|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 15, 2023 14:40:26 GMT
The Miracle Woman from 1931 with Barbara Stanwyck, David Manners and Sam Hardy
"Religion is like everything else - great if you can sell it, no good if you can give it away."
- "Promoter" Sam Hardy
In The Miracle Woman, 1932 Hollywood and early-in-his-career director Frank Capra take on the popular faith healers and evangelical crusaders of the era in this powerful portrayal of a fraudulent "religious" movement that is all about the money, not saving souls.
Barbara Stanwyck plays the disaffected daughter of a sincere preacher who lived and died in poverty because his middle-class congregation were hypocrites who "practiced" faith only on Sunday morning, while just barely funding the church.
After her father passes and facing abject poverty, a conman, played with P. T. Barnum-like zeal by Sam Hardy, convinces Stanwyck that her combination of looks and religious knowledge would make her a natural leader of a faith-healer movement.
Stanwyck, hesitantly, goes along, yet quickly finds herself the head of a successful "religious crusade." She's put off by Hardy's use of "shills -" fakes planted in the crowd that Stanwyck "miraculously cures" of their disabilities - and other flimflam, but passively goes along, especially as the money pours in.
Stanwyck then meets a blind man, played by David Manners, who, just at the moment he was about to take his own life, overheard Stanwyck preaching on the radio and pulled himself back from the brink. He then seeks Stanwyck out to thank her. This odd pair - a blinded WWI veteran and a crooked preacher - begin to fall in love.
The rest of the movie is Stanwyck's conscience being awakened by this sincere blind man as Hardy, feral to keep the gravy train running, blackmails Stanwyck into continuing. He has all the records of the church's fraudulent activities with her name all over the papers and checks.
The climatic denouement of the church is dramatic and very pre-code as justice is only kinda sorta meted out, but in a real-life way. That wouldn't be allowed once the Motion Picture Production Code was enforced after 1934, but life worked and works much more like shown in these early pre-codes.
The Miracle Woman is an impressive Capra effort as he perfectly captures how these religious movements use pomp and ceremony to sell their product - faith and hope. When Stanwyck, decked out in a white flowing gown, descends the long stairway to the stage of her tabernacle, while the large band, attired in crisp white matching outfits, plays inspiring religious songs, you are all but sucked in yourself.
It takes an actress of Barbara Stanwyck's ability to convincingly play the conflicted leader of a sham religious crusade. She impressively walks the difficult line of being guilty and sympathetic at the same time.
David Manners, in possibly the best role of his career, is engaging and nuanced as the blind former flier trying to find purpose and love in his very challenging life. Without his moving performance, effectively, holding a mirror up to Stanwyck and forcing her to see what she's become, the story doesn't work.
These scamming tent-revival and religious crusaders and faith healers were a real thing in the 1920s and 1930s. In The Miracle Woman, early Hollywood proves itself up to the task of showing the fraud at the heart of many of them. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 15, 2023 15:02:29 GMT
Great review. These religious movements actually continued into the 1940s and 1950s, because the evangelical leaders often used radio to get their message across...and radio remained a popular form of broadcasting until television took over.
Aimee Sample McPherson's Foursquare Church is still in existence today. I was at a teacher's conference about ten years ago here in Phoenix, and I met another teacher who said she belonged to the Foursquare Church. And she said, "I bet you never heard of it." And I said "On the contrary. I have." That's because I had just seen THE MIRACLE WOMAN on TCM and had been reading up on Miss McPherson's work.
Jean Simmons took on a role inspired by McPherson in ELMER GANTRY, and I watched her performance comparing it to Stanwyck's. I think Stanwyck is a bit more intense and perhaps more satisfying if you're a viewer who likes big cathartic moments delivered with gusto. But maybe Simmons has a better handle on the character, because Simmons struggled with alcoholism in real life, and I think she may have better understood how demons can compromise a good woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 19, 2023 15:11:30 GMT
This neglected film is from 1956.
Requiem for the regiment
This is hardly a great western, but it’s still a rather thought-provoking one. Randolph Scott plays a captain in the 7th cavalry of the U.S. Army. While he has been away from Fort Abraham Lincoln in the Dakota territory, Custer’s last stand has occurred. We learn Scott was sent by his pal Custer to straighten out a troubled engagement with a colonel’s daughter (Barbara Hale). During this furlough, another man replaced Scott in command of the ‘C’ company and died along with Custer and all the other men at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Because Scott had left on verbal orders, not written orders, his leave of absence is regarded as suspicious…especially by the widow (Jeanette Nolan) of the man who replaced Scott in battle. Scott is feeling enormous grief over the loss of his leader and fellow soldiers; plus he must answer questions when a formal inquest is convened.
Hale is now at the fort in anticipation of her marriage to Scott, and they are joined by her father (Russell Hicks) who is going to preside over the inquest. The tense proceedings of the inquest makes matters of the heart between Scott and Hale more complicated.
The main reason this film seems so thoughtful and better than most westerns of the period, is because it examines the conscience of a man who is grappling with survivor’s guilt. In a way the narrative, which is based on a short story by western writer Glendon Swarthout, is anti-climactic since it occurs after a great historic battle has been fought, and lost. We see Scott try to pick up the pieces, defend his dead boss’s honor, and help the folks at the fort move forward.
There is an interesting subplot involving a few men who had stayed behind at the fort when Custer and the others charged off to confront the Indians. These men were prisoners and drunkards considered unfit for duty. Some were in the process of being drummed out of the army. After the inquest is held, Scott is asked to go out and bring back the bodies of Custer and his men. He will need help, so he takes the ragtag band of misfits along with him.
One of the misfits is played by character actor Denver Pyle. Pyle doesn’t get along with Scott and often challenges Scott’s authority. When they reach the site of the burial ground, which the Sioux consider sacred land, Pyle tries to get another man to defect with him. This leads to Pyle’s death. A short time later, another misfit (Michael Pate) defies orders, and in a moment of panic rushes past the Indians and is killed with an arrow.
We also have a sergeant (Jay C. Flippen) attempt to relieve Scott of his command, which backfires. To say things don’t go smoothly on this mission is an understatement.
Eventually Sitting Bull allows Scott and his men to dig up the graves and haul the bodies back to the fort for identification purposes. The idea of them exhuming all these bodies, and then putting the corpses on wagons to take them away, is somewhat ghastly. Yet, it is important for the army to provide proper closure for the families of Custer and the slain soldiers.
The film manages to end on a light note, because Hale’s father does finally soften towards Scott…and he ultimately gives his blessing for their upcoming union. An important chapter in American history has now ended, and a new chapter is just beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on Jun 30, 2023 18:52:37 GMT
Stanley Donen's ONCE MORE WITH FEELING. Donen made this and SURPRISE PACKAGE both with Yul Brynner to close out his contract with Columbia and Donen admits not his best efforts. Brynner plays Victor Fabian a mega-egotistical orchestra conductor whose monogram is on his shoes and some clothes. His home is loaded with paintings and sculptures of himself which Donen has Brynner pose in the same position when he is conning his long suffering harpist wife Dolly played by Kay Kendall.
Except, turns out they are not married and living together for 8 years. In 1960 unmarried couples living together would be a career ender. Last film for Kendall as she died soon afterwards.
Gregory Ratoff has the best role as the agent for Fabian. In his own words he is a terrific liar and constantly lies to prospective employers of Fabian with promises that may some cataclysmic situation happen to him if he is lying. So compulsive a liar he tells Wilbur, Jr. to sign a contract with the ballpoint pen the Tsar gave him. (Ballpoints weren't in common use until after WWII)
Mrs. Wilbur owns the London Symphony and she is more a drill sargeant than patron of the arts with a love for the music of John Phillip Sousa more than Liszt. And her son Wilbur Jr. doesn't like music at all.
When Dolly leaves Fabian, Mrs. Wilbur fires Fabian - she has only kept Fabian on because she likes Dolly. Dolly has a new love and wants to divorce Fabian, but she has to marry Fabian first. The logic here is she doesn't want anyone to know she has been living with Fabian without marriage for 8 years and you can't have a divorce without marriage.
It's not a laugh out loud film, more in the category with INDISCRETE and THE GRASS IS GREENER-amusing fluff. It is a film I wonder why it isn't played on channels showing old movies, unless it is the dreaded rights issue. It's better than Doris Day's DO NOT DISTURB or CAPRICE which routinely plays on Fox Movies. Of course that's all a matter of taste. But ONCE MORE WITH FEELING is a film I suggest for light humor fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 1, 2023 4:51:52 GMT
Stanley Donen's ONCE MORE WITH FEELING. Donen made this and SURPRISE PACKAGE both with Yul Brynner to close out his contract with Columbia and Donen admits not his best efforts. Brynner plays Victor Fabian a mega-egotistical orchestra conductor whose monogram is on his shoes and some clothes. His home is loaded with paintings and sculptures of himself which Donen has Brynner pose in the same position when he is conning his long suffering harpist wife Dolly played by Kay Kendall. Except, turns out they are not married and living together for 8 years. In 1960 unmarried couples living together would be a career ender. Last film for Kendall as she died soon afterwards. Gregory Ratoff has the best role as the agent for Fabian. In his own words he is a terrific liar and constantly lies to prospective employers of Fabian with promises that may some cataclysmic situation happen to him if he is lying. So compulsive a liar he tells Wilbur, Jr. to sign a contract with the ballpoint pen the Tsar gave him. (Ballpoints weren't in common use until after WWII) Mrs. Wilbur owns the London Symphony and she is more a drill sargeant than patron of the arts with a love for the music of John Phillip Sousa more than Liszt. And her son Wilbur Jr. doesn't like music at all. When Dolly leaves Fabian, Mrs. Wilbur fires Fabian - she has only kept Fabian on because she likes Dolly. Dolly has a new love and wants to divorce Fabian, but she has to marry Fabian first. The logic here is she doesn't want anyone to know she has been living with Fabian without marriage for 8 years and you can't have a divorce without marriage. It's not a laugh out loud film, more in the category with INDISCRETE and THE GRASS IS GREENER-amusing fluff. It is a film I wonder why it isn't played on channels showing old movies, unless it is the dreaded rights issue. It's better than Doris Day's DO NOT DISTURB or CAPRICE which routinely plays on Fox Movies. Of course that's all a matter of taste. But ONCE MORE WITH FEELING is a film I suggest for light humor fun.
One of the problems here is that Yul Brynner is not strongly identified with comedies, so to a modern audience, he may seem miscast. People remember him more for THE KING AND I which is a musical, or for dramas like ANASTASIA, THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN.
You kind of have to wonder why Donen didn't just cast Cary Grant in these films...or else go with someone under contract at Columbia like Jack Lemmon, who could handle comic situations with ease. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 2, 2023 13:42:09 GMT
This neglected film is from 1935.
If-then
If gangster Leo Carrillo could cook, then he wouldn’t need to hire someone to take charge of his kitchen. If Jean Arthur wasn’t down on her luck, then she wouldn’t need to apply for the job. If the job didn’t require a husband, since the ad is for a married couple to work as cook and butler, then Arthur wouldn’t need Herbert Marshall’s help. If Marshall wasn’t eager to get away from the stress of his career as an executive, then he wouldn’t agree to team up with Arthur.
If Columbia hadn’t needed a comedy hit at the box office, then this film wouldn’t have been made. But we’re glad it was made, because it’s quite funny and wonderfully performed by the three main stars as well as supporting player Lionel Stander.
The nice thing about studio comedies produced in the mid-1930s is that they’re often presented as broad farces. We fondly call them screwball comedies today. The scenarios and characters usually defy logic. But in a way, these stories provide commentary about the class discrepancies in American society. Here we have Carrillo as a self-made hood trying to gain a foothold in respectable upperclass circles. But of course, he’ll never be fully accepted, no matter how good a cook and butler he has.
As for Jean Arthur’s character, she’s a working class gal trying to scrape by and make ends meet. She falls for Marshall, after he agrees to pose as her husband. Initially, she doesn’t know he’s a wealthy entrepreneur from a rich background. One of the more amusing moments has Marshall sneak off to his own home to get pointers on how to be a butler from his butler!
It’s all rather harmless and an engaging way to spend about 70 minutes of your time. Did the stars make better motion pictures? Of course. But this one has tremendously good entertainment value. If you take the time to watch it, then you’re sure to enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 2, 2023 13:53:16 GMT
This neglected film is from 1935.
If-then
If gangster Leo Carrillo could cook, then he wouldn’t need to hire someone to take charge of his kitchen. If Jean Arthur wasn’t down on her luck, then she wouldn’t need to apply for the job. If the job didn’t require a husband, since the ad is for a married couple to work as cook and butler, then Arthur wouldn’t need Herbert Marshall’s help. If Marshall wasn’t eager to get away from the stress of his career as an executive, then he wouldn’t agree to team up with Arthur.
If Columbia hadn’t needed a comedy hit at the box office, then this film wouldn’t have been made. But we’re glad it was made, because it’s quite funny and wonderfully performed by the three main stars as well as supporting player Lionel Stander.
The nice thing about studio comedies produced in the mid-1930s is that they’re often presented as broad farces. We fondly call them screwball comedies today. The scenarios and characters usually defy logic. But in a way, these stories provide commentary about the class discrepancies in American society. Here we have Carrillo as a self-made hood trying to gain a foothold in respectable upperclass circles. But of course, he’ll never be fully accepted, no matter how good a cook and butler he has.
As for Jean Arthur’s character, she’s a working class gal trying to scrape by and make ends meet. She falls for Marshall, after he agrees to pose as her husband. Initially, she doesn’t know he’s a wealthy entrepreneur from a rich background. One of the more amusing moments has Marshall sneak off to his own home to get pointers on how to be a butler from his butler!
It’s all rather harmless and an engaging way to spend about 70 minutes of your time. Did the stars make better motion pictures? Of course. But this one has tremendously good entertainment value. If you take the time to watch it, then you’re sure to enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on Jul 4, 2023 16:12:32 GMT
TB, re: Donen's use of Brynner in the two comedies seems to have been a favor. Donen wanted out of his contract to the point that the final film under the Columbia contract was filmed in Black and White and he used who he could get available quickly. It seemed strange that Brynner even considered the two films, but then he detested studio execs to such a degree, I can imagine him accepting the roles help Donen.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 17, 2023 14:32:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
She has a past and a future
Many precode films focus on female protagonists who might have a criminal past. But because they are mostly uplifting dramas, the women in these stories strive to overcome past mistakes and live a more productive life. Before I dive into this particular review, I should mention a bit of background about the production. Carole Lombard was locked into a long-term contract at this time with Paramount Pictures. However, she was fighting boss Adolph Zukor about the sort of scripts that would best serve her talents.
At an impasse, Zukor placed Lombard on suspension. She promptly went to Columbia where she struck up a friendship with Harry Cohn. Cohn was eager to use Lombard to bring more prestige to his then-poverty row studio. He offered Paramount money to borrow Lombard, which meant her suspension was lifted. Lombard was able to get away from her home studio for awhile, and she was able to do material that interested her. She made several films for Columbia during the next few years. One (TWENTIETH CENTURY) firmly established her reputation as a screwball comedienne.
In VIRTUE, she is playing a much more dramatic part. And she handles the role with ease. Her character Mae is a down-on-her-luck prostitute that meets a brash but vulnerable taxi driver named Jimmy (Pat O’Brien). And from there, a rather interesting relationship– and sudden marriage– occurs. Both Lombard and O’Brien deliver their lines quickly. There are no drawn out pauses or belabored moments. This gives their scenes a lot of energy.
O’Brien’s character is a bit tough at the beginning. Jimmy’s charmed by Mae, but he’s also a bit skeptical. Probably because while driving cab around town, he’s met other gals like her before. He doesn’t intend to get burned. However, she does get a ride from him without paying.
Of course, we know our two main characters will cross paths again. Or else there wouldn’t be a love story, right? I like how the writers contrive to throw them back together. It’s because Mae has developed a conscience, and decides she needs to pay Jimmy for the fare, after all.
We should point out that while he might initially suspect she is a prostitute, Mae doesn’t ever confirm this to Jimmy in the beginning stages of the relationship. So he’s a little gullible and chooses to believe she’s a good girl. Maybe because he’s hooked on her, and he can’t admit he’s falling for a prostitute. When they impulsively marry, she must definitely give up her former occupation.
This is where the soap opera aspects of the plot kick into gear. We know that she won’t be able to totally disengage from her old friends, and some of them are quite dangerous. This will cause a huge disruption in the marriage.
The big twist occurs when Mae gets scammed by a guy named Toots (Jack La Rue) and a female pal named Gert (Shirley Grey). She borrows money from funds Jimmy is saving to open his own garage. Then goes to confront Gert, which lands her in even bigger trouble since Toots has accidentally killed Gert during an argument. Mae is found at the scene of the crime and is arrested.
I didn’t expect there to be a killing. But certainly knew there would be some sort of trouble, some sort of violence. Jimmy becomes Mae’s staunchest supporter through all of this.
As the drama plays out, important social issues are depicted on screen. How women struggle to support themselves; how a couple struggle to make a marriage work; friends who have their own problems; references to prostitution, economics and abortion. There’s a murder. Etc. Ordinarily, a film like this might seem heavy handed. But in this case, it doesn’t. The two leads draw us into what is a sincere story of love and redemption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 17, 2023 15:05:38 GMT
Virtue from 1932 with Carole Lombard, Pat O'Brien and Mayo Methot
A movie like Virtue could only have been made in precode Hollywood. Once the Motion Picture Production Code was enforced after 1934, morality in movies was black and white. Then, by the time the code fell in the 1960s, morality itself was being denounced and never recovered.
But for about four years in the early 1930s, Hollywood made films that showed the messy reality of how society hammered out a street-level realpolitik version of morality that was more honest than the treacly one Hollywood preached under the code.
In Virtue, the prostitutes have most of the virtue and it's the men who often need the lessons in morality. Carole Lombard plays a former prostitute who meets a loudmouth but basically good-guy cab driver played by Pat O'Brien.
O'Brien isn't going to be fooled by women because, as he brags to his friends, "he has their number," but then he falls hard for Lombard who keeps her past a secret. They're married and all is going well until her past comes back to haunt them both.
That past comes back in a pretty complicated way involving Lombard trying to help out a prostitute friend who once helped her, but the ensuing confusion leads to O'Brien thinking the worst about his wife's virtue. Plus, Lombard is charged with a murder she didn't commit.
After O'Brien has a pity party for himself, he faces his come-to-Jesus moment in the movie's climax where he has to decide if he's going to stand by his wife or by his ego masquerading as a principle. It's a moral conundrum code-era Hollywood would never present.
Virtue shows Lombard and her prostitute friend, played by Mayo Methot (one of Bogie's wives), as not only being smarter than the men, but having more integrity and loyalty. The slimiest character in the movie is Methot's grifter boyfriend played by Jack La Rue.
Yes, Lombard and Methot are "whores," but they are sympathetic characters forced by circumstances into their "profession." They support their men, emotionally and financially, put up with their men's cheating and egos, but are still kind to each other.
It's an impressively pro-women movie that works because pre-mega-stardom Lombard is believable as the cynical, weary, but kind and honest prostitute trying to make a better life for herself with O'Brien.
Methot, too, is impressive as the older prostitute eventually faced with the decision of having to keep quiet to protect her grifter boyfriend or doing the right thing ethically to save her fellow prostitute friend. Girl power isn't something new.
O'Brien is well cast here, too, as the man was born to play a blowhard who's not really a bad guy under the bluster. Still, he's just along for the ride as Virtue is a women's movie.
In Depression era America, many young women were pushed by circumstances into prostitution. It's a pretty common pre-code plot that often had husbands and boyfriends, who benefitted from the money, having to come to terms with a harsh reality.
Virtue takes a strong stance in support of these women against the prevailing era's ostensible morality that says it's “the fallen woman's" fault. It's a window into the real workings of a stressed society that would be palliated in movies once the code was enforced.
Just because movies took a hard pivot after 1934 doesn't mean society did as contemporaneous books and newspapers show that, in real life in the later 1930s, society continued its precode bending and flexing to a reality the movies decided to no longer show.
Virtue rips by in sixty-eight minutes with its message being some women, in the Depression, became prostitutes because they had to, but they are often good women who are kinder and smarter than their men. That's a heck of a surprising message to hear from 1930s America.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 26, 2023 14:42:43 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
What the night holds
The actual title itself seems like it would be better used for a horror film, instead of a noir. This is an entry in the home invasion sub-genre, which became popular in the mid-50s. A much more superior product in this cycle is Paramount’s THE DESPERATE HOURS (1955) which I will be covering later. Vince Edwards as the gang leader may be eye candy in this picture, but he’s no match for Bogey’s excellent acting in a similar role in the other picture.
To be frank, THE NIGHT HOLDS TERROR tested my patience in spots, since it seemed ludicrous how the basic concept played out even though it was supposedly based on a real-life police case. I started to believe midway through the story, that a lot of embellishments must have been made by director Andrew L. Stone who also produced and wrote the screenplay.
Some of the dialogue is absurd, and often there seems to be no real purpose in the individual scenes except for upstanding family man Gene Courtier (Jack Kelly) to be taunted by Edwards and his thuggish pals (played by John Cassavetes and David Cross). The thugs have perfectly groomed hair, nicely pressed slacks and Cassavetes in particular sports a sharp tie that makes it seem like he’s conducting crime on the way to an imaginary office.
Cassavetes’ talents are thoroughly wasted in the film, since Edwards gets to do most of the talking when the bad guys are on screen. Jack Kelly is the star, so of course when the gang members are threatening his family, he receives most of the reaction shots. One plus is actress Hildy Parks who plays the wife. She gives the most credible performance in the whole film.
The couple has two kids but the kids are barely seen, which is a mistake, because their safety should be a key concern, which is how THE DESPERATE HOURS presents this scenario. Instead of Kelly being a conflicted guy trying to protect his family, we basically have him being a patsy to the gang and then going off with them on a “joy ride” through the desert while the wife is left back at home to decide if she should call the police.
Sometimes it seems as if auteur Stone can’t decide if this is supposed to be a domestic drama or a road movie. The violence is watered down, except for the end, when the group is inexplicably overpowered by police and shots ring out.
I don’t want to discourage others from watching the film, since some of the scenes inside the house do work…but overall I found it a disappointing effort that could have been so much better. But then, maybe nothing can compare to Fredric March and Humphrey Bogart in THE DESPERATE HOURS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 26, 2023 15:23:57 GMT
I wrote the below comments a couple of years back.
The Night Holds Terror from 1955 with Jack Kelly, Vince Edwards, Hilda Parks and John Cassavetes
With a small budget and only a few second-tier actors, The Night Holds Terror feels more like a TV movie than a motion picture, but it's a reasonably good TV movie.
Billed as noir, but more crime drama with noir elements, the straightforward story has a man, Jack Kelly, picking up a hitchhiker, Vince Edwards (TV's future Ben Casey) with everything then going horribly wrong for Kelly.
The hitchhiker, after brandishing a gun, has Kelly pull over so his other two gang members, John Cassavetes and David Cross, can catch up. They rob Kelly, but are angered because he only has ten bucks on him.
As will happen several times, the criminals then plan on the fly and accept desperate-to-stay-alive Kelly's offer to sell his car and give them the money. But that necessitates some cumbersome banking, which holds up the money until tomorrow. So it's off to Kelly's house where his unsuspecting wife and two kids are waiting for him.
The movie now segues to the standard crooks-holdup-with-the-victim's-family script: tensions run high, the crooks fight amongst themselves, one crook comes on to the (good-looking) wife, a few escape plans by the family are abandoned or fail, neighbors inconveniently knock on the door and the phone rings a bunch, causing much stress.
By next morning, after getting the car money, the crooks plan, again on the fly, to demand a ransom for Kelly after they learn his father owns a chain of grocery stores.
This ad-hoc move follows the standard kidnapping script: money is demanded, the police are covertly called and phone lines are tapped, while the kidnappers fight, worry about the death penalty and fantasize about getting away with the money (you're not even sure they really believe that's possible). At the same time, the cops trace phone lines and connect small clues, while the wife and kids worry about daddy.
It's nothing special, but it has its moments as the small budget and not-well-known actors gives the film an intimacy, since there's not much to distract you. It could easily have been reverse engineered into a stage play.
At an hour and half in length (what would be a two-hour TV movie with commercials), it drags a bit here and there. Yet it mainly holds your attention, especially when the cops and phone company's efforts at tracing a call from the kidnappers takes you on a trip through state-of-the-art 1955 communications technology, all with the clock ticking.
I wouldn't search for The Night Holds Terror, but if it pops up, its serviceable story, plus its fun mid-1950s time travel, makes it an okay watch. Surprisingly, though, John Cassavetes - an actor who can certainly own a scene and create a memorable character - walks through this one without much spark or energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 9, 2023 15:15:26 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Enjoyable political-crime flick
We all know that crime doesn’t pay. But what can you do when one of your own relatives is a criminal? That’s the basic premise of this Columbia programmer that borrows its political ideals and Senate chamber sets from MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. The studio’s earlier film, starring James Stewart & Jean Arthur, was a critical and commercial hit, so it’s not surprising to see some of its main ideas and furniture transferred to the “B” film unit.
John Litel is cast in the role of an up-and-coming senator who is as honest as Abe Lincoln but still rather naive to the ways of Washington. Casting an admiring eye in his direction is a reporter played by lovely looking Gloria Dickson. With this script Dickson enjoys more of a central role than Jean Arthur did in the previous picture, because she is caught between our good guy politician and a big time mob boss (Otto Kruger, as the title character) who seems to have his own plans for the freshman senator.
Dickson’s character is falling in love with Litel, and a fellow reporter (Don Beddoe) teases her about it at length. Meanwhile, Litel’s becoming increasingly fond of Dickson…but both of them have a lot of work to do before they will be able to marry.
Dickson knows how Kruger’s type behaves, and that any favor done for Litel will have strings attached. She wants the new guy to succeed in the capitol, but she also has her own career and will report any major news story that comes her way.
Writer Howard J. Green provide a very dramatic twist two-thirds of the way into the film that plays quite well on screen. It is adequately foreshadowed in early scenes that involve Litel’s character as a youngster. The film starts with a sequence in the past, when he and his slightly older brother are suddenly orphaned one day after their sheriff father is gunned down by an angry mob.
The child actors in the beginning section of the film are convincing in their portrayals, and it helps set the correct tone that these brothers care for each other. We see Litel’s brother run off shortly after they’ve been orphaned, and that plot point seems to be dropped. But it all comes full circle in the last act.
Yes, I think you can guess where this is going…Kruger the big boss is conducting his business while using an alias. He is an escaped con that had been imprisoned as a teen. And before he went to prison, he was drifting from place to place, and he is Litel’s runaway brother. This is where the plot starts to resemble MANHATTAN MELODRAMA and ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES, because we have two childhood pals on opposites sides of the law as adults. In this case, the two are brothers, and one has been concealing his identity from the other.
What I like about the film is that Kruger is not painted as an outright gangster villain. Sure, he is crooked and is doing things he shouldn’t be doing…but we also see a lot of humanity still inside him. He seems to care about his brother’s political career, and he also seems to be quite fond of a newspaper boy that he teaches to play harmonica. These are nice touches that help balance the scales. In terms of the characterization provided for Litel’s role, he is not perfect and is not above reproach. It is believable that these grown brothers both have shades of right and wrong in them.
I have to add that Gloria Dickson is someone that I never paid a lot of attention to before in her movies. She appeared in quite a few hit flicks at Warner Brothers from 1937 to 1940, and at this stage the actress was freelancing at Columbia and Republic. It is somewhat difficult to believe she’s only 24 years old. She conveys a lot of savviness. There is a light-hearted but world-weary sarcasm that she infuses with her line deliveries, making you would think she’s got to be in her 30s at least. She comes across much more mature than even some of today’s 40 year old women!
There’s a scene in Litel’s office where Dickson has to spill some coffee, which causes her to read a letter that he’s written about his brother. She does a brilliant job with this slight bit of business that many actresses would have done by the numbers. We sense that she is a real honest-to-goodness person who acts normally in all situations, and this has made me a definite fan of her.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 18, 2023 13:25:48 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
No fury when a woman is loved
PAROLE GIRL is a classic precode from the folks at Columbia Pictures. It stars Ralph Bellamy who appeared in many films at the studio, as well as Mae Clarke who should have been in more. Bellamy and Clarke have excellent chemistry in this film. Even when she’s angry at him and wanting revenge for putting her in prison, she is still drawn to him. And you almost feel sorry for Bellamy, because he is not going to be able to get away from her, no matter how hard he might try.
What really puts this production on the map is its ability to take a theme like revenge and make a routine prison film into something more. Here, it becomes a somewhat unlikely romance…because after Clarke is released, she goes to work to get even on Bellamy but ultimately realizes she loves him more than she despises him. Probably this tale had been told before, either in other films or in radio dramas. But because Bellamy and Clarke take a formulaic plot with a predictable ending, and go deep with the characters, we get to watch something substantial on screen.
The plot mostly hinges on their characters’ actions and reactions to each other. In fact, it’s almost a two-character study since there is barely a scene without them included. Yet a few notable supporting turns do occur in the movie. And these extra roles help to enliven the proceedings.
For example, there’s a friend of Clarke’s (Marie Prevost) who throws an apple out the window on the train. And Bellamy has a boss (Ferdinand Gottschalk) who comes to dinner but doesn’t want to sit in the dining room. He enjoys staying in the kitchen, since he’s not allowed to go into the kitchen inside his own home.
These interesting performances aside, the most memorable bit in PAROLE GIRL occurs earlier in the picture. It’s a dramatic prison fire scene, and it is one of the best-staged action sequences this writer has viewed in a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 18, 2023 13:39:12 GMT
Parole Girl from 1933 with Mae Clarke, Ralph Bellamy, Hale Hamilton and Marie Prevost
In Parole Girl, Mae Clarke's character goes from being a reluctant grifter, to a prison inmate, to a parolee bent on revenge, to, finally, a woman facing a come-to-Jesus moment in a sham marriage in this engaging and short precode.
With an overly complicated and not particularly believable plot and a story focused on one character, it is up to Ms. Clarke to carry the movie.
Clarke's acting talent and an impressive screen presence is more than up to the challenge, so much so you wonder why this off-beat pretty actress didn't have a bigger career like contemporaneous and off-beat pretty actress Betty Davis did.
At the opening, Clarke and her grifter partner, played by Hale Hamilton, are scamming department stores with a fake pickpocket scheme. Clarke, caught at one of the stores, pleads for mercy from a store manager.
That sympathetic manager checks if he can let her go with the store's overall manager, played by Ralph Bellamy, who says it is out of his hands because the store's insurance company requires them to prosecute shoplifters.
Despite this, Clarke, now in jail, has it fixed in her mind that Bellamy himself made the decision to prosecute.
When Clarke then learns, in the movie's first massively unbelievable coincidence, that Bellamy is married to, but separated from, a fellow inmate, played by Marie Prevost, Clarke plans her ridiculous revenge scheme.
After scamming her way to an early parole (giving the movie its title), Clarke, hiding her past connection to Bellamy from him (he never met her, in person), manipulates a very drunk Bellamy into a quickie marriage. She then reveals her true self to him the next day.
Bellamy can't divorce her because, owing to his earlier marriage to Prevost, he could be prosecuted for bigamy. He thus agrees to stay married, support her and play the loving husband until her parole is up in a year.
That insanely complicated and forced setup takes up about a third of the movie. But once in place, the movie then settles into a standard romcom formula where two young and attractive antagonists are forced to live together.
The rest of the movie is Clarke and Bellamy fighting, but also beginning to fall for each other as she has to play the nice wife for his boss to keep the scam going. He also isn't immune to the pretty young woman walking around his apartment, often, in a negligee.
Thrown into the mix are Clarke's former grifter pals trying to pull Clarke back to her old world. The climax, though, is the exact one you'd expect after all the usual romcom confusion and misunderstanding, including the obligatory last-minute turn.
It all works for one reason, Clarke. She convincingly runs the range of emotions from crying and pleading grifter, to angry inmate bent on revenge, to nasty wife, to, finally, confused girl wondering if she's seen everything in life wrong until this point.
It's a moving performance that helps shepherd the movie over its many forced plot twists. Bellamy is fine but bland as the male lead and Prevost and Hamilton are enjoyable as grifters to their core, but this is Clarke's movie.
Sporting a cropped hairstyle, Clarke is cute, sexy and convincing as the woman on a revenge mission. Yet, all along, she also manages to hint at an underlying decency that makes her later conversion believable. It's impressive and subtle acting.
Parole Girl is just a slapped-together early 1930s picture with a small budget and a ludicrous story, but Clarke brings so much heart and soul to her performance that she makes this precode take on the romcom formula an enjoyable ride.
The real question surrounding the movie is why Clarke's career fizzled shortly after Parole Girl's release. |
|
