach a mutual understanding before the story ends. Kael thinks the concept for the film is a bit strange but that it works. She refers to the sequence where Judy performs the Oscar-winning tune as “triumphant.”
I should mention that Ty Burr says his daughters also loved JOHNNY GUITAR (1954). And if you think about it, the battle between Joan Crawford & Mercedes McCambridge in that campy Republic western is just a higher voltage version of the rivalry between Garland & Lansbury in this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 27, 2024 15:35:54 GMT
This film is from 1943.
The Curies and their romance of radium
Marie Curie was an inspiring figure, and her life became the basis for an inspiring MGM film in 1943. The polished production was nominated in seven major categories, including Best Picture. In addition to the Oscar nomination for best picture, both leads (Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon) were nominated for their strong performances.
Additional nominations were garnered for Cedric Gibbons’ art direction; Joe Ruttenberg’s striking cinematography; Herb Stothart’s music; and Douglas Shearer’s sound design. Unfortunately, MADAME CURIE was shut out entirely, not receiving any award in any category, which seems a real injustice– it was the same year CASABLANCA had taken Hollywood by storm.
All the nominees deserved an Oscar. I’d even add that May Whitty should have at least had a supporting actress nomination. She’s wonderful as Marie Curie’s mother-in-law, providing just the right touch of maternal devotion and encouragement, even if she and her husband (Henry Travers) haven’t the first clue about radioactive experiments.
I suppose when modern-day audiences watch MADAME CURIE, the accomplishments of Whitty, Garson and Pidgeon in this film are a bit overshadowed by their earlier hit, MRS. MINIVER, which was released a year earlier and was a Best Picture. Also, the director of MADAME CURIE (Mervyn LeRoy) had previously worked with Garson in RANDOM HARVEST, which is another well-known Metro hit from the same period. Regardless, MADAME CURIE is a smart and entertaining motion picture that should receive a new critical appraisal and appreciation.
I won’t cover the plot, except to say the studio does play up the romantic elements of the relationship in the first third of the movie. However, after the Curies are married and Whitty’s character dies, the focus switches from domestic goings on to the more professional goals the couple had, as well as their many tribulations. In particular, they spent many years isolating certain elements in their experiments to prove the existence of radium.
The Warner home video I watched includes the original 124-minute print, which is what TCM usually shows. Some of the more scientific scenes were cut when the studio re-released the film. The longer version benefits from having the science material included, because what’s occurring in their experiments is highly symbolic of the kind of relationship that Marie and Pierre Curie had.
Seeing them work in the shed they converted into their laboratory gives us a vivid sense of who they are as people. Also, we see how determined they are to prove their theories to help ensure that the curative powers of radium might benefit society. So in that light, they are rather heroic.
The Warner DVD includes a nifty bonus feature called ‘Romance of Radium.’ This is a 1937 short film the studio produced about the Curies. It was directed by Jacques Tourneur and runs about ten minutes. It uses lesser known actors, and it focuses more on the science; as well as the dangerous aspects of working directly with radium.
As a companion piece to the feature film made six years later, it is invaluable. ‘Romance of Radium’ was also nominated for an Oscar, for Best Short Subject Film the year it was released.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 5, 2024 14:03:23 GMT
This neglected film is from 1930.
Her revenge is paid in full
During the late 1920s and early 1930s, Joan Crawford had several notable hits at home studio MGM. One of the biggest hits was PAID, a melodrama based on a successful Broadway play. This was the fourth time the story had been brought to the screen, though all the previous adaptations were silent films. MGM would produce another remake at the end of the decade, 1939’s WITHIN THE LAW, a B programmer in which Ruth Hussey took the lead role.
Incidentally, the earlier film versions and the play were all titled ‘Within the Law.’ In PAID Crawford’s character utters this phrase, swearing she will get revenge on a man (Purnell Pratt) who had unjustly sent her to prison, by using legal means to get even. Her methods will keep her within the law and prevent her from going back into the cage for another three years.
The initial sequence has her convicted for stealing from a department store where she’s been employed, but insisting she was framed. The story takes great pains to remind us several times that she is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, even when she is running a racket later within the law and is certainly not acting like a normal law abiding citizen would! In fact, since this is a precode, I think it would have been ‘acceptable’ if she had actually been guilty of stealing, but that she did so for valid reasons, and that she felt the penalty of a three-year sentence was too harsh so that was what she was rebelling against.
Part of her revenge involves a series of elaborate cons. In some ways the criminal ring part of this story reminded me of Crawford’s later picture A WOMAN’S FACE, where she would also trap people and extort money. She carries out these cons with another ex-inmate she met in prison (played to great comedic effect by Marie Prevost).
There is a scene where Crawford looks up Prevost needing to borrow money, explaining she hasn’t had anything to eat in days, before they hatch the racket scheme. Ironically, Marie Prevost would die in 1937 from malnutrition, and she left a note at the scene of her death that she owed Joan Crawford over $100 she’d borrowed. Crawford paid for Prevost’s funeral and burial, since Prevost died in abject poverty.
Robert Armstrong is also part of the gang pulling the cons. He does not get romantic with Crawford’s character, but they forge a strong bond. If Armstrong gets implicated in another crime, he will go to prison for life. Later, there is a murder, involving another guy in on their schemes, who is actually an undercover police officer (Tyrell Davis). Things are not always easy for this team, and Armstrong ends up preventing Crawford from getting railroaded a second time after the murder, to ensure she has a free and happy life.
Part of the happiness that Crawford experiences in the film is an unexpected romance with the son (Douglass Montgomery) of the department store owner who had helped convict Crawford at the beginning. She marries junior for revenge, then realizes she actually loves the guy. Some of what happens in the story stretches credibility, but it is nice to know that Crawford’s character does end up on the right side of the law and the right side of society.
While the actress is not exactly at the top of her game, as she would be in later films at Metro, or her winning streak at Warner Brothers in the 1940s, this is still a good Joan Crawford showcase. She is able to capture the melancholy and pathos experienced by her troubled character very well, as well as the happier and more hopeful aspects. It is easy to see how a movie audience in 1930 would be won over by her jaded, yet sincere, characterization. She gives a wonderfully effective performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Oct 5, 2024 14:06:49 GMT
This film is from 1943.
The Curies and their romance of radium
Marie Curie was an inspiring figure, and her life became the basis for an inspiring MGM film in 1943. The polished production was nominated in seven major categories, including Best Picture. In addition to the Oscar nomination for best picture, both leads (Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon) were nominated for their strong performances.
Additional nominations were garnered for Cedric Gibbons’ art direction; Joe Ruttenberg’s striking cinematography; Herb Stothart’s music; and Douglas Shearer’s sound design. Unfortunately, MADAME CURIE was shut out entirely, not receiving any award in any category, which seems a real injustice– it was the same year CASABLANCA had taken Hollywood by storm.
All the nominees deserved an Oscar. I’d even add that May Whitty should have at least had a supporting actress nomination. She’s wonderful as Marie Curie’s mother-in-law, providing just the right touch of maternal devotion and encouragement, even if she and her husband (Henry Travers) haven’t the first clue about radioactive experiments.
I suppose when modern-day audiences watch MADAME CURIE, the accomplishments of Whitty, Garson and Pidgeon in this film are a bit overshadowed by their earlier hit, MRS. MINIVER, which was released a year earlier and was a Best Picture. Also, the director of MADAME CURIE (Mervyn LeRoy) had previously worked with Garson in RANDOM HARVEST, which is another well-known Metro hit from the same period. Regardless, MADAME CURIE is a smart and entertaining motion picture that should receive a new critical appraisal and appreciation.
I won’t cover the plot, except to say the studio does play up the romantic elements of the relationship in the first third of the movie. However, after the Curies are married and Whitty’s character dies, the focus switches from domestic goings on to the more professional goals the couple had, as well as their many tribulations. In particular, they spent many years isolating certain elements in their experiments to prove the existence of radium.
The Warner home video I watched includes the original 124-minute print, which is what TCM usually shows. Some of the more scientific scenes were cut when the studio re-released the film. The longer version benefits from having the science material included, because what’s occurring in their experiments is highly symbolic of the kind of relationship that Marie and Pierre Curie had.
Seeing them work in the shed they converted into their laboratory gives us a vivid sense of who they are as people. Also, we see how determined they are to prove their theories to help ensure that the curative powers of radium might benefit society. So in that light, they are rather heroic.
The Warner DVD includes a nifty bonus feature called ‘Romance of Radium.’ This is a 1937 short film the studio produced about the Curies. It was directed by Jacques Tourneur and runs about ten minutes. It uses lesser known actors, and it focuses more on the science; as well as the dangerous aspects of working directly with radium.
As a companion piece to the feature film made six years later, it is invaluable. ‘Romance of Radium’ was also nominated for an Oscar, for Best Short Subject Film the year it was released.
I like your romance of radium subtitle line, TopBilled. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 5, 2024 14:19:35 GMT
⇧ (Please scroll up two to TopBilled - NoShear snuck one in between on me  ) I am stunned by what happened to Marie Prevost, as I knew nothing about her personal life, but professionally, she pops up in a lot of precodes in major supporting roles. Had she died destitute in 1957, or maybe even 1947, I'd have been less shocked, as we know many stories like that about actors. But it's pretty surprising to see her go from having a successful career in the early 1930s to dying of malnutrition only a year or two later.
Paid from 1930 with Joan Crawford, Robert Armstrong, Marie Prevost, John Miljan, Purnell Pratt and Douglas Montgomery
Other than getting a bit muddled and mawkish at the end, Paid is a hard-hitting and entertaining precode that says some cops are bad and the legal system is brutally unfair and biased for the rich, but it also says crooks are worse.
Joan Crawford plays a department store worker who is railroaded into jail when she's accused of stealing. Crawford's sentence is severe because the store's owner, played by Purnell Pratt, sternly refuses to say anything in Crawford's favor at her sentencing.
In jail, which is harsh but has a hint of women's prison prurience, Crawford does two things: she studies the law, and she befriends a fellow inmate played by Marie Prevost. When she gets out after three years, she joins Prevost's gang of swindlers, but Crawford has a plan.
Her angle is to swindle older rich men out of money by having them propose marriage to her or Prevost. When the men realize who the girls really are, the girls sue them for breach of promise. It's nasty but legal as is a partnership swindle Crawford also masterminds.
The gang's old leader, played by Robert Armstrong, smartly cedes his position to Crawford, a woman he's developed feelings for. Things are going well as the money is coming in, and while shady, it's all legal.
The police are wise to them, but Crawford is smart and keeps the gang within the law. That, though, isn't enough for Crawford as she also wants revenge on Pratt, so she – get ready for it – marries his son, played by Douglas Montgomery.
The classic three-act story has now completed act two where the heroine, Crawford, has exacted revenge on the villain, Pratt, by stealing his son from him. Up to now, it's an excellent retribution movie, but as the saying goes, it still needs a third act.
Paid gets muddled now as the gang members, sans Crawford as she's focused on hurting Pratt, consider slipping back into their old ways when they see an opportunity to make a big score by stealing from Pratt.
The other wrinkle, which you'll see coming, is Crawford, against her will, beginning to fall for her husband for real – despite having married him only as a way to hurt Pratt.
From here, the movie mashes all these threads together into a giant muddle that is both confusing and hard to believe. The movie needed a Hollywood ending, so it got one, but the twists at the climax are too cute, and the wrap-up is rushed and awkward.
Had Warner Bros., not MGM, made Paid, the ending would probably have been harsher but more realistic. MGM's movies, even during the precode era, had a gloss that rough-and-tumbled Warners didn't.
Paid, though, does accuse the legal system of being unjust, harsh and biased for the rich. The cops look dirty as they use tricks, deceit, and physical force to get confessions. They bend the law like Crawford does. Paid is no shining example of American justice
Crawford's acting isn't subtle here; she'd become subtler in time, but she is effective as the wronged woman on a revenge quest. Other than Prevost, who is wonderful as an insouciant swindler, this is Crawford's movie, so much so, she fireman carries it through the third act.
Armstrong is good as the crook who, ironically, doesn't seem to enjoy making money honestly. Pratt is fine as the cardboard "rich guy" who has no feelings for his employees, but Montgomery feels almost like a placeholder as the pretty boy son who's just a pawn.
If Crawford has a true antagonist in this one, it's John Miljan playing the police inspector who stalks Crawford's gang throughout. The long closing scene, where he manipulates everyone as he uses his office as a stage, is impressive, even if the storyline is forced.
Paid uses its precode freedom pretty well. It shows America's justice system, from its courts to its police, in an unfavorable light, while having a woman, pretty much, outsmart the men time and again.
Paid would be remade as a B movie in 1939 with the title Within the Law, the story's original stage name. The remake held on to a decent amount of its grit, plus it's a more polished version, but for raw precode entertainment, this 1930 version is the one to watch.
|
|
) I am stunned by what happened to Marie Prevost, as I knew nothing about her personal life, but professionally, she pops up in a lot of precodes in major supporting roles. Had she died destitute in 1957, or maybe even 1947, I'd have been less shocked, as we know many stories like that about actors. But it's pretty surprising to see her go from having a successful career in the early 1930s to dying of malnutrition only a year or two later.