|
|
Post by NoShear on Apr 1, 2023 17:31:40 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
Peace and freedom
Ronald Reagan only made two films at MGM. The first one was a Wallace Beery vehicle in 1940, on loan from home studio Warner Brothers. The second one was this war film which he made in the mid-1950s as a freelancer. Reagan was often used in support of other big name stars at WB in a variety of genres. Later, during a multi-picture deal with Universal, he was primarily assigned feel-good westerns and domestic comedies.
To say this is a different type of undertaking for the future president is an understatement. He has the lead role here, playing an officer who becomes a POW. Mr. Reagan had served in WWII, not in Korea which is the focus of this tale. And as many know, he took a hardline conservative stance about Vietnam while he was governor of California in the 1960s, after leaving acting.
The story begins with a message about the strength of the human spirit, in spite of communist tortures. Reagan is an officer being sent off on a mission to investigate abuse in North Korea. He parachutes into a forest and soon joins a group of soldiers that have been taken captive by enemy forces.
On their way to a camp, Reagan learns from a soldier (Steve Forrest) that their captors would likely prefer them to be dead.
One thing that impresses me here is the stark black-and-white cinematography. Also, the use of wind and snow to convey the bitter cold, harsh environment. Frequently, there are cutaway shots of corpses along the roadside. Still the men carry on.
This is a gritty story, with grim vibes. Supposedly an army captain named Robert Wise (not the director) served as a technical advisor; he had been an actual POW. Some contemporary critics complained that the film over-exaggerated the extreme conditions faced by these men. Unless a critic had actually been in such a situation, how would he know?
In addition to the rugged physical terrain, the lack of nutrition and the homesickness experienced by the men, there are deep psychological wounds that are inflicted on them. These abuses are overseen by a cruel Russian colonel (Oskar Homolka).
Of course the mental anguish includes brainwashing, which we see with Forrest’s character. He refuses to let his mind be controlled, so he is ultimately strung up and hanged like a warrior Jesus on a crucifix. These scenes are a lot more chilling than what we find later in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962).
One has to wonder how many men still living today served in the Korean war, and what they might still recall about what happened to them in a prisoner of war camp. Maybe a better question is whether their sons, grandsons and great-grandsons appreciate what it cost to maintain peace and the freedom we all enjoy today.
Given a combo of your penchant for M*A*S*H and the film's interesting premise in itself, TopBilled, PRISONER OF WAR must have been P.O.W.erful viewing for you. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 1, 2023 18:32:10 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
Given a combo of your penchant for M*A*S*H and the film's interesting premise in itself, TopBilled, PRISONER OF WAR must have been P.O.W.erful viewing for you. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Apr 1, 2023 18:56:59 GMT
Given a combo of your penchant for M*A*S*H and the film's interesting premise in itself, TopBilled, PRISONER OF WAR must have been P.O.W.erful viewing for you. I thought of HEC RAMSEY which included another Jack Webb role for Harry Morgan - as a western coroner! |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 9, 2023 14:45:41 GMT
This neglected film is from 1938.
Compared to the remake
There had been a film with the same title made in 1932 at Warner Brothers starring James Cagney about a race car driver. But this MGM production, released six years later, has a completely different story. It’s about a boxer played by Robert Taylor who gets caught up with a syndicate. It did well with audiences, so Metro producer Sam Zimbalist dusted it off in 1947 and remade it as KILLER MCCOY with Mickey Rooney as a teen facsimile of the character. Rooney was eager to defy the usual Andy Hardy typecasting.
I won’t go into an extremely detailed comparison of the two versions, or even a lengthy comparison of the two lead actors…though I feel Rooney is probably a tad more believable as a scrapper from the wrong side of the tracks.
Despite giving a sincere and adequate performance, Taylor seems too polished and cultured to have been raised in poverty. However, I will say that he essays the role of Tommy “Killer” McCoy with the necessary physique.
Yet Taylor appears to lack confidence in key scenes, which is not what this tale needs. After all, this is supposed to be a drama about a determined fighter whose ambition and self-confidence propels him forward. His primary motivator is said to be money, since success in the ring will help him escape his poor background.
Killer has an interesting relationship with two paternal figures. One is a crooked gangster (Edward Arnold in the original and Brian Donlevy in the remake) who buys his contract; gives him advice; and then eventually becomes his father-in-law.
The other key relationship exists between Killer and his never-do-well father (Frank Morgan in the original and James Dunn in the remake). The father is a gambler and manipulator extraordinaire, yet still likable.
The acting between Frank Morgan and Edward Arnold is a little more interesting to watch than what we see with James Dunn and Brian Donlevy. However, the remake plays up the dad’s alcoholism, and James Dunn had a drinking problem in real life and won an Oscar for his realistic portrayal of a boozer in A TREE GROW IN BROOKLYN.
Killer falls in love with the hood’s daughter, which gives us the pic’s romantic angle. The love interest in the original is played by Maureen O’Sullivan who comes across poised yet tame without Tarzan around. I don’t think Taylor enjoys any sexual chemistry with O’Sullivan, so their romantic scenes quickly bog down. At least in the remake, there is a sense that Rooney is into Ann Blyth and wants to jump her bones.
Sometimes you have to ask why filmmakers change things that worked well in the first film, when they set out to do a remake. The 1938 version features Jane Wyman (borrowed from home studio Warner Brothers) in the comic relief part of O’Sullivan’s southern belle friend.
She enlivens every scene in which she is included, in an Una Merkel/ZaSu Pitts sort of way. But producer Sam Zimbalist dropped this engaging character from the remake. This means the second picture has less comedy and forfeits lightweight moments in favor of the dramatic heavy hitting stuff.
While I enjoy both of these films, I think the remake as a whole is rather intense at times. KILLER MCCOY actually it did better at the box office than THE CROWD ROARS. But I dunno, I guess I just prefer the balanced approach of the original, even if Taylor may be slightly miscast. THE CROWD ROARS is a good movie that kayos the audience with its one-two punch.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 18, 2023 14:38:45 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Adheres to a specific formula
After the second world war, Robert Taylor returned to work at MGM. He was promptly cast in a few crime films but noir didn’t exactly suit his personality and musicals were out of the question. So the studio decided to remold his image as a western hero. AMBUSH would be the first in a series of westerns for Taylor in the 1950s.
MGM was not entirely proficient in this genre. I suspect the execs started to green-light these projects in order to keep up with the competition. Republic had done strong business in the B-western market for many years and recently increased budgets to produce ‘A’ western pictures. Other studios like Paramount, Columbia and RKO also embraced this trend. MGM was somewhat slow to adapt to these industry changes.
The studio assigned veteran director Sam Wood to the project. It would be the last motion picture Mr. Wood helmed, in a Hollywood career that stretched back to 1920. Wood was no John Ford, and he didn’t exactly have a natural feel for these stories the way Anthony Mann did, or the way Sam Peckinpah would. In fact, Wood had only made one silent western, THE MINE WITH THE IRON DOOR, in 1924. And he had only made one western in the sound era, a Paramount title called RANGERS OF FORTUNE starring Fred MacMurray.
AMBUSH adheres to a specific formula. There is the requisite Cavalry versus the Indians theme; a civilian scout (Taylor’s character); a love triangle– two of them, actually; a standoff with Apaches; oh and a stampede thrown in for good measure to prevent the audience from getting bored.
The original story had been published in The Saturday Evening Post and was written by Luke Short. Not Luke Short the famous gunslinger from the 1800s, but a pulp writer using Short’s name as a pseudonym.
AMBUSH was filmed on location in California and New Mexico; some scenes in the film were shot at an altitude of 9,000 feet. Harold Lipstein’s camera gives us a few panoramic glimpses of the mountainous terrain during a climactic action sequence.
I had no problem with Taylor, costar John Hodiak or female lead Arlene Dahl whom they both love. The three stars all make valiant attempts to infuse the story with meaningful motivation and nuance. Mr. Hodiak is probably the best actor in the picture, and he has a stirring death scene during the titular ambush near the end.
Supporting player Leon Ames does well as an army major, and so does John McIntire who plays a mountain guide. We also have Don Taylor cast as a well-liked lieutenant who falls for another man’s wife.
The wife is Jean Hagen, in only her second film role. She’s a laundress at the base with adultery on her mind. I was interested in this character and wanted to see her escape a physically abusive husband (Bruce Cowling). Though we are meant to sympathize with her plight, the production code prevents her from being with the man she truly desires. The subplot doesn’t have a proper resolution.
As for the Apaches, they seem realistically violent. The main plot predates THE SEARCHERS in that Miss Dahl’s sister has been kidnapped by the tribe. The army has been asked to track the woman down and bring her back to safety.
After Hodiak’s death, Dahl is free to start a new life. We can be sure it will be a good and happy one.
Regarding the big ambush, I feel that a more thoughtful and more artistic director would have shown us how it happened from two distinct vantage points. Both sides were ambushing each other.
Off screen, Sam Wood was a staunch anti-communist. Any leftish, liberal-leaning member of the cast or crew would’ve been ambushed by him and kept off the set. A recent war had just taken place. And already new battles were being waged over America and its political ideals.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 30, 2023 14:50:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1938.
Family economics
Several things happen in this trifle. First, while it’s a vehicle for MGM star Robert Young, who’s paired alongside Ruth Hussey in the lead female role, this is also an attempt by studio execs to promote ingenue Lana Turner. Miss T (or should I call her Miss TnT) is dynamite in her scenes as Hussey’s kid sister. She gets all the best lines, important close-ups and even a dramatic scene is thrown in for good measure so that she can demonstrate her “range.”
Yes, it’s clear that Lana Turner was being groomed by the bosses for big things at Metro. A few years later, she’d play a lead role with Robert Young in SLIGHTLY DANGEROUS. But here the main story arc focuses on Young’s plans to wed Hussey.
Their engagement is thwarted, because Hussey’s family is eccentric and nothing ever works out the way it’s supposed to with them. Shades of YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU. Though she loves Young, Hussey isn’t sure he will still want to get married after spending a few eventful weekends on her parents’ living room sofa.
Some of the plot is illogical. For instance, we’re told that Hussey has been working in Young’s office for several years…and yet, he knows zilch about her family or background in all this time? A bit hard to believe.
Also, why does he think that his wife-to-be will still want to marry him when some of his ignorance and stupidity regarding the lower classes is exposed? Love is supposed to conquer all, but in this case, it has a miracle to perform.
The best part of the picture includes the supporting cast. Guy Kibbee is at his usual best as the patriarch who is often down on his luck. Meanwhile, Rita Johnson is also on hand as Young’s well-meaning sister. She’s extremely concerned that brother dear wants to give their fortune away, when Hussey’s relatives influence him to start helping the poor.
In addition to these contract players, we have Lew Ayres in the role of Hussey’s politically motivated cousin. It would be putting it mildly to call him a communist. He wastes no time sharing his radical views on social class injustice.
You might say Ayres’ character is the polar opposite of Lana Turner’s– since she is totally on board with Young marrying Hussey, as it will grant her access to upper class society. After all, she hopes to snag a rich hubby of her own.
RICH MAN POOR GIRL is directed by German expatriate Reinhold Schunzel, himself an actor who knows how to elicit performances from the cast. The production is a remake of Metro’s talkie THE IDLE RICH, which had featured lovely Leila Hyams in the part that Hussey plays. THE IDLE RICH seldom airs on TCM, though it was broadcast when Hyams received a Summer Under the Stars tribute a few years ago. Both films are worth checking out.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 7, 2023 14:37:11 GMT
This neglected film is from 1942.
Decent MGM B western
MGM didn’t usually venture into B western territory. But when it did, as is the case with this title, the studio applied its customary studio polish so that even at just over an hour, it seems like a somewhat grand affair. In this case, they are using an Ernest Haycox short story about a stagecoach station that had been purchased from Sam Goldwyn who probably intended to give it a full “A” picture treatment.
The studio ran into a few difficulties with the production code office. The film presents two brothers (William Lundigan and Lloyd Nolan) who make questionable life choices. Apparently that was okay, since one of them– Lundigan– decides to go straight while the other one– Nolan– meets a violent death after not reforming. But the guardians of the code did not like the fact that Lundigan’s character gets involved with the daughter (Donna Reed) of a rough ethnic woman (Connie Gilchrist).
MGM had to tone the ladies down, and it was not allowed to make them Mexicans. Instead the script had to be revised to make them Spanish women. However, anyone who watches the film can tell they are being played as Mexican stereotypes. I guess Hollywood did not want to alienate our Latin American neighbors with the war on, yet for some reason it was no problem to offend Spain.
While the romance between Lundigan and Reed occurs, there is a secondary love story between Nolan and another woman (Ann Ayars) who is traveling through this part of the country with a considerable amount of money. Nolan intends to rob her and other wealthy passengers.
Lloyd Nolan was borrowed from his home studio, 20th Century Fox, where he was in the process of making several Michael Shayne crime flicks. In the 1940s, he became typecast in police detective roles on the right side of the law. But in the 1930s, while under contract at Paramount, he had played several villains.
Most likely, his bad guy outlaw part in THE TEXAS RANGERS (1936), where he was cast as Fred MacMurray’s crooked pal, cinched his casting for APACHE TRAIL. It is basically the same character he’s playing in both pictures.
As for Lundigan, he makes a valiant and focused effort here, but one feels as if he’s probably miscast as a station manager. Lundigan was almost too urbane and sophisticated to be believed in westerns, and he would smartly stick to romantic comedies and noir when he returned to Hollywood after the war. One thing in Lundigan’s favor, though, is his easy rapport with Miss Reed, with whom he also costarred in an Andy Hardy movie and a Dr. Gillespie movie.
Looking at this film now, one doesn’t find anything too out of the ordinary. In a way, it plays like an hour-long episode of a western TV show. There are some nicely drawn characters, the conflict between the brothers is adequately explored if not predictable; and we have a climactic siege involving passengers at the station versus a swarm of angry Apaches who have come to get even with Nolan, who had murdered some of their own.
It is not surprising that Nolan eventually sacrifices himself so that the other decent folks may live. He has a memorable death riding out to be slaughtered by the warring natives. But all of that is quickly forgotten in the last few minutes, so that Lundigan can tell Reed that he intends to start a proper relationship with her…now that the trouble is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 7, 2023 15:18:10 GMT
"I guess Hollywood did not want to alienate our Latin American neighbors with the war on, yet for some reason it was no problem to offend Spain."
After the mess that was the late '30s Spanish Civil War, you're right, nobody cared about offending Spain at that time.
******************************
"...daughter (Donna Reed) of a rough ethnic woman." LOL, as she's possibly the whitest-looking woman ever put on earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 21, 2023 14:11:17 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Better days
Recently I watched Lewis Stone as a suicidal gambler in 1949’s ANY NUMBER CAN PLAY. It was towards the end of his long career as a character actor at MGM, and it was a real departure for him in terms of the types of roles he usually did at the studio. Most viewers remember him fondly as Judge Hardy or in other earlier films like LOOKING FORWARD, where he was cast as upright, by-the-book father figures.
In addition to Mr. Stone, who is on hand as a wealthy London department store owner, we have another long-time performer from Metro, Lionel Barrymore. Barrymore is playing a more middle class worker bee in the store. It’s the Great Depression, times are tough, and Barrymore’s being let go. The scenes where he’s informed of his lay-off, in which he struggles to understand the loss of a job that has meant so much to him over the years, are quite poignant. Barrymore shows us both the loyalty, rejection and frustration of the situation.
Eventually Barrymore gets back on his feet, since his wife (Doris Lloyd) is an industrious homemaker. Neighbors want to buy her delicious pastries. So Barrymore starts a new food business for them, with help from their grown children (Douglas Walton & Viva Tattersall). It’s a tad hokey, but we’re meant to see that with determination and resourcefulness, a family suddenly fallen on hard times can bounce back.
Meanwhile, a storyline involving Stone and his own family occurs. They have been spoiled with every privilege and every advantage in life. Unlike Barrymore’s kids, Stone’s kids (Phillips Holmes & Elizabeth Allan) don’t really know how to work or apply themselves. At least, not initially. It isn’t until Stone’s business is facing bankruptcy that his children are jolted out of complacency and take action to help dear old dad.
While this is going on, Stone’s self-absorbed wife (Benita Hume, in a finely portrayed role) is planning to run off with a lover. She doesn’t seem think twice about abandoning Stone and their offspring during this time of need. They are a family plunged into crisis.
The film is based on a British stage play by Dodie Smith called ‘Service.’ The title derives from the work the main characters do, as well as the fact that Stone’s surname in the story is Service. Everything is wrapped up nice and tidy at the end. Both families have found new purpose to carry on. Stone and Barrymore develop mutual respect for one another and form a strong friendship. And in the last scene, there’s hope as everyone is now looking forward to better days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 21, 2023 15:13:05 GMT
Looking Forward from 1933 with Lewis Stone, Lionel Barrymore and Elizabeth Allan
Looking Forward is a smartly written, directed and acted Depression Era film that personalizes the challenges of the Depression as seen through two very different English families whose lives intersect at a large and venerated, but now-failing London department store.
Lewis Stone plays the president of the store that was started by his great grandfather, but with business in a long slump and shareholders and partners to answer to, he has to make cutbacks, which includes laying off his long-time employee and friend, a clerk in the "counting room," played by Lionel Barrymore.
Barrymore's middle-class family is knocked back, but then rallies as they all give up small luxuries while working hard to start a modest bakery. We also see the way a depression spirals as Barrymore's family has to let its maid/cook go; it's a fast lesson in how a business contraction spreads.
Stone's family is less understanding of the need to cut back as his second wife (his first wife passed away) and son and daughter from his first wife are too used to luxury to easily accept a reduced lifestyle.
Stone fights to save the store, but it looks as if it will have to be sold to a down-market competitor. The buyout money would save Stone's family, but destroy the store's reputation and legacy and, of course, lead to extensive layoffs at the store.
Looking Forward succeeds as it avoids most stereotypes and cliches. Stone is neither a cardboard evil greedy capitalist nor a saint; he's a man facing the first real crisis in, what had been, his easy life. He is sincerely struggling to figure out what is the right thing to do.
His family is real, too, as a few eventually show some mettle, while others only look to take care of themselves. All-but-unknown-today actress Elizabeth Allan gives one of her best performances as a spoiled daddy's girl who starts to see what life is really about.
Director Clarence Brown personalizes the big-picture story of the Depression rocking the country (England here, but the same was going on almost everywhere in the developed world) by showing us the impact on everyone including the owner of the store, the store's employees, their families and the businesses that rely on the affected families' patronage.
The climax (no spoilers coming) wonderfully brings Barrymore and Stone, two men whose lives and families were rocked by the Depression, together again as Stone faces the biggest decision of his life, while Barrymore gets to be the one giving some advice.
The unresolved, yet cautiously optimistic ending is a bit forced, as movies will often do to wrap things up, but it's moving and reasonably realistic nonetheless.
It's 1933 and no one knows how or when the Depression will end. Hollywood often showed the Depression as a story of class struggle, but Looking Forward presents the business contraction as a force sweeping across all classes.
For us today, Looking Forward is like opening up a time capsule to see how people were responding to the worst economic depression in decades. It's not perfect and, of course, it has its own biases and agenda, but Looking Forward is still a fascinating and entertaining window into 1933. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 21, 2023 15:37:16 GMT
Very good review. It's interesting to me how Lionel Barrymore gets top billing in LOOKING FORWARD yet he is absent for a considerable portion of the film's middle section since the focus is on Stone dealing with his family and the failing store. Less screen time is devoted to depicting how Barrymore and his wife are building their new pastry business.
I think Barrymore could have succeeded in Stone's part, but Stone probably wouldn't have been too believable in Barrymore's part...and this is why Barrymore wasn't cast in the film's most prominent role.
I did like the scene where the men meet up near the end, and fill each other in on what's been going on in their respective households since Barrymore left the store.
As you said in your review, we see the Depression rippling across different socio-economic levels. There is a moment when Barrymore and his wife have to let their maid go, and we see how all of this affects the lowest working class segment of the population.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 21, 2023 15:47:57 GMT
Very good review. It's interesting to me how Lionel Barrymore gets top billing in LOOKING FORWARD yet he is absent for a considerable portion of the film's middle section since the focus is on Stone dealing with his family and the failing store. Less screen time is devoted to depicting how Barrymore and his wife are building their new pastry business.
I think Barrymore could have succeeded in Stone's part, but Stone probably wouldn't have been too believable in Barrymore's part...and this is why Barrymore wasn't cast in the film's most prominent role.
I did like the scene where the men meet up near the end, and fill each other in on what's been going on in their respective households since Barrymore left the store.
As you said in your review, we see the Depression rippling across different socio-economic levels. There is a moment when Barrymore and his wife have to let their maid go, and we see how all of this affects the lowest working class segment of the population.
I agree, the Barrymore-Stone scenes were some of the most moving in the picture.
I really like how the movie showed the Depression hitting every socio-economic class as it did in real life (we know it hit the rich, as that's why we see so many former mansion on 5th Avenue turned into speakeasies in 1930s movies). |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 30, 2023 16:01:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Dramatic irony as things come full circle
This is one of MGM’s lesser known “family” films from the early 1940s. It’s based on an unsuccessful Broadway play that closed after a week, but the basic idea was reworked so that we get the usual “crime does not pay” studio programmer. Though not a spectacular production, it contains smooth performances from its two top-billed character actors, Edward Arnold and Lionel Barrymore. And there is also a good turn by juvenile player Gene Reynolds.
As I watched THE PENALTY, it seemed obvious to me that Metro wanted something reminiscent of Warner Brothers’ Dead End Kids product. They did not put someone like Mickey Rooney into it, since it had to be someone like Reynolds who could play “bad,” about as opposite of Andy Hardy as possible. We are meant to root for Reynolds the troubled teen, but only after he’s shown character growth and started to change.
In the beginning of the story Reynolds is a morally challenged adolescent, the son of a vicious robber and cop killer (Arnold). He remains loyal to his dad, alongside dad’s voluptuous moll (Veda Ann Borg), even though he knows the old man does horrible things to get ahead. There’s an interesting scene where Arnold explains his racket as a business, which Reynolds accepts no questions asked.
It is not until a shoot-out occurs at a cabin where Arnold blasts more cops, as well as the senseless murder of an innocent taxi cab driver, that Reynolds begins to see this destructive and violent lifestyle from another angle. Also, he has to deal with Borg dying during the ensuing gunfire. Miss Borg does a splendid job expressing her character’s final moments, mistakenly believing something she did is what led the coppers to their hideout.
There is no time to grieve Borg’s death since the cops are closing in and it looks like Arnold may have to surrender. In the next part, Reynolds still the obedient son, helps get his father out through the back of the cabin and into a waiting car. They race off, narrowly avoiding a spray of bullets.
This leads to a poignant farewell under a bridge, where Reynolds drops his injured pop. Arnold is going to take his chances and hide here. While Reynolds speeds off and leads the police on a wild goose chase.
A short time later Reynolds is caught and sent to reform school. When that doesn’t curb his misbehavior, a judge (Grant Mitchell) ships him to a rural community for rehabilitation. The second half of the movie details his new life on an Indiana farm run by a young man (Robert Sterling) and his mother (Emma Dunn).
Well-meaning neighbors include a local teacher (Marsha Hunt), her kid sister (Gloria DeHaven) and their irascible grandfather (Barrymore).
There are humorous bits involving a mean old gander that likes to attack Reynolds on the derriere when he’s bending over in the cornfield. Also, Mr. Barrymore has some amusing lines meant to portray an elderly rural coot as both exaggerative and logical. He is not exactly Dr. Gillespie here.
Reynolds’ rehab is overshadowed by the unknown whereabouts of his father, since Arnold is still at large and not dead. Later, Sterling gets a call from the feds who inform him that Arnold was spotted and is probably heading to Indiana to pick up Reynolds.
The last sequence features Arnold’s dramatic arrival at the farm using an alias. He attempts to take Reynolds away with him. Sterling and Dunn try to reason with him that he should let the boy stay, where there is a future for him. Going on the lam will only lead to the boy’s death. But Arnold doesn’t agree. His son is leaving with him right now.
In the next scene Barrymore enters the house with a gun. He knows all about Arnold’s type, and he is not going to let this two-bit gangster ruin Reynolds’ chance of happiness and a normal life. A standoff occurs.
Barrymore tries to shoot Arnold but misses. Arnold, with a weapon of his own, fires back and Barrymore falls to the floor and drops his gun. Reynolds picks it up. Earlier in the movie, we had seen Arnold teach Reynolds how to use a firearm. And how to not let anyone get close to him. Dramatic irony, as things come full circle.
Since this is a studio entry bound by the production code, with emphasis on how a boy from a troubled background can go straight, Reynolds is not able to shoot and kill his father. Arnold seeing how his boy has changed, gives up and scrams. Off-camera Arnold has exited the farmhouse and run into a police ambush. We hear him die.
In the end we are left with a sobering realization on what it takes for a kid and his community to live a peaceful life. Part of that requires standing up to evil and facing down danger. Shades of the impending war with Europe. This was not meant to be a film that won Oscars, just a film that was made to help its intended audience think more clearly about the sanctity of human life. And for that reason, we should watch THE PENALTY and remember its lessons.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 5, 2023 14:23:14 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
“Here’s to your future and no more spilled wine.”
There are two ways of life in this precode drama. One occurs downstairs, and one occurs upstairs, inside an Austrian country estate. We are told that life downstairs is supposed to be simple, where employees follow orders and demonstrate loyalty. But upstairs, things are much more complex, because the privileged folks live by another set of rules.
When John Gilbert’s character, a conniving chauffeur, shows up at the estate, everything changes. Now life downstairs will become as messy as it is upstairs. Gilbert maneuvers with ease between the aristocracy and the servants, manipulating everyone who crosses paths with him. Though he is also technically a servant, he takes certain liberties because he knows too many secrets involving the stuffy baron (Reginald Owen), the unfaithful baroness (Olga Baclanova) and a visiting countess (Hedda Hopper).
We’re supposed to marvel at how smooth this chauffeur is…at how dashing, clever and in control he is…but the way he drives a wedge between the head butler (Paul Lukas) and a pretty housemaid (Virginia Bruce), makes Gilbert seem like a cad. In fact, he comes across so unsympathetic at times, we side with Lukas in wanting him gone.
Lukas thinks Gilbert is a friend at first. They drink and chat, but then Lukas is made wise by the baroness what Gilbert’s intentions are towards Bruce, whom Lukas has just married. Lukas tries to fire Gilbert, but Gilbert manages to blackmail the baroness into keeping his job, which means the parasite isn’t going anywhere.
When Gilbert tries to romance Bruce while Lukas is away on a fishing trip with the baron, he behaves like a predator. A 1932 audience would have its own view of this, but in the MeToo era, Gilbert’s use of alcohol to lower Bruce’s inhibitions and get her into the sack, is alarming. If we look at the film as a character study about what one man will do to get the sex and money he wants, it’s an eye-opening lesson. Incidentally, the story was devised by Gilbert himself.
Despite fine acting and MGM’s top notch production values, the whole thing might’ve worked better if it was done less seriously, as a sort of black comedy. Perhaps if presented as a farce, with Gilbert not so threatening and unlikable, the story would be more “enjoyable” to watch. But seeing his diabolical schemes gain traction, with no apparent repercussions for most of the picture’s running time, the plot becomes increasingly convoluted and daresay tedious.
Interestingly, Gilbert and Bruce were wed four days after the film premiered in theaters, in August ’32. While they work well together on camera, I don’t think they exactly radiate much chemistry as an on-screen couple. They should be desiring each other a lot more, when her character fights her attraction to his. That doesn’t exactly take place. Ultimately, Bruce seems more compatible with Lukas, and we root for them stay together.
I would say Paul Lukas gives the best performance in the film. He provides a layered and dynamic character, a man who learns the hard way what loyalty costs. A good scene occurs as Lukas finds out about the affair, telling Bruce she has learned to act vile from a rat (Gilbert). Another good scene occurs a bit later when Lukas finally has a showdown with Gilbert in the wine cellar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 5, 2023 15:24:22 GMT
Downstairs from 1932 with John Gilbert, Virginia Bruce, Paul Lukas and Reginald Owen
Downstairs is a strong pre-code look at sexual passion and marital infidelity oddly set in Austria, but it is also a window into the rapid career decline of silent film star John Gilbert.
Gilbert plays a scamming lothario chauffeur who is hired onto an estate run by a proper and professional butler played by Paul Lukas. Middle-aged Lukas has just married one of the estate's housemaids, played by pretty and young Virginia Bruce.
Things would have gone on fine at the estate, if boring all around, except for change-agent Gilbert who, sensing some untapped passion in Bruce, makes a back-door play for her.
He also seduces the estate's older cook whose lifetime savings he is eyeing. Finally, Gilbert makes a play for the young mistress of the estate who is having an affair of her own.
Phew. Gilbert is pure scum in this one, but he does force Bruce to realize she is not satisfied sexually in her marriage - it's that blunt (God bless the pre-code) - and he forces Lukas to realize he's got to change if he's going to keep his young wife satisfied.
What Gilbert does to the older cook, though, is evil. He seduces her, then drops her cruelly only to let her come back somewhat if she'll offer up her life savings to him for a cafe he tells her he's going to buy for them to run together. Scammers scam, that's what they do.
The last ball Gilbert has in the air is he's blackmailing the mistress of the estate. As her chauffeur, he's driven her to her assignations and is using that knowledge against her.
When the maid and Lukas discover who Gilbert really is, Gilbert uses his leverage with the mistress to keep his job, but the situation is untenable.
This leads to the climax, which is the movie's one truly false note as Gilbert doesn't fully use the leverage he has, but it's still a good scene and doesn't ruin the movie.
Lukas is excellent as the professional butler who thinks he can run his marriage with the same fair but cold efficiency he uses to run the house. His slow awakening to his wife's physical and emotional needs is believable and moving.
Bruce is also very good (and very pretty) as the young newlywed who is discovering her own sexual passions and emotional needs from manipulative but attractive and virile Gilbert.
When Bruce finally admits her affair, she also defends it with a cri de coeur that a woman's physical desires need to be met by her husband or, if not, they'll be met by someone else.
It's a pre-code movie moment that is better and more believable than most of the self-conscious, virtue signaling "girl power" moments in modern movies, as Bruce's cry is real, raw and not overtly political.
Reginald Owen puts in his usual professional performance as the lord of the estate, but he doesn't really have much to do in this one other than to, from time to time, pull Lukas away from his marital problems.
The entire "Austrian estate" setting is, unfortunately, a forced distraction as the movie feels dated - who in the 1930s, especially in America, cared about the last breaths of Europe's medieval barons and baronesses?
It would have felt more relevant had it been set on an English estate trying to transition its economics to the twentieth century or, even better, in a Park Avenue penthouse.
Tucked inside this tale of sexual awakening and manipulation is John Gilbert's real-life drama as this former silent-film heartthrob wrote the movie's story and advocated to play its immoral and lecherous lead.
He got his wish; he played the lead and was excellent in the part. But the movie was a flop as the public didn't accept its former romantic hero as a cad, which left Gilbert's career on its downward trajectory.
The shorthand belief is that Gilbert couldn't make the transition to talkies; the more complex answer is that his voice was fine for talkies, but his choice of roles, excessive drinking, difficult personality and alienation of studio head Louis B. Mayer led to his downfall.
Downstairs, as noted, flopped, however, the movie's honest look at female sexuality, plus its strong cast, make it an enjoyable pre-code window into the 1930s. And it still, all these years later, has something relevant to say to us today about physical desire and infidelity. |
|
