|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 7, 2024 10:52:39 GMT
This neglected film is from 1931.
Mother on trial
In a way, it’s kind of hard to believe this was Helen Twelvetrees’ most well-known role, which says something about her overall movie career. The story is highly overwrought but Twelvetrees does her best portraying a woman who strives for two things. First, she is desperate to be loved; and second, she needs to protect her daughter. It’s all supposed to be virtuous and noble, but in the end, you can’t really side with the character of Millie, no matter how much the writers and director want you to.
The biggest problem facing a story of this nature is that she only has one scene with her infant daughter. Later after her divorce, she never sees her child again. So it’s extremely unrealistic that she and her daughter would have any bond years later. When Millie bursts into the lodge to protect her daughter and ends up shooting the man who’s been trying to seduce the girl, this is the first time they’ve even seen each other in all these years.
Surely, the girl wouldn’t even remember the woman who gave birth to her and abandoned her before she was able to talk. But I guess we’re supposed to overlook all that, because the main point is that Millie is a woman who will resort to anything, even the most dramatic act possible, to do right by her daughter.
The courtroom scenes that follow are somewhat preposterous. We are led to believe the jury is buying the prosecution’s idea that Millie killed out of jealousy. But no evidence is even offered to substantiate such a theory. Then, the minute the daughter shows up near the end of the trial, the defense attorney suddenly has it all figured out. How does the defense attorney make this sudden leap in understanding everything? Millie is soon acquitted, and we learn that one of the jurors said he would have killed a man getting cozy with his daughter, too. Wouldn’t Millie at least be found guilty of manslaughter?
Of course, it may seem like I am picking the story apart…and maybe I am. But these contrivances are what make the film look silly today. My guess is that sophisticated and intelligent audiences found it silly back in 1931. If the drama had at least been grounded in some sort of reality, I could overlook the ridiculousness of what occurs on screen.
The two women who play her girlfriends are the best performers in this picture, and that’s because they’re comic relief and allowed to be legitimately silly. Joan Blondell, one of the female friends, seems to be delivering her lines with a tongue-in-cheek approach, proving she is not taking any of this melodrama seriously. And I think that’s what they all should have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 7, 2024 12:17:59 GMT
Millie from 1931 with Helen Twelvetrees, John Halliday, Joan Blondell and Lilyan Tashman
"Men are all tramps"
You just never quite know what you are in for with a precode. Made in 1931, Millie's production quality is clunky, its editing choppy and its directing uneven, but for real life, this precode lets it rip.
Helen Twelvetrees plays an innocent young girl who elopes with a handsome young man. We see her virginally nervous on her wedding night and then, three years later, she and her husband are living in a fancy home with an infant daughter.
When Twelvetrees learns that her husband has been stepping out on her, though, she divorces him. Out of pride, she accepts no money and even leaves her daughter with him, believing his money and social standing will give the young girl advantages that she can't.
Now the movie really gets going. Twelvetrees wants to support herself, so without skills, she gets a modest job and moves into a tiny run-down apartment. Meanwhile, two of her old girlfriends, played by Joan Blondell and Lilyan Tashman, try to entice her into a different life.
That would be their life of high-priced prostitution; although, it is a bit palliated here as even precodes had some censorship. Twelvetrees resists until she learns that her current boyfriend, like her ex-husband did, is stepping out on her. That seems to break her.
While it's not completely clear, Twelvetrees appears to go the "escort" route, but she does resist the advances of an older gentleman, played by John Halliday. Fast forward several more years and Halliday is making the moves on Twelvetrees' sixteen-year-old daughter.
Once again, Millie, takes a dramatic turn as Twelvetrees' responds in such a way that she ends up on trial. Finally, proving that precodes are never done flaunting convention, the trial is illegally manipulated, yet the verdict stands.
Millie is a giant soap opera that has little shock value for modern audiences, but at the time, it was pretty scandalous. It's also hurt today by the aforementioned bumpy directing, editing and storytelling.
Offsetting some of that are strong performances by Blondell as the happy hooker and Halliday as the smarmy older man. Even though Twelvetrees slips into a stagey style of acting now and then, she still delivers a moving performance.
In Millie's eight-five minutes, you see a bride nervous about losing her virginity on her wedding night, serial infidelity, divorce, a mother giving up her daughter, upbeat prostitutes and even a capital offense and, in truth, none of it is really condemned or even punished.
It's 1931 and Millie's message is a very modern one (and is as ridiculous then as now): "all men stink, so it doesn't pay to be a 'good girl'." Instead, Millie says, girls should just get what they can using what they have. Everything is up for grabs in precode Hollywood. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jul 7, 2024 16:20:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1931.
Mother on trial
In a way, it’s kind of hard to believe this was Helen Twelvetrees’ most well-known role, which says something about her overall movie career. The story is highly overwrought but Twelvetrees does her best portraying a woman who strives for two things. First, she is desperate to be loved; and second, she needs to protect her daughter. It’s all supposed to be virtuous and noble, but in the end, you can’t really side with the character of Millie, no matter how much the writers and director want you to.
The biggest problem facing a story of this nature is that she only has one scene with her infant daughter. Later after her divorce, she never sees her child again. So it’s extremely unrealistic that she and her daughter would have any bond years later. When Millie bursts into the lodge to protect her daughter and ends up shooting the man who’s been trying to seduce the girl, this is the first time they’ve even seen each other in all these years.
Surely, the girl wouldn’t even remember the woman who gave birth to her and abandoned her before she was able to talk. But I guess we’re supposed to overlook all that, because the main point is that Millie is a woman who will resort to anything, even the most dramatic act possible, to do right by her daughter.
The courtroom scenes that follow are somewhat preposterous. We are led to believe the jury is buying the prosecution’s idea that Millie killed out of jealousy. But no evidence is even offered to substantiate such a theory. Then, the minute the daughter shows up near the end of the trial, the defense attorney suddenly has it all figured out. How does the defense attorney make this sudden leap in understanding everything? Millie is soon acquitted, and we learn that one of the jurors said he would have killed a man getting cozy with his daughter, too. Wouldn’t Millie at least be found guilty of manslaughter?
Of course, it may seem like I am picking the story apart…and maybe I am. But these contrivances are what make the film look silly today. My guess is that sophisticated and intelligent audiences found it silly back in 1931. If the drama had at least been grounded in some sort of reality, I could overlook the ridiculousness of what occurs on screen.
The two women who play her girlfriends are the best performers in this picture, and that’s because they’re comic relief and allowed to be legitimately silly. Joan Blondell, one of the female friends, seems to be delivering her lines with a tongue-in-cheek approach, proving she is not taking any of this melodrama seriously. And I think that’s what they all should have done. Clever holiday-related story titles and nice roundup endings from TopBilled are expected fare. Also expected: sexy and slinky yield from Fading Fast without too much prompting. (Your last photo here, TopBilled, had me thinking wait til' Fading Fast sees it and, sure enough, he didn't even wait to type something first!) |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 7, 2024 16:58:30 GMT
Thank you for reading the thread NoShear.
I usually let Fading Fast know ahead of time which precodes I will be covering...so if he doesn't already have something written, he has a chance to watch a title and do a review if he likes. He is more well-versed on precode cinema. It's been a learning experience for me.
Since I am only covering classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959, I am not including any precodes made in 1929. Just ones that were made with sound from January 1930 through June 1934. As you know, there are quite a few from that four-and-a-half year period.
You are certainly welcome to post any reviews you may write!
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jul 7, 2024 17:09:10 GMT
Thank you for reading the thread NoShear.
I usually let Fading Fast know ahead of time which precodes I will be covering...so if he doesn't already have something written, he has a chance to watch a title and do a review if he likes. He is more well-versed on precode cinema. It's been a learning experience for me.
Since I am only covering classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959, I am not including any precodes made in 1929. Just ones that were made with sound from January 1930 through June 1934. As you know, there are quite a few from that four-and-a-half year period.
You are certainly welcome to post any reviews you may write! Thanks, TopBilled... I have to chuckle: TopBilled only covers "...classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959..." That's all?  |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 7, 2024 17:17:26 GMT
Thank you for reading the thread NoShear.
I usually let Fading Fast know ahead of time which precodes I will be covering...so if he doesn't already have something written, he has a chance to watch a title and do a review if he likes. He is more well-versed on precode cinema. It's been a learning experience for me.
Since I am only covering classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959, I am not including any precodes made in 1929. Just ones that were made with sound from January 1930 through June 1934. As you know, there are quite a few from that four-and-a-half year period.
You are certainly welcome to post any reviews you may write!
It's funny, I've seen very few movies from 1929. Most of what I watch is from TCM and they don't run a lot of them.
Until Topbilled invited me to write a review for each precode he covers as a "Neglected Film," I thought I had seen a lot of them, but I have to watch and write new reviews for 80%-90% of the movies he chooses. As he notes, Hollywood made a heck of a lot of movies from '30-'34. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 7, 2024 17:20:30 GMT
Thank you for reading the thread NoShear.
I usually let Fading Fast know ahead of time which precodes I will be covering...so if he doesn't already have something written, he has a chance to watch a title and do a review if he likes. He is more well-versed on precode cinema. It's been a learning experience for me.
Since I am only covering classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959, I am not including any precodes made in 1929. Just ones that were made with sound from January 1930 through June 1934. As you know, there are quite a few from that four-and-a-half year period.
You are certainly welcome to post any reviews you may write! Thanks, TopBilled... I have to chuckle: TopBilled only covers "...classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959..." That's all? |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 7, 2024 17:33:34 GMT
I should add that the main reason I did not include films from the late 20s is that sometimes it is a bit tricky trying to find out which ones had silent AND sound versions, and then which version survived (some titles do not survive in any version). Plus some films during 1928-1929 started as silent films but midway through production the studio added in musical sequences or sound effects, and it's hard (for me at least) to evaluate something that has mixed technologies. It was just easier to start with January 1, 1930 since by that point over 95% of the studios' output was done in sound.
Now one thing I will admit I have neglected are foreign films from the 1930s. I have included some British flicks from the 30s but the Italian films I am covering are only from the 1940s and 1950s. My reason there is because as I started researching Italian cinema, it seemed like their motion picture industry was still gaining traction in the 30s, and ironically did not become a real force until Mussolini used that industry for propaganda during the second world war. After the war, we get directors like Rosselliini and de Sica, and others who were just as influential, begin the neorealist movement. In my opinion, those titles are much more interesting to look at, followed by the pink neorealism of the 50s.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jul 7, 2024 17:36:09 GMT
Thank you for reading the thread NoShear.
I usually let Fading Fast know ahead of time which precodes I will be covering...so if he doesn't already have something written, he has a chance to watch a title and do a review if he likes. He is more well-versed on precode cinema. It's been a learning experience for me.
Since I am only covering classic neglected films produced between 1930 and 1959, I am not including any precodes made in 1929. Just ones that were made with sound from January 1930 through June 1934. As you know, there are quite a few from that four-and-a-half year period.
You are certainly welcome to post any reviews you may write!
It's funny, I've seen very few movies from 1929. Most of what I watch is from TCM and they don't run a lot of them.
Until Topbilled invited me to write a review for each precode he covers as a "Neglected Film," I thought I had seen a lot of them, but I have to watch and write new reviews for 80%-90% of the movies he chooses. As he notes, Hollywood made a heck of a lot of movies from '30-'34. Thank you, Fading Fast... I must admit to being very intimated by most of the choices of the Sunday Live: Don't Be So Melodramatic! which have me feeling I would have little to contribute - disappointing because I enjoy the company of its crew. Or, put another way: He only shows up if Norma Shearer's around. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 7, 2024 17:43:49 GMT
I can only echo TopBilled's thoughts as your reviews would be welcome, but comments like the one above are great too. The entire point of the forum is to share thoughts and ideas about these movies, TV shows, etc., so any additional comments/reviews/etc. are welcome.
It's funny, I've seen very few movies from 1929. Most of what I watch is from TCM and they don't run a lot of them.
Until Topbilled invited me to write a review for each precode he covers as a "Neglected Film," I thought I had seen a lot of them, but I have to watch and write new reviews for 80%-90% of the movies he chooses. As he notes, Hollywood made a heck of a lot of movies from '30-'34. Thank you, Fading Fast... I must admit to being very intimated by most of the choices of the Sunday Live: Don't Be So Melodramatic! which have me feeling I would have little to contribute - disappointing because I enjoy the company of its crew. Or, put another way: He only shows up if Norma Shearer's around. |
|
|
|
RKO
Jul 7, 2024 17:49:59 GMT
Post by NoShear on Jul 7, 2024 17:49:59 GMT
Thank you, Fading Fast... I must admit to being very intimated by most of the choices of the Sunday Live: Don't Be So Melodramatic! which have me feeling I would have little to contribute - disappointing because I enjoy the company of its crew. Or, put another way: He only shows up if Norma Shearer's around. Laughing, Fading Fast!! I think I should show more commitment to the thread before expecting to be offered a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 7, 2024 17:53:52 GMT
Then we'll have to choose more Norma movies! That said, your contributions have added a lot to every movie you've joined us for. Plus, you could host a month of Norma movies if you'd like. I think that would be fun and the group would love it. Her past movies on Sunday Live! have been a big hit. Laughing, Fading Fast!! I think I should show more commitment to the thread before expecting to be offered a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jul 7, 2024 17:56:21 GMT
Laughing, Fading Fast!! I think I should show more commitment to the thread before expecting to be offered a choice. Thank you for your support, Fading Fast - and you as well, TopBilled. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 11, 2024 14:14:28 GMT
This neglected film is from 1945.
A marriage of inconvenience in war torn China
Before China became a communist nation, it was trendy for writers to publish novels about traditional Chinese culture, as Pearl S. Buck did several times. It was also trendy for Hollywood screenwriters to adapt her stories or devise similarly themed tales in which the old Chinese way of life was depicted as idyllic but under threat. Here in CHINA SKY, the biggest threat is posed by the Japanese.
Into the mix is an efficient American doctor (played by Ruth Warrick, without the glamorous touches her character had in CITIZEN KANE). Warrick is a well-meaning soul who sacrifices many things to help the Chinese in a village that she now calls a second home. She sacrifices privacy, sleep and many basic necessities— particularly when their are bombings. Oh and she has also been sacrificing love.
Cue handsome Randolph Scott’s entrance. He is a fellow doctor that Warrick has loved for a long time, though she never built up the courage to tell him. He recently went back to the States on a furlough but has returned with a renewed sense of purpose. He’s returned with something else, too: a sexy new wife (Ellen Drew).
At first Warrick kindly welcomes Drew and so do the villagers. But after a while Warrick and some of the others come to resent Drew’s presence, when it is clear that Drew has no intention of staying and plans to whisk Scott away. If Scott weren’t such a fine surgeon and so desperately needed by the people— and by Warrick for her own personal needs— Warrick wouldn’t oppose Drew’s attempts to take off with Scott.
However, Scott has no intention of leaving, which causes Drew to go bonkers and plot her own departure, even though it is too dangerous to go anywhere at this time. There is a good subplot involving a part Korean soldier (Anthony Quinn in one of his many ethnic roles) who deals with a crafty Japanese prisoner (Richard Loo) staying at the clinic due to a medical situation.
While Quinn’s character is certainly wise to the Japanese prisoner, Drew’s character is not. She becomes manipulated by him in sending a message out that she wants to leave, which will signal other Japanese as to Loo’s whereabouts.
Though the film occasionally bogs down into a bunch of romantic mush between Warrick and Scott, and we have Drew as an obstacle to their happiness, the performers do a credible job showing how these people function under pressure in a war torn part of Asia. There is a sensational bombing sequence near the end where Drew’s character makes her final descent into madness and has a spectacular on-screen death.
CHINA SKY doesn’t have the greatest budget in the world but it has decent production values. It also has strong performances from the main and supporting cast, and as such is one of my favorite RKO programmers from this period. Oh, and who doesn’t love a happy romantic ending!
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 18, 2024 7:18:19 GMT
This neglected film is from 1951.
Confederate story
The most obvious connection between GONE WITH THE WIND and DRUMS IN THE DEEP SOUTH (and there are many connections) is its subject matter about Sherman’s advance through Georgia. Both films depict the reign of terror that occurs for southerners who come into direct contact with the northern general and his men.
Another important connection, from a technical standpoint, is the fact that GWTW’s art designer is the director of this film. It wasn’t the first time William Cameron Menzies had moved into the director’s chair, and his previous experience in this genre makes DRUMS all the richer. The mansion scenes and the Georgia countryside are photographed in sepia, and there’s a balmy almost lazy sort of feel to the opening scenes.
All that rural idyllic charm gets jolted out of complacency eleven minutes into the story when war has been declared. And there’s an incredible shot where leading lady Barbara Payton watches her husband (Craig Stevens) see his West Point buddies off (now on opposite sides), and she closes the door to everything simple and sweet and innocent they’ve ever known.
From here the story follows the husband and one of the husband’s buddies (James Craig)– fighting for the south. There are some army camp scenes, where their regiment strategizes how they will defeat or at least stall Sherman’s advance through the territory. It all involves a place called Devil Mountain which looks out on to a valley.
Down in the valley Payton and her genteel uncle (Taylor Holmes) have stayed on at the manse. But the place is fraught with tension, because while her husband is off in battle, Payton’s home has been taken over by Sherman’s men and one of them (Robert Osterloh) has developed a strange attachment to her.
What happens next is something you’ve never seen before, not even in GONE WITH THE WIND. Payton tricks Osterloh to go get a picture of his children from his knapsack. Then she hurries upstairs, grabs a mirror and signals Craig’s men over at the Devil Mountain lookout. Osterloh returns and discovers what Payton is doing.
In the next part Payton’s uncle enters the room with a revolver. As he gets off a shot, Osterloh fires back. The uncle is killed instantly, but Osterloh is still alive. Payton doesn’t want to help him, but when she sees the picture of his children that he brought in from his knapsack, she can’t help but feel overwhelmed and decides to save the life of a man she considers the enemy.
There are more twists and turns, and Menzies keeps the story moving. The men at the lookout try to blow up not one but two trains bringing supplies through for Sherman. Also, the other West Point buddy (Guy Madison) returns to the area and meets up with Payton. He takes orders from Sherman and is on the Union side.
She is definitely caught in the middle– she remains friendly to the north so they will not destroy her home, but she’s still a southerner, and her loyalties are divided. She continues to work as a spy to help her fellow compatriots.
The drama operates on many levels. But no matter what direction it goes, Menzies is always careful to show the south in a compassionate light. (The film’s working title was The Confederate Story.) Menzies shows that the Confederates still have compassion for their northern brothers. I think that’s an important point to keep in mind, because after the war, they will have to reunite as one nation again.
|
|
