|
|
Post by marysara1 on Dec 21, 2022 20:16:04 GMT
Aren't there double standards. In one movie Christopher Strong his daughter was dating a married man, but she objected that her father was dating Katherine Hepburn's character.
|
|
|
|
MGM
Dec 21, 2022 20:25:04 GMT
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 21, 2022 20:25:04 GMT
Aren't there double standards. In one movie Christopher Strong his daughter was dating a married man, but she objected that her father was dating Katherine Hepburn's character.
I haven't seen "Christopher Strong" in years (it's a good one), but that sounds right to me, but my memory of its plot is shaky. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 27, 2022 15:22:58 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Brotherly affection
FAST WORKERS would be John Gilbert’s last starring role in a motion picture. The actor had enjoyed a long and successful career as a lead in silent films, most notably at MGM. But his work met with mixed results in the talkie/early sound era. In addition to changing audience tastes in the early 1930s (Clark Gable, Wallace Beery and Robert Montgomery were emerging as Metro’s most important male stars), execs decided Gilbert cost too much, so his contract was not renewed.
Gilbert would come back to the studio for one more picture as a freelancer, but in QUEEN CHRISTINA he was second-billed under frequent costar Greta Garbo. And a year later, there was an ensemble picture at Columbia where he was fourth-billed. So FAST WORKERS is the last time he is actually the star of a film.
Contemporary critics panned the effort, claiming Gilbert was miscast. I suppose they were used to his playing more polished characters. In this story, he is seen as a riveter who toils on the construction of a high-rise building. He spends most of his workday with a pal (Robert Armstrong) and after hours, he socializes with an attractive woman (Mae Clarke). The drama kicks in when it is learned that Clarke has also become involved with Armstrong, forming a blue collar triangle.
Gilbert does very well in those moments where his freewheeling character starts to take life a bit more seriously. He gradually evolves into a more mature and responsible type of fellow. But in the early part of the movie, he is nearly defeated by his devil-may-care attitude. Adding to the complex nature of the role is the fact that he often tries to steal women away from Armstrong to prove his own successfulness with the opposite sex and to show his friend that these women are no good if they can be so easily seduced away.
Of course, Clarke has her own ideas when she learns Armstrong has a good bit of money saved up. She may have fallen for Gilbert, but she decides to marry Armstrong for his money, which Gilbert is unable to prevent. Things become increasingly dicey for the trio, when Armstrong finds out he’s been betrayed. Instead of blaming Clarke, he blames Gilbert and tries to kill him one day up on the scaffolds of the high-rise structure they’re building. These are very tense moments on screen.
The last sequence involves Gilbert’s hospitalization after falling from the high-rise and nearly dying. At his bedside, he and Armstrong make amends and realize their problems stem not from their mistrust of each other, but the trouble caused by the ladies in their lives. This leaves Clarke’s character out in the cold, no longer with a husband, any money or a lover on the side.
I do find it humorous how disposable the main chick is in this movie. Of course there will be other gals and other squabbles between the two men…but their lifelong bond seems to be more important than anything else. It’s an entertaining if somewhat uneven blend of action and suds, with brotherly affection winning out in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 27, 2022 15:35:05 GMT
⇧ That's great color from Tobbilled on John Gilbert's career, in particular, where it was at when he made this film and why it wasn't well received. From my 2022 perspective, I liked Gilbert's performance here a lot. I knew his career was near an end by then, but I didn't carry any of the expectations about him into the movie that a 1933 audience would have.
Fast Workers from 1933 with John Gilbert, Mae Clarke and Robert Armstrong
In the early 1930s, Hollywood churned out many short, impactful pre-code talkies ('29-'34) with a real-life take on sex, love and friendship, as it does in the double-entendre titled Fast Workers, starring John Gilbert, Mae Clarke and Robert Armstrong.
Gilbert and Armstrong, playing riveters on a skyscraper, are buddies and co-workers who protect each other from scamming women. Gilbert is the lady's man and Armstrong is the one who is too trusting of women, but if either falls for a woman, the other investigates her fidelity.
Enter pretty grifter Mae Clarke who makes her living scamming men out of money with fake sob stories about her sick relatives or an evil landlady.
Gilbert and Clarke have a true attraction for each other, but since he's got her number and since she really likes him, the implication is they sleep together now and then separate from her "business."
Trouble arises when Clarke begins "dating" Armstrong because she learns he's got a good amount of money in the bank and is a nice man who falls for her made-up tales of woe. Initially, Clarke doesn't know that Armstrong is Gilbert's friend nor does Gilbert know that Armstrong's new love is Clarke.
With that set up, the movie slowly smashes everyone up when Gilbert realizes that Clarke is the "wonderful" girl his buddy Armstrong wants to marry.
Gilbert seems both jealous and angry, while Clarke, too, becomes hurt that Gilbert wants to "protect" his friend from her. She, also, really wants Gilbert to take her seriously as a girlfriend, but she can't admit this to him.
It ramps up from there when Gilbert takes Clarke away for the weekend to gather evidence to prove to Armstrong she's not a good woman.
A few things, naturally, go wrong with that stupid plan and everybody ends up burning mad at everyone else, so much so that Armstrong and Gilbert have A Separate Peace moment of "did my best friend nearly try to kill me?"
The story is contrived, but the underlying passions and jealousies are all too real, which shepherds the plot over most of its holes and awkwardness. Also helping things along, especially for 1933 audiences, are the scenes of Gilbert and Armstrong at work.
Putting up skyscrapers was cutting edge technology that fascinated the public back then.
It's hard to believe today, with our modern worker safety laws and norms, but in the 1930s, it was accepted that a certain number of workers would die during construction of any one of these vertical marvels. It was a crazy kind of wild-west-in-the-sky environment.
The scenes of Gilbert and Armstrong walking around on beams without harnesses and other safety equipment, hundreds of feet in the sky, as molten rivets are nonchalantly tossed around are still captivating and nerve racking today. These are real men, pushing the metaphor, who are the last cowboys in America.
Fast Workers ends in melodramatic fashion with a pre-code-style rough and uneven justice that would not be allowed once the Motion Picture Production Code was enforced.
The movie works, though, because the emotions and passions are real, the skyscraper scenes engaging and, most importantly, because Clarke and Gilbert give outstanding performances playing not particularly nice people, who are kinda in love and who, occasionally, try to do the right thing.
As to Fast Workers' racy title: the rivitors have to work fast to get the heated bolts in place before they cool; the men are also fast workers with the women they meet; and, finally, the women hustlers like Mae Clarke are fast workers when scamming men. And all that is just a typical day in pre-code Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 27, 2022 15:45:17 GMT
What a great review, Fading Fast. You went more in-depth than I did.
I do wonder if men really walked around on beams without harnesses in 1933, or if this was dramatic license in the film to up the danger and set the stage for the Gilbert plummeting off the edge later in the movie. While safety laws may not have been what they are now, I think common sense would have had some of the men protecting themselves that high up, especially if their nagging wives and mothers saw how much they were putting themselves at risk. It would be an interesting side subject to research.
I am a huge fan of Mae Clarke. She doesn't get enough credit for her motion picture work. She never quite plays a likable 'dame' in precode Hollywood, and as a result, her characters often get the short end of the stick. See THE FRONT PAGE, PENGUIN POOL MURDER and LADY KILLER for examples of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 27, 2022 18:19:47 GMT
What a great review, Fading Fast. You went more in-depth than I did.
I do wonder if men really walked around on beams without harnesses in 1933, or if this was dramatic license in the film to up the danger and set the stage for the Gilbert plummeting off the edge later in the movie. While safety laws may not have been what they are now, I think common sense would have had some of the men protecting themselves that high up, especially if their nagging wives and mothers saw how much they were putting themselves at risk. It would be an interesting side subject to research.
I am a huge fan of Mae Clarke. She doesn't get enough credit for her motion picture work. She never quite plays a likable 'dame' in precode Hollywood, and as a result, her characters often get the short end of the stick. See THE FRONT PAGE, PENGUIN POOL MURDER and LADY KILLER for examples of this.
Years ago, I read a few books on the construction of skyscrapers, so based on an old memory, I'd say, while the movie probably exaggerated, there was an "acceptable" number of deaths associated with the construction of those buildings as the work was truly very dangerous. As nuts as it sounds, they did toss the heated rivets around as the heater was centralized. If you're interested, one book I'd recommend is Higher: A Historic Race to the Sky and the Making of a City as a fun read on the topic (think popular, not scholarly history).
I love Mae Clarke too. In addition to the movies you mentioned, I'd add the 1931 "Waterloo Bridge," where she gives an incredibly passionate and raw performance in the same role Vivien Leigh would have in the much-more-well-known 1940 version. The 1940 version is very good as it is very studio slick, but Clarke's version is viscerally more moving, in part, because it was less contained by the Code and, in part, because she's that good. Plus, we can't forget that she's the face that James Cagney famously rub a grapefruit in, in 1931's "The Public Enemy." |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 4, 2023 7:15:12 GMT
This neglected film is from 1935.
Poor choices and wasted lives
The billing is a bit deceptive. Lionel Barrymore is top-billed, but he should really be third-billed. Chester Morris, who is third-billed, should be top-billed since he is in nearly every scene of major importance. Jean Arthur, borrowed from Columbia, gets second billing, above Morris even though she doesn’t appear on screen until 28 minutes into the story.
Chester Morris had previously played a convict in THE BIG HOUSE (1930) for MGM, so he is revisiting his old stomping grounds behind bars, so to speak. Only the twist here is that he’s a G-man pretending to be a thief, in order to gain the confidence of a ruthless gangster (Joseph Calleia) who happens to be his cellmate.
Morris will help Calleia escape, in order to be led to the rest of the infamous Purple Gang. If this set up sounds a lot like Edmond O’Brien pretending to be a con in WHITE HEAT to befriend James Cagney in prison, then you can probably assume the writers and producers of that later Warner Brothers picture were inspired by PUBLIC HERO NUMBER 1.
Another twist involves Miss Arthur’s character, whom Morris meets on the road after he and Calleia have broken out. Calleia has been shot. Morris has just reported to his boss (Paul Kelly), that he needs to locate a mob-friendly doctor (Barrymore) to treat Calleia. Along the way, he meets Arthur and a group of passengers on a bus, who have skidded off the road in a storm. Arthur is actually Calleia’s sister and while she understands her brother has made poor choices in life, she is unaware that he is a killer and that Morris and the feds are using him to reel in the rest of his violent gang.
I sort of feel that Arthur is better at this type of dramatic material than she is in her more well-known screwball comedies. She projects the right amount of fragility, which is so necessary for the character of Theresa that she is playing in this movie. We believe in her sincerity to help her crooked sibling, and we sympathize when she falls for Morris, who is going to end up taking Calleia’s life in a dramatic shoot-out at the end.
I don’t think we’re really rooting for any specific character, because even Morris, the hero of the title, tells lies and does what he has to do in order to help Kelly and the other feds carry out justice. The ends tend to justify the means for everyone in this story, regardless of what side of the law they may be on.
Barrymore’s character provides some humorous moments as an incorrigible drunk who has spent the last nine years treating gangsters before they end up getting plugged with lead by the cops that catch them. We cannot be sure why Barrymore’s character has fallen in with such unsavory men, perhaps he thought he could save them physically and spiritually. But then he realized how futile such efforts are. Some of these men are just too far gone to help, and in a way that is the most important message of the film— how poor choices can lead to wasted lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 8, 2023 17:20:24 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
6000 reasons to watch
Usually a prison flick that clocks in at 60 minutes about a man who has been unjustly framed is no frills. It is often a poverty row product made with a low budget. But here, it’s an MGM production with handsome production values and a lot more attention to detail than we might expect.
Walter Pidgeon is cast as a ruthless attorney whose tough views on crime come back to haunt him when he’s framed by a gangster and sent to the clink for something he didn’t do. When he gets there, he is befriended by a doctor (Paul Kelly, who had a real-life prison term) and must deal with other inmates who have it out for him.
Many of the plot points are not too original, and the characters are glorified stereotypes at best. However, Mr. Pidgeon and the cast do a credible job with the material. Joining them is Rita Johnson as our leading lady…a female inmate with her own false conviction. She excels at portraying the anguish her character experiences.
What makes her situation unique is that Pidgeon is the one who prosecuted her case and helped send her to the slammer! But we mustn’t despair too long…because chances are, there is plenty of dramatic irony to go round and she will end up as Pidgeon’s wife before the final fadeout.
What I like about 6,000 ENEMIES is that it gives the lead actor something tougher to play than MGM usually assigned him. Normally, Walter Pidgeon appeared on screen as Greer Garson’s suave husband, or else he played a fundamentally decent guy in support of other stars in lavish studio productions.
But in this film, he gets a chance to be a bit less debonair and rough around the edges. I thought he was very much up to the challenge, especially in a boxing match where his character is pummeled by an opponent (Nat Pendleton). It’s a shame Pidgeon didn’t routinely get these parts at MGM or at other studios.
Another thing I like about 6,000 ENEMIES is the way the editor advances the story by literally speeding up the film during some scenes. Also, chunks of material have been spliced together to create montages that quickly and efficiently show us key points and move on to the next piece of business. As a result, we have an action-packed drama that seems to imprint its own style as it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 13, 2023 15:50:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
Formidable adversaries
As far as Edward G. Robinson flicks go, this one isn’t too bad. It’s clear that the actor, freelancing at this point of his career, and MGM the studio behind the production, were eager to capitalize on the types of crime films he had done earlier in the decade at Warner Brothers. In some ways it’s an uneven effort, because they are trying to balance the grit of a Warners picture with the gloss of an MGM picture.
At the beginning of the film we learn that Robinson is a family man with a secret. He was a fugitive from justice years ago who had changed his name, married a good woman (Ruth Hussey) and had a child (Bobs Watson).
During the last nine years, he has established a successful business putting out oil fires with his partner (Guinn Williams). He has become rather prosperous and lives in a fine home surrounded by a white picket fence in a fine community– probably Carvel U.S.A. where the Hardys live just a few doors down. In short, he has a lot to lose if his secret were ever to come out. And it definitely does.
A shady character from his past (Gene Lockhart) shows up at his home one day looking for a handout. But this sleaze bucket does not just want a sandwich and a few bucks.
His greedy black heart wants it all– money, Robinson’s business, ownership of a profitable oil well, and respect from the local townsfolk.
Of course Robinson has no intention of giving Lockhart what he wants and tries to make some sort of deal to get rid of him. But Lockhart has carefully considered every angle before arriving on Robinson’s doorstep, and he is able to outfox him. Lockhart goes from threatening exposure, to outright blackmail, to totally destroying Robinson’s life in a few days.
There are some interesting dramatic scenes that occur as a result of what happens. Especially the part where the police show up to arrest Robinson, since they now know his true identity and his past criminal record. Robinson realizes he’s been tricked by Lockhart, but he cannot deny that he never finished a prison sentence (for a crime he didn’t commit, naturally)…and that he must own up to things like a man.
One of the film’s more poignant moments involves him saying goodbye to his young son. The boy is told that pop is going way for awhile on business, not that pop is going back to finish out a prison sentence. We’re supposed to feel sorry for Robinson, and for his family– which we do. And we are also supposed to feel angry, like he is, that a miscarriage of justice occurred and Lockhart shouldn’t have the upper hand.
Soon Robinson is back in a striped uniform, having been put to work on a chain gang. The middle portion of the film shows him trying to adjust, and his being somewhat despondent at how his life has taken a U-turn. When he receives a visit from his old pal Williams, he learns what Lockhart has been doing with their business and is also told that his wife had to sell her nice home and move to a smaller place on the wrong side of the tracks.
This sets up the dramatic last act. Robinson manages to escape from the chain gang and heads home.
The big finale has him confronting Lockhart, this time on the edge of an oilfield where a fire is burning out of control. The explosions caused by the blaze mirror the inner explosions that are going on inside Robinson. His turmoil has given way to rage, and he doesn’t hold back.
While the script goes a bit over the top, Robinson and Lockhart both turn in fine performances here. We believe they are formidable adversaries, and it is very satisfying when Lockhart finally confesses the truth, that he is the one who should have gone to prison, not Robinson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 13, 2023 16:14:17 GMT
⇧ Nice write-up. Somehow, I've never seen this one.
We talk about neglected films, but Ruth Hussey is a bit of a neglected actress. She pops up in an incredible number of classic-era films, but is rarely talked about today.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 13, 2023 16:38:53 GMT
⇧ Nice write-up. Somehow, I've never seen this one.
We talk about neglected films, but Ruth Hussey is a bit of a neglected actress. She pops up in an incredible number of classic-era films, but is rarely talked about today. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 13, 2023 18:24:59 GMT
⇧ Nice write-up. Somehow, I've never seen this one.
We talk about neglected films, but Ruth Hussey is a bit of a neglected actress. She pops up in an incredible number of classic-era films, but is rarely talked about today. I was just about to post some thing similar as it relates to Ruth Hussey. Good to see the focus on a film where she is the leading actress, instead of the secondary leading actress, which is often her role. I have often connected Hussey and Geraldine Fitzgerald. Very good actresses that mostly played secondary leading actress, with the occasional leading role, while they were under contract (Hussey with MGM and Fitzgerald with Warner Bros.). I also wonder if there is a connection with actresses that are a bit neglected, with neglected films. E.g. take this 1939 film Blackmail; If the leading actress was Hepburn or Garson it is highly likely the film would be more well known. |
|
|
|
MGM
Jan 13, 2023 23:42:35 GMT
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 13, 2023 23:42:35 GMT
⇧ Nice write-up. Somehow, I've never seen this one.
We talk about neglected films, but Ruth Hussey is a bit of a neglected actress. She pops up in an incredible number of classic-era films, but is rarely talked about today. Do you know what Warner Bros. received for loaning out E.G. Robinson to MGM? I view Robinson as WB's third leading male star at the time (behind Cagney and Flynn, and Bogart was still a few years away from being a star level leading man). I know you said Robinson was freelancing at the time, but the 4 or more films he made before and after Blackmail were all for WB. (expect for I am the Law which was from Columbia). Of course maybe Robinson was freelancing after Confessions of a Nazi Spy, did a film for Columbia, than MGM and it just happened that his next 4 films were with WB as a freelancer. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 14, 2023 1:55:23 GMT
I agree, she is often unfairly overlooked. Do you know what Warner Bros. received for loaning out E.G. Robinson to MGM? I view Robinson as WB's third leading male star at the time (behind Cagney and Flynn, and Bogart was still a few years away from being a star level leading man). I know you said Robinson was freelancing at the time, but the 4 or more films he made before and after Blackmail were all for WB. (expect for I am the Law which was from Columbia). Of course maybe Robinson was freelancing after Confessions of a Nazi Spy, did a film for Columbia, than MGM and it just happened that his next 4 films were with WB as a freelancer.
There was a catch to these clauses. If they made a film away from the home studio as a freelancer, it had to be a major studio. Meaning guys like Robinson, Flynn, Cagney and Bogart could not go to a poverty row studio like Monogram to do a freelance project, because that would devalue their name and cause the home studio to lose money when marketing the star in subsequent films. If the star did go to a poverty row studio, or tried to do a cheap independent project, the studio could cancel the contract which cost the star a lot of money and loss of earnings.
Around 1942, Robinson did leave Warner Brothers and became a full-time freelancer who had multi-picture deals at Columbia and Universal, while still occasionally doing projects at MGM. Of course he would be gray-listed in the early 1950s which hurt his career. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 21, 2023 15:54:50 GMT
This neglected film is from 1942.
Her previous way of life is over
The advertising for MGM’s THE WAR AGAINST MRS. HADLEY said viewers could expect ‘the truth and nothing but the truth’ when it hit movie screens in the fall of 1942. The truth is that it was one of Hollywood’s first wartime movies focusing on the home front, and the studio considered it a high-priority release.
The film had a special premiere in the nation’s capitol, where its lead stars (Fay Bainter and Edward Arnold) appeared in person. Proceeds for the event raised a considerable sum of money in war bonds.
Screenwriter George Oppenheimer claimed the idea was conceived right after Pearl Harbor was attacked. In fact, the film begins with the December 7th birthday of the title character, Mrs. Hadley, which is overshadowed by the country’s official involvement in the war. Her story will have considerable propaganda value for home front audiences, especially women feeling inconvenienced by the war.
The first half of the drama depicts how Mrs. Hadley refuses to relinquish her previous way of life. In her mind, December 7th and December 8th and all the days after should be no different than December 6th and all the days that came before. She fails to see how the country needs to unite. As everyone else mobilizes and pitches in, she retains a selfishness that ultimately leads to her isolation– until she experiences a dramatic change of heart.
Edward Arnold plays Elliott Fulton, a close family friend who works for the War Department in Washington. When Mrs. Hadley’s son Ted (Richard Ney) is drafted, Elliot is asked to help keep him out of the service. Of course, that is deemed unpatriotic, and the young man departs for military duty.
Meanwhile, a daughter named Pat (Jean Rogers) becomes engaged to a soldier she meets while volunteering at a canteen; and of course, Mrs. Hadley disapproves– to the point where she refuses to attend the wedding. The soldier is portrayed by Van Johnson in an early role. Then there’s Cecilia Talbot (Spring Byington), a friend of Mrs. Hadley’s who works with the Red Cross and finds purpose in charity work.
At every turn the war seems to do battle against Mrs. Hadley and her former way of life. She gradually begins to understand what’s important and what needs to happen to bring people together during a major crisis. It’s a comforting film on that level. One can imagine how it reinforced the selflessness of women in the audience who recognized Mrs. Hadley’s folly. They could accept her as one of their own after she realized she didn’t become a year older, she became a year wiser.
|
|
