|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 5, 2023 13:53:52 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Classic gangster melodrama
Frank Lovejoy, who stars in this classic gangster melodrama from Warner Brothers, is an underrated actor. He died at a relatively young age (50) and we were robbed of many more performances from him…probably a lead role on a TV crime show or primetime soap would’ve been on the cards had he lived longer.
In this film, his character basically runs the system in question– calling the shots in a tristate area. On paper he’s a real estate mogul but in reality he oversees a gambling racket and has diversified into other arenas of organized crime. He’s just so suave and debonair, clothed in the finest suits, with a pretty gal by his side. He doesn’t seem like a crook, but he is.
What I love about this movie is how carefully laid out it all is. The writers take great pains to fill in all the gaps and explain each character’s backstory, even the minor characters. What we get is a community of interrelated people, sharing many common interests on both sides of the law. Of course the most important relationships in the story involve Lovejoy.
He has a dicey relationship with the local newspaper editor (Fay Roope) whose daughter is dating Lovejoy. The daughter (Joan Weldon in her motion picture debut) is not receptive to dear old dad’s suggestion that she dump Lovejoy. So when Roope’s star columnist (Don Beddoe) decides to do a series of articles exposing the mob, this gives Roope some ammunition. He offers to kill the series if Lovejoy will break up with Weldon. But that ain’t happening anytime soon.
Beddoe is allowed to push ahead with his crusade. The situation is underscored by the fact that Beddoe and Lovejoy know each other personally. Their eighteen year old sons are pals and in their first year of college together. These families, two sides of the same proverbial coin, are still friendly with each other. Meanwhile Lovejoy enjoys membership at a nearby country club and generously provides funds to make improvements there, so the town’s most influential men are on good terms with him.
The news articles lead to a senate committee investigating Lovejoy for illegal interstate commerce. He is advised by his shrewd lawyer (Jerome Cowan). A hearing is conducted to gather evidence for an indictment. Witnesses have to name names and provide substantial details. They will be subjected to perjury charges or charges of obstruction if they do not fully cooperate. It is very much like the McCarthy-led hearings with the House Committee on Un-American Activities that were occurring around this time.
On the day that Beddoe is scheduled to testify, he is murdered outside his home by some goons hired by one of Lovejoy’s cronies. This precipitates a huge crisis for Lovejoy’s son (Robert Arthur). He realizes that his father’s dealings have led to the killing of his best friend’s father, and it’s too much for him to process. Instead of returning to campus, he goes home then locks himself in his bedroom. In the next scene he shoots himself.
The scenes where Lovejoy learns his boy committed suicide are expertly handled. Some of this seems very melodramatic, but it works. We are drawn in by the characters and their interconnected scandalous lives. It’s like a mobster version of ‘Peyton Place.’ The performances are first rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 10, 2023 14:15:37 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Come on get Happy
Okay, this film may not be to everyone’s liking since the premise is so outlandish. But it’s one I enjoyed a lot, as I’m a fan of farcical screwball comedy. Not everything that happens on screen is supposed to be logical or make a whole lot of sense, but it is supposed to be funny…and I think this film is quite funny. It’s especially interesting to watch Jane Wyatt play a refined but daffy southern belle, something she was not ordinarily allowed to play on screen.
Warner Brothers star Dennis Morgan is at his most handsome, sporting a suave looking mustache and appearing shirtless in several scenes. In addition to the comedy hijinks, he gets to sing in a few scenes and make out with both leading ladies. I’m sure he went home after a day’s work at the studio with a smile on his face.
The other leading lady is Shirley Ross, who had starred in a series of musical comedies at Paramount in the late 1930s. She’s freelancing at this point of her motion picture career, and in fact there would be only one more film for her before early retirement. Miss Ross is not given the chance to sing here, and she doesn’t even end up with Mr. Morgan at the end. But she still does well with a thankless role as a woman who loses her husband twice, and isn’t too happy about it.
Speaking of “happy,” Morgan’s character is conked on the head shortly after marrying Ross and develops a case of amnesia. He spends the next year of his life under a different alias, and his new name is Happy Homes. With a moniker like that, plenty of irony occurs, since he may be happy/Happy with Wyatt, whom he also marries…but he can’t be happy/Happy with Ross.
There are several fine supporting cast members in this picture. Studio contract player Jerome Cowan is on hand as a substitute suitor for Ross, while Lee Patrick plays an unwed gal staying at Ross’s home. She’s a buttinsky with quips about all the zany goings-on, in a role probably intended for Eve Arden.
We also have Una O’Connor and Barnett Parker as domestic servants, along with Willie Best who appears in whiteface in one scene. And Romaine Callender has an uproarious turn as an uncle who hypnotizes Morgan so that Morgan can regain his true identity.
Warner Brothers previously filmed the story back in 1930 as THE MATRIMONIAL BED, which was its original title as a stage play. Plus the studio remade it in the mid-1930s as a British quickie quota starring Seymour Hicks, who gets a writing credit. That version was known as MR. WHAT’S HIS NAME.
A viewer won’t come away from watching KISSES FOR BREAKFAST with any newfound understanding about life or how to solve life’s myriad problems. But as worthwhile entertainment that has the ability to elicit laughs and make one forget about his troubles for a while, it’s more than up to the task.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 24, 2023 14:08:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Vanishing and reappearing persons of interest
The advertising for this film plays up a sexy romantic angle, but the story itself is more of a crime comedy. The two leads, Pat O’Brien and Bette Davis, had previously teamed up in a coming-of-age trifle called HELL’S HOUSE. Originally, O’Brien and Lewis Stone, on loan from MGM, had top billing, with Miss Davis third in the credits (she doesn’t appear until around the 30-minute mark, and this is just a 72 minute movie). But when Warners/First National reissued the title in the late 1930s, Davis was the reigning queen of the studio, so the title sequence was redesigned to put her name at the top.
The film’s screenplay is based on a book written by a retired NYPD captain whose job was to oversee missing persons cases. The Lewis Stone character is undoubtedly based on him.
The book, called Missing Men, centers primarily on men who’ve disappeared. Most likely these were guys that ran afoul of the mob and were either rubbed out or sent packing. But this motion picture includes a variety of missing persons cases, not all of them involving men but women as well. In fact, Bette Davis’ character goes missing at one point, and investigator O’Brien must stage a phony funeral to flush her out.
Fans of WB precodes will likely take pleasure in seeing contract players Allen Jenkins, Hugh Herbert, Ruth Donnelly and Glenda Farrell in supporting roles. Farrell as usual has an attention grabbing part, this time cast as a gold digger married to O’Brien. She frequently shows up while he’s working to shake him down for an allowance. There are several cute scenes with her referring to him as Butchy Wutchy, to his great annoyance.
Fortunately for O’Brien, he learns that Farrell had an earlier marriage to someone else, and it is still valid. This allows him to ditch her for good and permanently take up with Davis at the end.
There’s a frenetic feel that envelopes BUREAU OF MISSING PERSONS, probably because there are so many subplots happening simultaneously that get crammed into the standard running time for a B-picture. Not all the subplots are put across successfully, but there is a very good one involving a child violinist who has run away from home because he just wants to be a normal kid with normal activities. The mother (Marjorie Gateson) arrives at the police station to reclaim him, and she doesn’t seem to have learned much about her son’s behavior. She's too busy getting him ready for their next concert!
In addition to the quickly paced narrative, we have Pat O’Brien known for his fast talking antics, not unlike Lee Tracy in similar adventures. We know things will pop right along…and there won’t be a moment of boredom in this offering. That’s a good thing for those of us who want a slight diversion from today’s wearying routines. We can find amusement looking in on a world with mysterious goings-on that lead to vanishing and reappearing persons of interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 24, 2023 14:38:50 GMT
I wrote these comments about three years ago in bullet point format, which does not transfer well to this site. Below is my best effort to make them work here.
Bureau of Missing Persons from 1933 with Pat O'Brien, Bette Davis and Lewis Stone
---Not quite sure what they were trying for with this, at times, documentary style picture and, at times, traditional movie about a big city' Missing Persons Bureau, presented here as a critical Police department with a large budget and devoted officers passionately looking for missing persons
---The movie does reveal that the bulk of the missing persons are husbands or wives who've run away to lovers or they are teenage children running from abuse or neglect
---One story has a very modern feel: a child prodigy violinist runs away because he wants a "normal" childhood, but his parents just want to milk their son. It's a '30s version of some of today's sport-driven or "stage-mom" parent stories
---If there is a central plot, it's that Pat O'Brien, a young rising star detective, feels "above" his new assignment with the Missing Persons Bureau. But then he gets wrapped up in an apparent missing-wife story (Bette Davis), which twists into an embezzlement and murder story that has him both seeing the value of the Bureau and the value of a young and blonde Miss Davis
---At just over an hour, and with O'Brien and Davis firing out dialogue at warp speed (a Warners Bros. specialty), the movie (1) flies by (once Davis gets into it, she doesn't appear for awhile), (2) is a quirky but fun early "talkie" and (3) has really neat time travel to the '30s - cars, clothes, architecture and cool police technology (pictures sent over phone lines, radio broadcasts to patrol cars, etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 24, 2023 15:37:50 GMT
You're right, the police department (bureau) in this film seems to have an unlimited budget. There's a scene where Lewis Stone hires a plane to fly after some pigeons to find out where the pigeons are bringing a message from...as if that would really happen! Not to mention how much it cost to put on a phony funeral, to lure Davis and a missing man out into the open. Oh well, it does make for an entertaining movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 24, 2023 15:57:46 GMT
You're right, the police department (bureau) in this film seems to have an unlimited budget. There's a scene where Lewis Stone hires a plane to fly after some pigeons to find out where the pigeons are bringing a message from...as if that would really happen! Not to mention how much it cost to put on a phony funeral, to lure Davis and a missing man out into the open. Oh well, it does make for an entertaining movie.
So from having only seen the movie once, three years ago, I remember thinking, my God, this police bureau has a lot of money to spend. I also remember this as being an odd movie as it seemed to be trying to do too many things at once. But since it was Warners - with O'Brien, Davis, Jenkins, Farrell, etc. - it managed to turn it into another fast-talking reasonably entertaining comedy drama. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 30, 2023 13:00:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1943.
Adventure in the desert
ADVENTURE IN IRAQ has the distinction of being labeled politically incorrect during the period in which it was released to the public. Because of the tale’s anti-British sentiment (which is minimal) and its anti-Iraqi sentiment (which is quite great), Warner Brothers was dissuaded from releasing the picture abroad during WWII, though it did have a North American release and recouped its costs in U.S. theaters.
The Green Goddess began as a stage play and had been adapted as a silent picture with George Arliss in the 1920s. It was remade as a talkie and provided another hit for Arliss. He played the dictator of a fictional Asian land that was at odds with more civilized peoples of the world. In the 1943 version, the setting has been changed to Iraq. The story begins with three Allies (John Loder, Warren Douglas and Ruth Ford) flying to Egypt, but their plane has engine trouble and they are forced down in the desert. Unable to communicate by radio due to mechanical difficulties, they trek to a nearby palace owned by Sheik Ahmid (Paul Cavanagh) where they are taken in and treated hospitably. At first.
However, they soon realize they are hostages, because the sheik intends to trade them with the British in exchange for three princes, his half-brothers, who were caught spying against the allies and are about to be sentenced to death. When the British refuse to go along with this idea and execute the sheik’s brothers, the sheik claims he has no choice but to execute his three guests because his people demand revenge. The Iraqi people are depicted as blood thirsty devil worshipers.
This leads to Loder and Douglas trying to strike a bargain with an unscrupulous henchman (Barry Bernard) to radio out for help, while Ford aims to distract the sheik who has taken a fancy to her. I should add that our leading lady is in the process of divorcing Loder’s character, while she has fallen in love with Douglas. So there is an interesting quadrangle playing on screen. When the henchman double crosses them, the trio manage to escape the palace and hurry back to the downed aircraft. They will attempt once more to see if they can get the plane’s radio to work and send a message for assistance.
Loder does get the plane’s radio to transmit a signal, and he sends a message just before he is killed. The other two are recaptured by the sheik’s men and taken back to the palace. We then have a sequence which occurs the following morning where their execution is scheduled. Interesting rituals are shown on screen, and it does look like curtains for Douglas and Ford. However, allied forces suddenly arrive. There is a standoff between them and the sheik, with a series of quick bombing raids. The sheik eventually relents, so Ford and Douglas are able to leave with members of the U.S. Air Force unscathed. A humorous line by the sheik reveals that he has become impressed by the allies, and he now considers Hitler an ex-friend.
This is an interesting film that reveals cultural attitudes at the time it was made. The performances are engaging. Cavanagh especially makes the most of a showy role, probably inspired by what Arliss had accomplished in the earlier versions.
Loder has a lot of charm, and it feels like this may have been a script that Errol Flynn turned down, because Loder’s character seems very Flynn-like on screen. Douglas’ part could have been portrayed by Ronald Reagan, and Ford’s part could have been taken by Olivia de Havilland or Ann Sheridan if this had been expanded into a longer “A” budgeted picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 30, 2023 13:05:54 GMT
This neglected film is from 1943.
Adventure in the desert
ADVENTURE IN IRAQ has the distinction of being labeled politically incorrect during the period in which it was released to the public. Because of the tale’s anti-British sentiment (which is minimal) and its anti-Iraqi sentiment (which is quite great), Warner Brothers was dissuaded from releasing the picture abroad during WWII, though it did have a North American release and recouped its costs in U.S. theaters.
The Green Goddess began as a stage play and had been adapted as a silent picture with George Arliss in the 1920s. It was remade as a talkie and provided another hit for Arliss. He played the dictator of a fictional Asian land that was at odds with more civilized peoples of the world. In the 1943 version, the setting has been changed to Iraq. The story begins with three Allies (John Loder, Warren Douglas and Ruth Ford) flying to Egypt, but their plane has engine trouble and they are forced down in the desert. Unable to communicate by radio due to mechanical difficulties, they trek to a nearby palace owned by Sheik Ahmid (Paul Cavanagh) where they are taken in and treated hospitably. At first.
However, they soon realize they are hostages, because the sheik intends to trade them with the British in exchange for three princes, his half-brothers, who were caught spying against the allies and are about to be sentenced to death. When the British refuse to go along with this idea and execute the sheik’s brothers, the sheik claims he has no choice but to execute his three guests because his people demand revenge. The Iraqi people are depicted as blood thirsty devil worshipers.
This leads to Loder and Douglas trying to strike a bargain with an unscrupulous henchman (Barry Bernard) to radio out for help, while Ford aims to distract the sheik who has taken a fancy to her. I should add that our leading lady is in the process of divorcing Loder’s character, while she has fallen in love with Douglas. So there is an interesting quadrangle playing on screen. When the henchman double crosses them, the trio manage to escape the palace and hurry back to the downed aircraft. They will attempt once more to see if they can get the plane’s radio to work and send a message for assistance.
Loder does get the plane’s radio to transmit a signal, and he sends a message just before he is killed. The other two are recaptured by the sheik’s men and taken back to the palace. We then have a sequence which occurs the following morning where their execution is scheduled. Interesting rituals are shown on screen, and it does look like curtains for Douglas and Ford. However, allied forces suddenly arrive. There is a standoff between them and the sheik, with a series of quick bombing raids. The sheik eventually relents, so Ford and Douglas are able to leave with members of the U.S. Air Force unscathed. A humorous line by the sheik reveals that he has become impressed by the allies, and he now considers Hitler an ex-friend.
This is an interesting film that reveals cultural attitudes at the time it was made. The performances are engaging. Cavanagh especially makes the most of a showy role, probably inspired by what Arliss had accomplished in the earlier versions.
Loder has a lot of charm, and it feels like this may have been a script that Errol Flynn turned down, because Loder’s character seems very Flynn-like on screen. Douglas’ part could have been portrayed by Ronald Reagan, and Ford’s part could have been taken by Olivia de Havilland or Ann Sheridan if this had been expanded into a longer “A” budgeted picture. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 30, 2023 13:07:25 GMT
Sometimes when I come across a neglected title I haven't seen, I get a preconceived notion about it based on the title and what the title might suggest or stir in my imagination. In this case, Adventure in Iraq is a rather bland title...but the film is anything but bland.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 5, 2023 16:11:43 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Rolling rolling rolling
A remake of KID GALAHAD (1937), THE WAGONS ROLL AT NIGHT (1941) is more faithful to Francis Wallace’s original story. The boxing racket of the first picture is traded in for the razzle-dazzle and petty larceny of a traveling big top show.
The emphasis here is not on spectacle or animals (though one does run amok at the beginning)– see DeMille’s GREATEST SHOW for that. Instead this is more of a character-driven piece about a group of down-on-their-luck types, led by Humphrey Bogart and his gal pal Sylvia Sidney. These roles were previously played by Edward G. Robinson and Bette Davis before she became JEZEBEL and scored a DARK VICTORY.
The troupe is facing bankruptcy. But fortunes change overnight when Caesar their lion escapes. These circumstances bring a store clerk (Eddie Albert, in the role played by Wayne Morris) into contact with the angry beast. He uses a handy pitchfork to keep the animal at bay in order to protect a small child.
Bogart’s character thinks such heroism can be exploited as part of a new act. He reasons that local people will show up at an evening performance to see such a daring fete re-enacted. And he’s right about this.
Albert is cajoled into leaving the grocery store business and joining the show permanently, which he does. Besides sudden fame, there is added incentive in getting to know Bogey’s kid sis (Joan Leslie). Bogey is overprotective of his family and doesn’t approve of the burgeoning relationship.
The film is engrossing if not somewhat implausible in spots. But it’s easy to see why such cinematic fare was popular with moviegoing audiences in the early 1940s. It was a diversion from the winds of war blowing across Europe at this time. The leads are all perfectly charming, and to some extent this cast works better than the cast assembled for the first picture four years earlier. Miss Sidney photographs nicely, and Mr. Albert is an unsung hunk.
We have a sequence at the end where a routine with Caesar is performed during a live show. A standoff once again pits the novice lion tamer against the agitated cat, with Bogart giving Albert an unloaded gun to defend himself. It is sure to lead to the young man’s death.
There is plenty of suspense, and things take a dramatic turn when Bogart decides to step in and sacrifice himself (so his sister can end up with the man she loves). The studio refrains from depicting any real gore, in compliance with the production code. The folks watching can at least say they got their money’s worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 12, 2023 15:54:22 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Three women and a child
This classic melodrama from Warner Brothers was directed by Robert Wise. It stars three unique actresses– Eleanor Parker, Patricia Neal and Ruth Roman.
We learn in detail that Susan Chase (Parker) was pregnant with a soldier’s baby at the end of the war, and due to unforeseen circumstances she was forced to carry the baby to term on her own. At her mother’s insistence, she put the child up for adoption though she quickly regretted it. A year or two later Susan has married an attorney named Bill (Leif Erickson). They have a strong marriage; however, Susan discovers she is unable to have any more children which causes deep regret about not keeping her son.
In the next part of the film we meet Phyllis Horn (Neal), a career woman. An extended flashback shows that she was getting a divorce from a fellow named Bob (played by Frank Lovejoy). Just as the divorce was to become final, Phyllis learned she was pregnant. But she didn’t tell Bob about it, since he had already moved on with another woman.
Phyllis gave up her son because there was no way to reconcile with her estranged husband; plus she felt raising a child might interfere with her job as a globe trotting reporter.
In the third arc we meet Ann Lawrence (Roman). She’s a low-class gal who has killed a no-good lover. She’s imprisoned for her crime and later gives birth to a son behind bars. But he’s taken away from her.
This is Warner Brothers’ version of A LETTER TO THREE WIVES. Only this story is not about a cheating spouse…it’s about an adoption. After revealing their backstories, the action flashes ahead five years later. The three women now converge on a rescue scene, because a young boy has been in a plane crash and his adoptive parents were killed. He is eventually pulled from the wreckage and saved. But we have no idea which one of the three women is his biological mother.
THREE SECRETS is an effective melodrama because we become invested in the situations of the main characters. And by putting a helpless child into the scenario, it becomes a lot more dramatic and emotional. Viewers can invest in a boy being reunited with his mother.
So which one is it? Who is actually his mother? You’ll have to watch and find out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 12, 2023 16:46:05 GMT
Three Secrets from 1950 with Eleanor Parker, Patricia Neal, Ruth Roman and Edmon Ryan
Despite sharing the lead with two other women, Three Secrets is Patricia Neal's movie. It's a B-picture melodrama, but she gives it grit and gravitas with an outstanding performance.
A plane crashes on a remote mountain top. A military spotter plane takes pictures revealing that a five-year-old boy is the sole survivor. The challenge is how to rescue him before he succumbs.
A famous mountain climber is brought in to lead a team up the 12,000 foot peak, while a media frenzy ensues at the mountain's base.
With the boy's parents, apparently, casualties from the crash and, since authorities discovered, the family has no relatives, the boy, Johnny, if rescued, will be an orphan.
Through flashbacks, we then learn Johnny was adopted and that one of three women - all who converge on the mountain - is his biological mother, but the adoption agency won't release that information.
Five years after giving up their babies, each woman is struggling with that decision and what it means if Johnny survives and if she is the mother.
Through further flashbacks, we learn the women's backstories. Eleanor Parker had a quicky affair with a soldier on leave and, then, at her mother's urging, to save her "reputation," went away to have the baby and, quietly, give it up for adoption.
The second woman, Ruth Roman, had an affair with a wealthy man who dumped her and, then, tried to pay her off when she told him she was pregnant. In a fit of rage, she kills him, is sentenced for manslaughter and, then, gives the baby up for adoption from prison. She has since served her sentence and been released.
The third woman, Patricia Neal, is a successful international journalist married to a sportswriter who comes to resent her lack of interest in a traditional home and family (note the riffing on Woman of The Year).
Five years ago, Neal came back from Europe as a famous war correspondent wanting to restart her marriage. After she throws herself sexually at her now emotionally distant husband, he, in a quietly brutal scene, tells her he no longer "wants" her - ouch. It's one of those moments that justifies a lot of mundane movie watching.
They briefly give it a try anyway, but she soon flies off on assignment again and he divorces her. Now overseas, she realizes she's pregnant and comes back to the States to find him remarried. She never tells him she's pregnant and gives the baby up for adoption. Right or wrong, Neal makes big decisions with speed and conviction - she's no ditherer.
Five years ago, these three women met, on the same day, at the same adoption agency, as they gave up their babies. Owing to the plane crash, they've now met again at the foot of the mountain. Based on the facts reported in the paper and their personal adoption stories and timelines, each is in anguish wondering if it is her child up there.
Patricia Neal is covering the story for her paper, while the other two came to the mountain out of a sense of responsibility. Yet it is Neal who pulls the three together amidst the chaos. This no-nonsense woman also has time to outsmart, out think and out report the men - she's a firecracker.
After a harrowing climb by the rescue team, the report from the top of the mountain comes down that the boy, Johnny, is okay. But what will these women, one of who is the mother of the now parentless boy, do?
Once again, it is Neal to the rescue. She bullies (yup, bullies) her male editor into blasting past adoption agency rules and any laws to find out which one is the mother. There's still one more plot twist to go, but while it's advertised a bit in advance, let's leave it there for those who haven't seen the movie.
To appreciate Three Secrets, one has to accept that words and phrases like "normal family," "illegitimate baby" and "reputation" were powerful memes back then. Wrong, yes, but they were the water society swam in, leaving these single and pregnant women, in the 1940s, with difficult life decisions to make.
The story is contrived, the budget shoestring and the acting uneven (Eleanor Parker all but sleeps through her role), but Patricia Neal and Edmon Ryan, as her newspaper reporter frenemy, along with the always outstanding directing of Robert Wise, elevate Three Secrets well above its material.
N.B. #1 For Hitchcock fans, it's neat when you realize the center of the plot of this story, a kid being rescued off a mountain, is just a macguffin. We often forget about the boy because we're absorbed in the movie's real focus, the lives of the three women.
N.B. #2 If Patricia Neal in real life was half as smart, half as no-nonsense and half as decent (without any fanfare) as her screen persona is here and in other movies - and if she was half as beautiful in person - she's the one you marry if by grace of God she'll have you. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 12, 2023 17:03:52 GMT
It's interesting how we watch the same films differently and have different take-aways.
Personally, I didn't care for Neal's character in the movie because she seemed like a cliched career woman type that Katharine Hepburn could have played with her eyes closed, and she seemed the least maternal of the three. I did think Neal and Lovejoy worked well together in their limited scenes, but overall their subplot didn't make much impact on me.
You sort of know who will end up with the child based on how the actresses are billed. Since Eleanor Parker has lead billing, and this was made the same year she did CAGED for which she received an Oscar nomination, you figure she's the main star, playing the more important character whose happy ending must be assured.
But the actress that resonated most with me was Ruth Roman. I think it's because at this stage of her career, Ruth Roman was the least experienced of the three and didn't quite have the same bag of acting tricks the other two had. So what we get with her is a much more earthy, raw performance...a gritty character played by a gritty actress who did whatever she could to keep up with the other two. As a result, that level of insecurity makes her character feel more real.
When the twist is revealed, that she's the child's biological mother, I had sympathy for her. She's out of her league in this environment. She doesn't have a career like Neal, she doesn't have a husband like Parker, all she has is this child, and she will have to sacrifice that. So I leave the film feeling more for her than I do for the other gals.
I would not call this a B-film. It's a B+, or an A- and it was certainly WB's answer to those multiple character studies that Fox did so well, films like A LETTER TO THREE WIVES; THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN; and WOMAN'S WORLD.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 22, 2023 15:49:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1940.
Garfield goes west and returns east
Warner Brothers turned out crime pictures with hoodlums that were cocky and self-assured. Of course, all the bravado that John Garfield musters in this production is mostly for show; deep down he’s a tormented guy. Tormented because he had opportunities for a better life which he squandered on more than one occasion.
Providing a contrast to the criminal exploits of Garfield’s character, we have eternally nice guy William Lundigan playing the good son of Mama Teresa (Marjorie Rambeau). Lundigan was never much of an actor…he had a nice looking face, a wonderful voice, but no real dramatic skills, so he was essentially playing the same bland type in whatever film he happened to be cast in by Hollywood studios. In this case, his blandness works as an opposite dynamic to the violent-prone hoodlum played by Garfield.
At the beginning of the story, the two male characters are glimpsed as preteen boys who are saved from being sentenced to a juvenile reformatory the day Mama gives an impassioned speech before a kind-hearted judge. She promises to do right by the boys and bring them up with discipline.
Initially Lundigan’s character is just a pal of Garfield’s, but he’s an orphan, so Mama adopts him and ends up being prouder of him than her own flesh-and-blood son. Lundigan studies hard, graduates from college and finds a good job. At the same time Garfield spends a stretch in prison out west, and he never has legitimate employment or a respectable lifestyle. When Garfield is released back into society, he returns east.
He comes back to visit his family in New York with a girlfriend (Brenda Marshall) in tow. She has also served time behind bars, but she’s able to fully reform and redeem herself. Part of her success in going straight involves her falling in love with Lundigan, so the middle portion of the film involves a triangle between her and the two brothers.
Miss Marshall would develop into a fine actresses after more experience in WB programmers, but at this early point in her career, her performance is a little too one-dimensional. She is rather conspicuous in how she is trying to portray her character’s toughness then subsequent softness. It would have been better if Ann Sheridan had done this type of role.
The storyline is fairly predictable. We know Marshall will end up with Lundigan to facilitate a happy ending, and Garfield will either get shot by the cops or wind up back in the hoosegow. Despite the routine aspects of the picture, there are some engaging scenes. Garfield is excellent as always, but the glue that holds this drama together is the performance rendered by Marjorie Rambeau as the mother.
At times, I thought she was spoofing a working class Italian, but then I realized she was just strongly punctuating each moment so that we saw what a devoted mother does out of love for her sons. The moments between Rambeau and Garfield ring true, even if the script is not really giving them anything very complex to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 30, 2023 14:38:23 GMT
This neglected film is from 1931.
A controlling mentor
Most earlier versions of the Svengali story were called ‘Trilby,’ after the doomed heroine. She was the main focus in the original tale written by George du Maurier (grandfather of Daphne du Maurier). However, a secondary character– Trilby’s mentor Svengali– seemed to be the one that caught on with the public.
In the early 1900s there were stage adaptations and silent film versions. Warner Brothers obtained the rights to remake the property as a sound film in 1930. Not surprisingly, the studio chose Svengali’s name for the title, instead of Trilby’s. He was now the main character. So definitive would he be that the word Svengali morphed into a popular synonym for anyone thought to be an egotistical maniac.
It helps that John Barrymore is cast in the lead role. A well-known actor who gave many memorable performances during his long career, Mr. Barrymore had a way of enthralling audiences. That is key to his success as Svengali.
Less successful in this offering is a WB contractee, Marian Marsh, as Trilby. She is outfitted with odd wigs and unflattering apparel which detracts from the job she needs to do. When she finally gets the chance to dive into the material, she finds herself upstaged by her charismatic costar.
Furthermore, Miss Marsh pales in comparison to the fine supporting cast that includes Donald Crisp and Luis Alberni. Mr. Alberni would later costar with Barrymore in TOPAZE, which we already reviewed.
Since our theme this month is husbands who control their wives’ singing careers, I should briefly mention the plot. In du Maurier’s book, Trilby has relationships with more than one man. While living in Paris and posing for paintings, she is attracted to a handsome young artist (Bramwell Fletcher). But then she meets a piano maestro named Svengali and begins to spend time with him. Her life starts to go in a dramatically different direction, because she’s falling under his spell, quite literally.
Trilby ends up marrying Svengali, and he helps her achieve great success as an opera star in Europe. But she never really loves Svengali, despite being under his constant supervision and hypnotic powers. The last sequence of the film has Trilby reunite with her artist friend, which lessens her husband’s stranglehold on her.
Losing his grip, Svengali succumbs to his death. But he intends to be reunited with the beloved songbird in the afterlife.
Several things convey a sense of horror in this movie. First, there is Barrymore’s exaggerated appearance. Also, there are strangely designed sets that complement Barrymore’s stylized acting. It’s clear that while this is a Hollywood production, there is substantial use of German expressionism, especially the way some shots are framed with the camera tilted at noticeable angles. This lends itself to a sense of imbalance and uneasiness when Svengali is on screen coaching his pupils.
In a way Trilby is nothing without him, and Svengali realizes he is nothing without her. They have a marriage made in hell, which we will see again in the other films we are reviewing this month. But there is something else going on. These two characters share important career goals. They both seek fame and fortune.
|
|
