|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 4, 2023 3:42:58 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Marriage in trouble
Ruth Chatterton made a name for herself in Hollywood by performing in these kinds of pictures. Her ascendancy at Paramount in the late 1920s coincided with the advent of sound films. Many of her early assignments were hits with moviegoers.
In 1932 she was lured away to Warner Brothers, along with fellow defectors from the Paramount lot that included William Powell and Kay Francis. While Powell would soon move on to MGM where he achieved his greatest success, Chatterton and Francis remained at Warners. Of course, Miss Francis’ career at the studio, also in tearjerkers, would eclipse Miss Chatterton’s.
During a two year period, from 1932 to 1934, Ruth Chatterton starred in six precodes for Warner Brothers. The last one, and arguably the most effective one, is JOURNAL OF A CRIME. The story contains several memorable scenes and our lead actress pulls out all the stops.
It is a remake of a film by French writer-director Jacques Deval called UNE VIE PERDUE. The French title translates literally as A Lost Life. Many of Deval’s works were adapted by Hollywood, and this one lends itself well to the excesses of gut-wrenching melodrama that was so popular at the time. As we watch the movie, we can see that more than one life is lost in this tale.
Miss Chatterton plays a wife who kills the mistress (Claire Dodd) of her well-to-do husband (Adolphe Menjou). Another man, a thief on the run (Noel Madison), gets blamed for the murder and is sentenced to death. So we have two characters that lose their lives. Meanwhile, Chatterton’s marriage to Menjou has been badly damaged and things cannot go back to how they were. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that she feels tremendous guilt for allowing someone else to take the blame for her crime.
While Adolphe Menjou does well in this picture, I am not convinced he was the right choice for his role. I think it would have been better with someone like Fredric March or Douglas Fairbanks Jr., since the story needs a guy who is more charismatic and perhaps a bit more conventionally attractive, to make us understand why she wants to stay with the cad despite the trouble his infidelity causes.
The film is a showcase designed to put Miss Chatterton’s considerable dramatic talents on display. It is clear that she has the market cornered on “respectable” ladies in difficult situations. She has a skillful way of doing close-ups that convey her character’s anguish. As if she is feeling every minute, every second of the pain. If you’re a masochist like I am, who loves to suffer through this kind of high-end trash, then you will enjoy what unfolds on screen and have a good old fashioned cry like I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 4, 2023 9:01:36 GMT
⇧ "She has a skillful way of doing close-ups that convey her character’s anguish."
Spot on. You see it in all her movies; "Dodsworth," "Frisco Jenny" and "The Rich are Always with Us" being other good examples of her using that skill in her performances.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 11, 2023 16:06:21 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
Three loves has Molly
This is a fairly basic girl-makes-bad-choices and pays-the-price melodrama, typical of the era. It has all the requisite sin and suffering we would expect our gal to face. Watching the picture, I was trying to figure out how it would have been played by the studio’s other top actresses at that time.
In other words, how much gusto would Bette Davis have infused in the part; how much angst would Ruth Chatterton have brought to it; and how many fashionable hairstyles, hats and dresses would Kay Francis have modeled on screen.
But you know what? It’s actually hard to imagine anyone else playing Molly other than Ann Dvorak. I’ve long been a fan of this actress. I have never seen a lackluster performance from her, not even in mediocre productions or thankless supporting parts. There is a unique quality about her acting, which is on full display here.
She makes an interesting transformation in the role. She spends the first fifteen minutes as a brunette; then when she winds up on the run, she dyes it platinum blonde. In a way this flashier new look works against her plan to hide out or be anonymous.
Another component of the story is that she has very distinct relationships with three different men. And in the course of these relationships, she gets to exhibit conflicting aspects of Molly’s personality.
There is Jimmy the bellhop (Richard Cromwell) at a hotel where she first gets into trouble. He’s incurably romantic and remains smitten with her despite what happens. He’s still in love with her when he is forced to go off and live his life without her. During Molly’s time with Jimmy, things are naive and sweet.
Next there is Nicky the gangster (Leslie Fenton, married to Ann Dvorak off screen). He initially makes her life exciting if not full of danger. He provides her with a diversion when her heart gets broken by an upper class man. Nicky’s crimes force them on the lam, and from this point on, things are never the same. Molly’s time with Nicky becomes a nightmare, a living hell.
Finally there is the fast-talking reporter named Scotty (Lee Tracy), who doesn’t appear until a good twenty minutes into the movie. Scotty is a neighbor at a boardinghouse where Molly winds up after Nicky’s been captured and Molly is forced into hiding.
Ironically, Scotty is covering the story of the moll at large, not realizing it is her. Adding further complications is the fact that they are falling in love. Molly’s time with Scotty is practical, sustaining and ultimately redeeming.
The film has a great final scene, which will leave viewers satisfied that the proper ending has been presented for Molly. Miss Dvorak has wonderful chemistry with all three of her leading men in this picture. But the interaction between her and Mr. Tracy is especially off-the-charts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 11, 2023 16:28:26 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
Three loves has Molly
This is a fairly basic girl-makes-bad-choices and pays-the-price melodrama, typical of the era. It has all the requisite sin and suffering we would expect our gal to face. Watching the picture, I was trying to figure out how it would have been played by the studio’s other top actresses at that time.
In other words, how much gusto would Bette Davis have infused in the part; how much angst would Ruth Chatterton have brought to it; and how many fashionable hairstyles, hats and dresses would Kay Francis have modeled on screen.
But you know what? It’s actually hard to imagine anyone else playing Molly other than Ann Dvorak. I’ve long been a fan of this actress. I have never seen a lackluster performance from her, not even in mediocre productions or thankless supporting parts. There is a unique quality about her acting, which is on full display here.
She makes an interesting transformation in the role. She spends the first fifteen minutes as a brunette; then when she winds up on the run, she dyes it platinum blonde. In a way this flashier new look works against her plan to hide out or be anonymous.
Another component of the story is that she has very distinct relationships with three different men. And in the course of these relationships, she gets to exhibit conflicting aspects of Molly’s personality.
There is Jimmy the bellhop (Richard Cromwell) at a hotel where she first gets into trouble. He’s incurably romantic and remains smitten with her despite what happens. He’s still in love with her when he is forced to go off and live his life without her. During Molly’s time with Jimmy, things are naive and sweet.
Next there is Nicky the gangster (Leslie Fenton, married to Ann Dvorak off screen). He initially makes her life exciting if not full of danger. He provides her with a diversion when her heart gets broken by an upper class man. Nicky’s crimes force them on the lam, and from this point on, things are never the same. Molly’s time with Nicky becomes a nightmare, a living hell.
Finally there is the fast-talking reporter named Scotty (Lee Tracy), who doesn’t appear until a good twenty minutes into the movie. Scotty is a neighbor at a boardinghouse where Molly winds up after Nicky’s been captured and Molly is forced into hiding.
Ironically, Scotty is covering the story of the moll at large, not realizing it is her. Adding further complications is the fact that they are falling in love. Molly’s time with Scotty is practical, sustaining and ultimately redeeming.
The film has a great final scene, which will leave viewers satisfied that the proper ending has been presented for Molly. Miss Dvorak has wonderful chemistry with all three of her leading men in this picture. But the interaction between her and Mr. Tracy is especially off-the-charts. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 16, 2023 15:03:19 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Surprisingly violent
The premise for this Warner Brothers western is certainly ironic. Randolph Scott plays a gun salesman whose forty-fives are taken and used by a hardened criminal (Zachary Scott) during a jailbreak. This turns the first Scott into an unlikely detective trying to track down the second Scott.
The weapons cost a lot and are meant to be used responsibly. If they remain in the possession of an outlaw and his gang, these babies will not be used carefully. So you might say that this a tale about gun control.
Along the way we meet a gal played by Ruth Roman whose husband (Lloyd Bridges) is mixed up with Zachary Scott’s group. Miss Roman is introduced during a nail-biting sequence involving a gold shipment and a runaway stagecoach. After her safety is assured, she takes off on a stolen horse.
When she arrives home, she reconnects with her husband. But she is unaware of the extent of his criminal activities.
She thought he was forced to keep an eye on the gold coming in and out of Bonanza Creek, something she is assisting him with…but he is actually a willing participant and plans to rob from the bank and various businesses in the local town. Eventually she realizes how corrupt he is…and voices her opposition to it.
There’s an interesting scene where she goes on horseback to tell the sheriff (Alan Hale) what’s going on, not knowing he’s as crooked as the outlaws. As she reaches the center of town, her husband shoots her in the arm to stop her from exposing his nefarious deeds.
Of course, we know that Randolph Scott, who has become deputized, will clean up Bonanza Creek. And once her bad-guy hubby is out of the way, Miss Roman will be free to have a proper relationship with him.
The film contains a surprising amount of violence for a something made when a strict production code was enforced. It seems to work in two directions. Heroes are responsible with their firearms, and villains are not. Both sides of the law provide great shoot-’em-ups that western fans will enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 22, 2023 14:40:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
On and off the record
OFF THE RECORD is a newspaper yarn with elements of social realism, gangster drama and screwball romance. It almost has it all. Warner Brothers contract players Pat O’Brien and Joan Blondell are cast in the lead roles, and they work well together. Mr. O’Brien had previously starred in THE FRONT PAGE so this is familiar territory for him.
The leads do not appear in the film’s first ten minutes. Instead the opening sequence is devoted to Bobby Jordan as a streetwise youth on the verge of delinquency. He has no father, his mother is about to take her last breath on a sick bed, and the local priest has been called to give last rites. You get the idea. At 15, the kid has a sad rough life.
After his mother dies, Jordan is about to be hauled off to an orphans’ asylum when his prodigal older brother (Alan Baxter) shows up. The brother is an adult, supposedly has a good paying job and agrees to look after the boy.
We learn the brother is part of a gangster’s gambling racket. He encourages the kid to forget studying and monitor a lucrative pinball trade. If anyone is caught putting slugs into the machines, Jordan will give them a thrashing and make them pay up. It’s much more fun than school!
This is where Blondell comes into the story. She is a reporter who learns that neighborhood kids are involved in a gambling racket. She does some investigating and writes about it in her column. The story becomes a big deal. Even her coworker (O’Brien) is impressed. The newspaper expose leads to the gangster’s arrest, the older brother’s subsequent incarceration and the kid being sent to reform school.
Meanwhile, O’Brien & Blondell get engaged. But as a condition to her agreeing to marry him, she wants them to foster young Jordan and save him from reform school. This is probably one of Blondell’s more kind-hearted roles, and she’s wonderful. O’Brien is also very good here, balancing his needs with his bride’s demands. Of course things don’t go smoothly at first.
Their new domestic arrangement requires some adjusting. Having a teen under the same roof won’t be easy for the newlyweds. They soon get Jordan a job as a paper boy and then as a photographer (no mention is made about his returning to school). Jordan experiences several mishaps, some comical, while learning the ropes at the Evening Star.
Jordan’s past comes back to haunt him in the last sequence. His older brother escapes prison, while Jordan himself is accused of robbery. As O’Brien and Blondell find evidence to clear Jordan of the robbery, he has a final encounter with his brother and the gangster which turns deadly.
This is a highly engrossing programmer that rarely has a dull moment. It works because of the stars’ rapport. And also because we want the teenaged character to overcome his difficult background, so he can live a good and honest life.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 3, 2023 13:26:17 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Amusing or repulsive
Perhaps the title of the film had more thematic significance in an earlier draft of the story. We do get a few obligatory shots of said entrance in the film. Curiously though, the employees are usually exiting, not entering, the department store where they work.
The film’s dramas are not so much about the different employees who work at a big city store, but more about the boss. He’s played by Warner Brothers star Warren William. Mr. William is cast as a ruthless scoundrel whom we learn had worked his way to the top with a great deal of cunning and know-how. He enjoys the benefits of his career summit and intends to stay at the top, no matter what.
He’s never been married. And while he has need for occasional female companionship, he makes it emphatically clear that he has no desire to be hunkered down with a wife.
Loretta Young plays a woman who is hired to pose as a model in the women’s apparels department. Her initial meet-up with Mr. William is quite cute. It takes place inside a model home where homemaking items and other domestic wares are on display.
They enjoy a sudden romantic dalliance, but then she seems to distance herself from him. Maybe she’s figured out what sort of cad he is?
In the meanwhile she takes up with another manager (Wallace Ford) who is on the fast-track to success. William has observed Ford’s potential and makes Ford his right-hand man. The catch is that William doesn’t know Ford has wed Young on the side.
And Ford doesn’t know that Young occasionally hops into bed with William, even after the marriage begins. Yes, folks the production code isn’t being fully enforced yet.
In addition to the precode sex, there are some contemptible corporate shareholders, slimy department heads and ambitious vamps (Alice White in a role that Stanwyck perfected in BABY FACE the same year). It all gets a bit sordid and chaotic. At times I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to revel in this sort of ‘amusing entertainment’ or be repulsed by it.
Of course, Warren William’s character would be in a lot of hot water today if he was behaving as unethically as we see him behave in this picture. He’d be sued for sex harassment, sued for wrongfully terminating employees without cause and sued for various other illegal business practices.
In the end, he gets away with his misdeeds. But Ford and Young also get away– to a more peaceful life where they don’t have to deal with this workplace anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 3, 2023 14:57:28 GMT
Employees' Entrance from 1933 with Warren William, Loretta Young, Wallace Ford and Alice White
Capitalism, anti-capitalism, marital fidelity, marital infidelity, career versus family and other big social, political and cultural ideas are all tossed around in this engaging and fast-moving pre-code starring all-but-forgotten 1930s star Warren William.
Employees' Entrance's story is pretty simple: a domineering and singularly focused head of a department story, played by William, drives what had been a nice family run business to new heights in the booming 1920s and then bucks conventional thinking to keep it growing in the Depression.
In business, William is ahead of his time as he expects the same commitment and effort from women as men, but in his personal life, he's a Neanderthal who sees women as objects to be paid off after he's had his fun, but credit to him as he's mostly honest with them upfront.
After meeting an unemployed, pretty young woman, played by Loretta Young, he sleeps with her, gives her a job and, then, moves on.
When William's protege, played by Wallace Ford, later marries Young, the newlyweds hide their marriage from William as William's stated philosophy is you can't be truly committed to a high-level job and married at the same time. He's no modern work-family-balance boss.
With that set up, the movie is William ruthlessly driving efficiency and expansion despite the Depression pushing business down as Ford tries to do the impossible of being available to William twenty-four-seven while also keeping his marriage going.
William isn't portrayed, here, as a Randian capitalistic hero/saint as he ruthlessly fires long-time employees who aren't forward thinking while crushing suppliers who depend on his store's business. But he's also seen as a man whose vision and approach is saving the business and many jobs, even if his methods are often cruel.
An America facing double-digit unemployment isn't being talked down to or handed simple socialist bromides in this one as each viewer will have to form his or her own opinion about the merits of William's approach.
When William denounces the bankers calling in the department store's notes, which the company’s "old guard" is using as a strategy to force William out, his speech about productive people versus blood-sucking bankers must have resonated with Americans who had just seen bank failures wipe out their savings or take their farms.
The personal side of Employees' Entrance is equally complex as Young's later infidelity, she returns to sleep with Williams again even after she's married (God love the brutal honesty of pre-code land) isn't condemned, but understood.
William uses other women, one in particular, played with blonde verve by Alice White, to manipulate men for William's business needs. Even this is shown to be morally ambiguous and nuanced.
Employees' Entrance is William's movie and he's a treat to see as an exaggerated-for-effect driven business leader who blasts through each day unwilling to let the Depression defeat him or his company.
Young is so pretty you simply enjoy seeing her even if she never fully comes alive in this one, while Ford, unfortunately, can't match William's or Young's screen presence. White is one of the few who can hold her own with William, but her screen time is limited.
Most movies today plant their flag in one ideology and then, reality be damned, twist their plots and dialogue to perfectly align to that bias.
Employees' Entrance has more respect for its audience and reality as it shows the complexity and messiness of the business world and personal relationships, even if no one's beliefs come out unscathed.
Movie making has made incredible technical strides since the 1930s, but modern movie makers could learn how to more-honestly and confidently explore political, social and cultural issues from these sometimes-clunky, but ideologically free-wheeling efforts from the early days of Hollywood. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 11, 2023 9:03:23 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Before Citizen Kane
Some of Mary Astor’s best films have her embroiled in a love triangle. She memorably played the other woman in DODSWORTH, and here in UPPER WORLD she plays a wealthy wife who gets cheated on by her cad of a husband (Warren William). Miss Astor is third-billed and has less screen time than Mr. William and also less screen time than costar Ginger Rogers who takes the other woman role.
Still it’s interesting to watch Astor make the most of her part. She’s a snobby spouse obsessed with putting on airs and the sort of reputation she can cultivate with society pals. It doesn’t hurt that her hubby is a highly successful titan of industry. She will see to it that they get all the right publicity, and that their little boy (Dickie Moore) receives all the finer advantages in life.
Of course, things do not go as planned for her. This is a precode after all, and her husband’s affair with a burlesque queen (Rogers) is scandalous stuff. One thing that reviewers seem to neglect is that the story is obviously based on the marriage of William Randolph Hearst and his wife Millicent Willson…particularly how their union was jeopardized by his public relationship with actress Marion Davies.
Screenwriters Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur bend the facts enough so that this is not a pure biography, but it’s certainly a veiled biography about Hearst and his complex love life. Warren William’s character is not a media tycoon, but he’s a railroad tycoon, close enough. Ginger Rogers’ character is not a Broadway showgirl but she’s a burlesque queen that catches his attention, close enough.
Hecht and MacArthur exploit the fact that Hearst and Davies were known for lavish costume parties. They recreate these scenes by having the wife (Astor) lead the parties instead of the mistress.
I am sure audiences in 1934 were very well aware who this movie was really about. It’s kind of ironic that Warner Brothers would attempt this sort of production and risk Hearst’s ire, since they would soon be wooing Miss Davies from MGM to their lot where she would make her last four films from 1935 to 1937.
***
The article on TCM’s database for this film focuses primarily on Ginger Rogers, since she was on the cusp of stardom when she appeared in UPPER WORLD. She does get plenty of juicy scenes to play.
The courtship between Rogers and William advances quickly because this is only a 73-minute film. In no time at all, she goes from being saved from drowning to wowing him on stage, to shacking up with him in a posh apartment on the down-low.
Complicating matters is a sleazy friend (J. Carrol Naish) who thinks they can blackmail William. After all, William isn’t going to want to be sued for divorce by his wife or lose custody of his son if the affair got out. Initially, Rogers does entertain the notion of squeezing dough out of her paramour, until she realizes she loves the guy too much to do such a thing. When she turns on Naish, all heck breaks loose.
William intervenes, and Rogers ends up being the one who’s shot. Warren kills Naish then makes it seem like a murder-suicide, removing all traces that he’d even been there. A pesky cop (Sidney Toler) that he’d antagonized earlier in the movie gets embroiled in the investigation. Toler is determined to nail William for the crime, and he gathers evidence to support a conviction.
Somehow, the evidence that Toler collects gets lost. Though William goes on trial, he is ultimately cleared by the jury. Some viewers seem to think this is an example of what makes UPPER WORLD a precode, because justice isn’t fully carried out. That may be true, but I think the main idea was to give the film a happy ending. To show that Warren has had time to reflect and realize the error of his ways, to atone. So when he is acquitted, he can logically reconcile with his wife and make up for his previous lapses in judgement.
In real life William Randolph Hearst never gave up Marion Davies. His wife Millicent Willson remained married to him. She lived her own life separate from him during the last fifteen years of their marriage, and they were not buried together.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 11, 2023 11:16:51 GMT
The below comments were written a few years ago for another site, which accounts for their bullet-point format (which I cannot get to work right on this site).
Topbilled's comments above bring in some very interesting real-life historical parallels to the movie related to William Randolf Hearst.
For a modern-movie take on Hearst - indirectly, as told through the story of the writing of the Citizen Kane manuscript - check out the very good 2020 movie Mank (comments here: "Mank")
Upper World from 1934 with Warren William, Mary Astor and Ginger Rogers:
- Another short (73 minutes), fast Warner Bros. pre-code where William plays a decent-hearted tycoon whose wife, played by Mary Astor, is too busy with her social-climbing efforts to spend time with him, so he stumbles into an affair (he didn't set out to have one) with a body-tight chorus girl, played by Ginger Rogers
- As an aside, Depression Era America seemed, surprisingly, quite concerned with uber-wealthy men whose wives ignore them owing to their social commitments as this theme came up before in A Successful Calamity, The Rich are Always with Us and other movies of that time. There were no jobs and little food, but the real issue for the average American was, are millionaire men being ignored by their wives!?
- The story itself is a basic rich-man-cheats-on-an-indifferent-to-him-wife tale until things take a really bad turn as Rogers' former kinda boyfriend wants to blackmail William (Rogers doesn't want to)
- This leads to a hotel-room confrontation with bullets flying, two dead bodies and William realizing his entire life just got dynamited in under five minutes
- After that, it's exposure by the press, an investigation, courtroom drama and resolution all in about 20 minutes and, if told, would all be spoilers
- Tucked inside the middle of this soap opera is a homily about treating everyone with respect as, in an out-of-character move early on, William belittles a traffic cop ticketing his driver / the revenge-driven cop later becomes the dogged investigator into William's hotel imbroglio. This would have been more effective as a message if William wasn't a really nice guy and the cop a jerk
- Warners Bros., back then, had a formula: bang out fast, short movies with lots of story, romance and action. Upper World is a by-the-numbers version of this formula that works okay owing to the talents of William and Rogers
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 17, 2023 14:47:27 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Lightning strikes for Bogart and Parker
This was the last picture Humphrey Bogart made at Warner Brothers after a long and successful career at the studio. He’d freelance for the next few years. Leading lady Eleanor Parker was also nearing the end of her contract at Warners, and she would soon sign with MGM.
Parker plays the understanding, yet occasionally frustrated, girlfriend of an ex-air force flyer (Bogart). Stories like this, about postwar developments in the aviation industry, tend to focus on the men. Parker has a similar secondary role in Metro’s ABOVE AND BEYOND where she plays Robert Taylor’s wife.
As for Bogart, he seems out of place in CHAIN LIGHTNING as a jet pilot. This is not the best role for the actor. The way he delivers lines as a no-nonsense tough guy at the controls, you’d think he was a gangster soaring through the clouds. The part would have been better suited to someone like Gary Cooper or James Stewart.
Speaking of Stewart, he would make a pro-aerospace picture at Paramount in the mid-50s called STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND. These kinds of movies seek to show viewers the latest jet technologies, provide a dose of action (and danger)– and to instill a sort of peacetime propaganda.
Mainly, these films attempt to assure cold war audiences that U.S. aircraft, much of which will be used by the military, is superior to the rest of the world…especially over the communists.
There are no real surprises here. We know that Bogart’s character will risk his life several times before the final fadeout. We know one of the supporting characters (Richard Whorf) will be killed off to generate artificial drama. And we know Miss Parker will hem and haw, worry and fret, until she gets Bogey back in her arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 23, 2023 15:03:47 GMT
This neglected film is from 1944.
Flynn does the right thing
Paul Lukas made three films with Errol Flynn. His role in this production came on the heels of his Oscar winning performance in WATCH ON THE RHINE. Though he has second billing after Flynn in UNCERTAIN GLORY, he is actually a co-lead.
He plays a French inspector hunting down, then holding on to, a condemned killer (Flynn). The role is much like the one Charles Laughton played in LES MISERABLES. In fact, Laughton could just as easily have taken Lukas’ part here, and so could have Claude Raines. It calls for a refined character actor who can match wits with Flynn.
The opening sequence has Flynn awaiting an execution by guillotine. But luck is on his side; the prison compound is bombed during an air raid which facilitates a fairly easy escape.
Soon Lukas is hot on his trail and quickly catches up to him, slapping on the handcuffs. As they make their way back to Paris, their train is delayed, because French freedom fighters have just blown up a bridge. Of course the Nazis are eager to ferret out the unknown saboteur.
This is where Flynn’s character gets an idea. He and Lukas have heard the Nazis took 100 civilian hostages from a nearby town to draw out the saboteur. Since these people are innocent and don’t deserve to die, Flynn reasons he can turn himself in as the culprit behind the bridge explosion and free the hostages. It would be a more patriotic way for him to die, at the hands of the Nazis– than his dying by guillotine without much benefit to others.
Against his better judgment, Lukas agrees to the idea…though it will compromise his own morals and integrity as an officer of the law. They go to the town to learn about the saboteur (Ivan Triesault)– whom as fate would have it, they meet. Flynn is told how a time bomb was attached to the bridge. Then Triesault returns to England, without any qualms about Flynn’s decision to pay for his life.
There are two decent subplots. One involves Flynn romancing a village girl (Jean Sullivan). We don’t know much about her backstory, only that she has been in this community her whole life and works in a store. They spend three days getting better acquainted, and they make the most of their time together.
The other subplot involves the always superb Lucile Watson. She plays a desperate mother whose son is among the hostages. Before she knows Flynn’s going to turn himself in to the Nazis and accept blame, she actually devises a plan to frame him! The local priest (Dennis Hoey) intervenes and puts a stop to her machinations. He chastises the villagers for agreeing to go along with her.
Flynn finally surrenders, though he has had several opportunities to flee. Some of this is a bit dragged out, but mostly it is a satisfying yet haunting story. His death by a Nazi firing squad occurs off-screen, and the last few moments are given to Lukas who has to break the news to Sullivan that it’s all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 23, 2023 17:44:56 GMT
Uncertain Glory from 1944 with Paul Lukas, Errol Flynn, Lucile Watson and Jean Sullivan
Uncertain Glory is a WWII propaganda movie that, for no good reason, flies below the radar today as its story is engaging, its performances excellent and its theme of sacrifice is explored with nuance and passion.
In occupied France, Errol Flynn plays a Frenchman about to be executed for murder who escapes Paris only to be caught a few days later by his arch nemesis, a police detective played by Paul Lukas.
On their return trip to Paris, Flynn and Lukas learn that one-hundred Frenchmen are to be executed by the Nazis unless the saboteur who, a few nights ago, blew up a nearby bridge is caught or turns himself in.
Preferring to be shot by a firing squad as the Nazi do with saboteurs than guillotined as the French do with murderers, Flynn strikes a deal with Lukas offering to turn himself in as the saboteur if Lukas will let Flynn have three more days of life until the Nazi deadline.
Against his better judgement, but wanting to save one-hundred Frenchman, Lukas hesitantly agrees. The two spend those days in the village near where the bridge was blown up so that Lukas can train Flynn on how to convince his Nazi interrogators that he is really the saboteur.
This sets up the heart of the movie, as we have the antagonists-begin-to-respect-each-other dynamic in play as Flynn and Lukas spend three days together where they have a series of faceoffs, close calls, and dangerous encounters.
The locals are not simple cardboard "good" Frenchman as they try to set Flynn up to be arrested as the saboteur by the Nazis to save their own sons, fathers and brothers.
The village priest presents the Christian and, one could say, moral argument against this plan, but the locals' answer, not without reason, is to see it as a math problem where one innocent dead person is better than one hundred, no matter what machinations make that happen.
Flynn, himself, is initially just trying to buy time to escape, but being Flynn and playing to his personal movie-star brand, he is also trying to make time with a pretty local girl, played with guileless charm by Jean Sullivan.
Lucile Watson, as Sullivan's employer and surrogate mother, and as she always does in her performances, brings grit, intelligence and charisma to the role of a village elder trying to do the right thing in an all but impossible situation.
Also thrown into the mix is Lukas getting sick, the Nazis getting suspicious of the two "strangers" hanging around the village, a pivotal encounter with the real saboteur and some ugly vigilante justice, all while the clock ticks down to the time of execution.
It's a propaganda film, so you can probably guess the outcome, but director Raoul Walsh still builds credible tension up to the critical point when Flynn has his come-to-Jesus moment.
Flynn and Lukas have wonderful chemistry in an early and genuinely stress-filled version of a "buddy" movie. They rightfully do not trust each other, but extreme circumstances and experiences force each to come to respect the other. It's professional actors at their best creating a believable and nuanced relationship.
It's also an early version of a two-person formula Hollywood has used to build movies and movie franchises around for ever. Lukas plays the straight man with sincerity and dignity against Flynn's incredible on-screen charm that makes him an always likable rogue, even when you know he's no good.
The movie is contrived and riddled with plot flaws, like most movies, especially propaganda ones - do you think the Germans would really have honored the letters of transit in Casablanca? - but it succeeds in spite of its drawbacks.
Engaging acting, a smart story and an ability to look at complex moral issues with thoughtfulness and balance, along with quietly stirring moments of patriotism and self sacrifice, make Uncertain Glory a WWII propaganda movie that should be better known today.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 3, 2023 13:47:00 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Compared to the remake
Usually when Warner Brothers remade some of their earlier hit films, they were done as quick B films. The studio’s B unit could save money by reusing stories the studio already owned. If they were remaking a precode, slight modifications to the original script might be necessary, to meet the moral criteria of the production code office.
Interestingly, when WB remade THE LIFE OF JIMMY DOLAN six years later as THEY MADE ME A CRIMINAL, it still had an “A” budget, with a top-notch cast and strong production values. The new title sounded a bit more sensational, but the story was now family friendly.
The original film features Douglas Fairbanks Jr., who is slightly miscast as a rough boxer that accidentally kills a reporter with an angry blow to the head. Through a twist of fate that happens only in the movies, a thief (Lyle Talbot) who absconded with Fairbanks’ watch is killed in a fiery car crash. Talbot’s corpse, which is conveniently burned beyond recognition, is mistaken for Fairbanks.
In the next part, Fairbanks changes his name and legs it to the southwest. He soon settles at a ranch in Arizona, getting a fresh start. While working on the ranch, he falls in love with an attractive woman (Loretta Young).
The key plot difference in the remake, which has John Garfield and Gloria Dickson in the main roles, is as follows…Garfield is innocent and doesn’t really kill anyone; he’s just falsely accused. Thus, he will not have to go to prison in the end, per the code.
In the original, Fairbanks’ character is indeed guilty of the killing, yet he is allowed to get away with it. Even though the charge would likely have been manslaughter, instead of murder.
In both versions, there is a detective on the trail. Character actor Guy Kibbee does the investigating in THE LIFE OF JIMMY DOLAN. Claude Rains, who receives higher billing, handles these duties in THEY MADE ME A CRIMINAL.
Another significant difference is that the kids on the ranch in the first film are crippled children. One of them is played by a young Mickey Rooney. Whereas in the second film, the kids are juvenile delinquents trying to reform. They’re played by the Dead End Kids.
The remake fell into the public domain, so it has become the more widely seen version. I do think Garfield is better suited to the role of a guy wronged by society, though such characterizations would quickly typecast the actor.
The remake also benefits from the inclusion of a feisty old grandma, portrayed by May Robson. She has a patent on these types of irascible old gals. Her gruffness is often undermined by a softer side that emerges when she and her family seem like they are down for the count.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 3, 2023 15:01:30 GMT
Topbilled's review got me excited to see the remake, which I've never seen, but which is, coincidentally, on TCM on 4/12 at 11:15am ET. My DVR is now set.
The Life of Jimmy Dolan from 1933 with Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Aline MacMahon, Loretta Young and Guy Kibbee
Warner Bros. studio was one of the masters of the morally messy pre-code where real life, with all its grey areas, made it to the screen. While The Life of Jimmy Dolan is clunky in spots, its sweep is impressive, its morality is complex and its cast is incredibly talented.
Douglas Fairbanks Jr. plays light heavyweight boxing champion Jimmy Dolan. Fairbanks as Dolan presents himself to the public as a clean-living and humble guy who fights, in part, to support his mother.
We quickly see, though, that he's a cynical manipulator of his public image as, in reality, he's an arrogant guy who lives a life of women, wine and song in private. Then it all comes apart when a guy he punches at a small and private party falls, hits his head and dies.
Owing to a series of events, the police believe Fairbanks was subsequently killed in a fiery car crash, but in reality, he wasn't in the car.
All of the police, save one dogged detective, played by perennial character actor Guy Kibbee, think the case is closed. Fairbanks, then, changes his name and "disappears" to a small farm out west.
The farm he wanders onto is run by a woman and her niece, played by Aline MacMahon and Loretta Young, respectively, who have taken in several somewhat (using a term of the day) crippled orphan children to give them a better life than they'd have in a state institution.
Arrogant Fairbanks, now living and working on the farm, has a slow conversion to decency as he sees the kindness of the women and the hopefulness of the children. He's helped along in his conversion by falling in love with pretty and compassionate Young.
The farm, though, has a mortgage payment coming that MacMahon and Young can't make, which forces Fairbanks to go back into the boxing ring, under a pseudonym, which could give the detective who never gave up on finding Fairbanks a clue to his whereabouts.
Will Fairbanks be successful in the ring and save the farm? Will the detective find and arrest Fairbanks, a man now happy to lead a moral and quiet life working on the farm and helping to raise the disabled kids with Young, eventually, as his wife?
Yes, the story is contrived (how many movies aren't?), but Fairbanks, Young, MacMahon, Kibbee and child stars Mickey Rooney, Anne Shirley and Allen Hoskins, plus several regulars from the Warners Bros. stable, have the acting talent to shepherd the story over its bumpy parts.
In the Depression, a tale of a formerly proud and rich man finding a fulfilling life working on a modest farm and helping to raise disabled children would resonate with an audience familiar with comedown and struggle.
As if that story wasn't enough, though, The Life of Jimmy Dolan throws a huge moral conundrum right in the middle as it asks the question of whether or not a man's genuine conversion to decency can erase his past sins?
Being a pre-code movie, the answer, which is left up in the air right until the end, doesn't have to meet a prescribed standard, but can wander into the grey areas of life, morality and justice.
This is exactly why these precode movies, like The Life of Jimmy Dolan, still have something meaningful to say to us today, as questions of morality are no easier now than they were back then.
|
|
