|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 11, 2023 17:52:52 GMT
With regards to the comment: Irene Dunne was RKO’s most popular lead actress during the 1930s. I would have assumed Katherine Hepburn (even with the box-office poison issue during the later part of the 30s). Of course, it comes down to how one determines "popular": If based on box-office income I would still assume Hepburn, but either way it would be close.
Like Katharine Hepburn, she went to MGM for awhile in the 1940s, but came back to RKO where she had her greatest triumph in 1948's I REMEMBER MAMA.
Now if I was going to say, RKO's most popular lead musical comedy star of the 1930s, I'd have to pick Ginger Rogers. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 17, 2023 12:57:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1940.
Solid remake
Katharine Hepburn’s motion picture career began when she was cast in the ingenue role of the 1932 version of A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT. Based on a play that had been a hit on both sides of the Atlantic, it did well with audiences and turned a tidy profit for RKO. It is not surprising the studio decided to remake it in 1940 as a showcase for its newest star, Maureen O’Hara.
After watching the 1940 version, it occurred to me that perhaps Miss O’Hara is better in the role of Sidney Fairfield than Katharine Hepburn. In my view Hepburn has a tendency to hide in her characters and exaggerate them to the point that they come off as too all-knowing. But O’Hara doesn’t do that. She seems to understand the main conflict and applies empathy and full-bodied pathos to the role in a constructive way.
She is not hiding in the character or hiding the truth about the character from the audience. Also, unlike Hepburn, O’Hara radiates a lot more sincerity, so when Sidney Fairfield is struggling with a mental health crisis, we believe it to be an honest and sincere form of struggle that she can overcome by doing the right thing in the end.
In addition to having the Irish-born O’Hara take the lead role, it also helps that so many of the supporting cast are British, since the story takes place in Britain. One of the reasons I was eager to look at the remake is because it features May Whitty in the role of the domineering aunt.
Miss Whitty was just as good as I expected her to be. She elevates her character’s bible thumping to a whole new level of viciousness…but skillfully prevents the character from coming across one-dimensional. It feels like the aunt’s highly judgmental nature is balanced by obvious concern for the Fairfield family.
Meanwhile Patric Knowles shines as the jilted love interest. Like O’Hara, he plays his role sincerely…we believe that he is deeply in love with her. And that they would have a great future together, if she didn’t feel compelled to break off their engagement due to fears that their children might inherit a gene for mental illness.
Adolphe Menjou is the one that I expected to be miscast, since I normally associate him with more comical performances, or at least lighter characters in serious fare. But he rises to the occasion, and I think he succeeds at playing the more volatile aspects of Hilary Fairfield, a man who recently left an institution. Unlike his predecessor in the role, he does not bring all kinds of extra baggage to the screen the way John Barrymore does. So this seems like a more professional acting job.
In the role of the wife, we have Fay Bainter. She infuses her character with gravitas, which helps put this melodrama across strongly. We feel her anguish when she is torn by loyalty to her ex-husband and daughter, with the chance to start anew with a close friend (Herbert Marshall) who wishes to marry her.
What makes the story work is the way the three women under one roof are not entirely united. The aunt’s loyalty is with Menjou’s character, keeping up the facade of a decent and respectable clan. She chastises Bainter for having gotten a divorce while Menjou was locked up, a controversial decision that’s had lasting ramifications on O’Hara.
The relationship between the women is a focal point in all of the screen versions as well as the play. The original play was authored by Clemence Dane, a British playwright and novelist that was often a source of amusement for Noel Coward, who supposedly based the eccentric medium character in ‘Blithe Spirit’ on her. One wonders how much of the Sidney Fairfield character was autobiographical in nature.
Also, it’s interesting to read that while the play was first produced in 1922 in London and New York, it was set in the future of 1932…which is when RKO produced its first film adaptation. Probably Dane set it in the future because it was still not permitted in 1922 for a woman to divorce her husband on the grounds of insanity.
The original London production of the play featured C. Aubrey Smith in the role of the wife’s fiancé. And here he is in RKO’s second version in the role of a doctor. I also read the play was revived many times in various touring productions during the 1930s and 1940s, so it remained very popular for a long time. In addition to the live performances and films, it was adapted for radio more than once.
In some ways, the story is just as relevant today as it ever was. For decades, scientists have believed that some forms of mental illness are hereditary. While this drama does not exactly specify what type of illness, Whitty’s character declares that poor Hilary’s shell shock after the war only triggered a condition he already had, which another member of the family suffered from as well.
During the emotional train station sequence near the end, O’Hara tells Knowles that one female relative was not sent to an institution like her father, but was hidden away in a bedroom inside the house and is remembered for her mad ravings. Back at the house, her father seems to become increasingly erratic when the clock in the main hall tolls the hour.
Today there is discussion about how conditions like autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and severe depression may run in families. This film can still shed light on the psychological struggles that occur in multi-generational households.
As I finished watching the remake of A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT, I thought about how this story reminds me of ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS where Jane Wyman’s character is shamed about moving on with her life after her previous marriage had ended.
Fay Bainter’s character is going through the same thing in this story. The audience for these types of melodramas in the 40s and 50s needed to feel reassured that a woman could still have fulfillment in life despite a set of irreversible circumstances that might rock the foundation of her family and home life. Here we have O’Hara making the ultimate sacrifice.
After some brief happiness, she breaks things off with her handsome beau, and she lets her mother go off and start a new life, offering to look after a father whom she knows she is very similar to, in outlook and temperament. The remake ends the way the earlier film version ends, with father and daughter at the piano coming up with notes for an unfinished sonata that he had created. The song may never be fully finished, but together, they can tune in on what most affects them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 18, 2023 14:39:06 GMT
If you only have time to read one of the two reviews of this movie, Topbilled's ⇧ is the one to read. It is fun to see, though, how we both came to the same conclusion about Katherine Hepburn's performance as the female lead in the 1932 version versus Maureen O'Hara's performance in the 1940 version.
Bill of Divorcement from 1940 with Maureen O'Hara, Adolphe Menjou, Dame May Whitty and Fay Bainter
With less than a decade separating 1940's Bill of Divorcement with the 1932 version, comparing the two pictures is a classic-movie-fan requirement. Since the stories are all but the same, the differences are the movie's production and, much more so, what each actor brings to his or her role.
The plot is, basically, unaltered and very stagey in both versions: a wealthy English family, comprising a middle-aged mother, a daughter in her late teens and an elderly spinster aunt face a crisis and a dark family secret.
The wife's husband has been in a mental asylum, ostensibly suffering from "shell shock" (the PTSD of its day) since coming back from WWI nearly twenty years ago. The wife divorced him five years ago and is about to remarry. The stern, bible-spouting spinster aunt, the husband's sister, is furious at the mother for "abandoning" her husband. Also, the daughter is about to marry.
Before anyone can marry, though, the missing father/husband/brother shows up claiming he's all better and ready to resume his life. The aunt is all "I told you so;" the former wife doesn't want to hurt her former husband, but she wants to move on and marry her fiance and the daughter is at sixes and sevens just trying to make sense of it all.
The big secret, which comes out halfway through and isn't really a spoiler, as there is no story without it, is that insanity runs in (the blood of) the father's side, with the family believing WWI didn't cause, but only "set off" his insanity. This view of insanity might offend us today, but it is how it was viewed at the time, plus, our view today probably won't look too good to future generations either.
The husband, desperately wanting his wife back, drops a big guilt trip on her, which is aided by the religious scold aunt telling the wife to remember her wedding vows, "for better or worse, in sickness and in health." At the same time, the daughter realizes that she has to tell her fiance, who wants many children, about "the insanity in her blood."
The climax is all melodramatic sacrifice over who's going to stay with the just-returned husband to help prevent a relapse. It's a conflict that will feel alien to modern audiences raised on movies preaching that genuine personal sacrifice is unacceptable because everyone today should get everything they want, come what may.
The two versions of Bill of Divorcement are similar with the 1940 one having a polish in production quality lacking in the earlier version as Hollywood was still figuring out "talkies" back in 1932. Hence, other than small tweaks to the story and some minor reordering, eliminating or altering of a few scenes, the real difference is the actors.
Adolphe Menjou has the unenviable task of taking on the John Barrymore role of the returning husband and, while he doesn't chew up the scenery the way Barrymore does, he also doesn't bring quite the passion and presence of a Barrymore.
Fay Bainter puts in a professionally understated performance as the torn-in-both-directions wife, but Billy Burke brought just a bit more verve to the role in the 1932 version.
The two big differences, though, are the aunt and daughter. Dame May Whitty as the angry aunt gives the audience someone to truly dislike in the 1940 version; whereas, with Elizabeth Patterson playing the aunt, the character all but disappears in the earlier production.
Which brings us to the true difference in the two versions: Maureen O'Hara creates a much more engaging and nuanced character in the later version in the pivotal role of the young, strong-will daughter who is not only rocked by meeting her father for the first time, but also by discovering a dark and life-altering family secret coursing through her blood.
In 1932, Katherine Hepburn, new to the screen, has too much stage actress still in her - over emoting, wildly gesturing and all but yelling some lines - and too much natural frenetic "Hepburness" to create the empathetic character needed to fully "sell" the climatic scene.
That "small" difference helps make the 1940 version superior. Despite Barrymore's captivating performance in the 1932 one, it's Maureen O'Hara's engaging and heartbreakingly nuanced portrayal of the shattered daughter that gives 1940's Bill of Divorcement a depth and sympathy missing in the earlier production.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 26, 2023 12:57:13 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
A real marriage
The rich certainly had their share of problems during the Depression. Ann Harding’s character in this smooth precode from RKO has money problems, but she is also yearning for romantic fulfillment. When her kid sister (Lucile Browne) ties the knot, Harding decides that she too should find a husband. Of course, it’s a matter of which man to choose.
Lucky for her, she runs into an unattached playboy (William Powell). He’s inherited a shipping company that he barely oversees, since much of his time is spent on leisure activities– usually of the feminine sort. Harding finds him charming and more than acceptable. She quickly decides he’ll do…she’ll marry him.
This is not a romcom, but some of Harding’s determination is humorous. Deciding Powell will become her husband without actually consulting him at first…dealing with his reluctance once she puts her proverbial cards on the table…setting a trap for him anyway…then agreeing to a divorce after a six-month period if he does marry her…yes, these are all things that a woman normally does to get a ring on her finger. (Not!)
Part of what makes it all so engaging is the charisma of the two leads. The story suggests they are unsuitably matched in the beginning. But we viewers know they are really perfect for each other, and this film is a casting director’s dream. Both performers are utterly delightful, the very epitome of class and sophistication. Such a shame they weren’t paired in more pictures together.
An interesting subplot involves the younger sister. She isn’t too likable and has no financial sense. The sister’s extravagant spending habits and Harding’s constant need to help square these debts puts a strain on everything. When Harding eventually cuts the sister off, her sister then exposes her initial scheme, about how Harding worked to trap Powell into ‘wedded bliss.’
There is some melodrama near the end, before it’s all resolved satisfactorily. Powell plans to leave Harding for an old girlfriend (Lillian Bond) and get the agreed-upon divorce. But then he reconsiders, after realizing how much he does love Harding. Ultimately he wants to remain at her side, because against the odds they do have a real marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 26, 2023 13:25:38 GMT
Double Harness from 1933 with Ann Harding, William Powell and Reginald Owen
Double Harness fully leverages the freedom of being a pre-code movie to intelligently and thoughtfully examine how a single woman plots a marriage of convenience only to have everything turned upside down on her once she accomplishes her goal.
In this short, wonderful movie, the quietly beautiful and talented Ann Harding plays the nice and kind older sister of a once-wealthy family now struggling in the Depression.
She starts dating the well-to-do playboy scion of a shipping empire, played by William Powell. Knowing he doesn't want to get married, but needing money for her family and herself, she contrives a way to trap him.
Harding starts sleeping with him (yup) and, then, as secretly arranged by Harding, has her father "discover" them together, which forces gentleman Powell to offer to marry Harding, who accepts.
Powell and Harding, as was the norm at the time, then plan to have an amicable divorce after a "respectable interval," because he only married her as an obligation. This norm also meant Harding would get a reasonable "settlement."
Harding, a decent woman forced by circumstances to do something out of character, then tries to make her marriage work by being a good, smart and supportive wife. Driven by guilt and integrity, she even tells Powell she won't accept any alimony when they divorce.
Harding's plan to turn her contrived marriage into a real one might have worked, too, if Harding's spoiled spendthrift younger sister hadn't pestered her and Powell for money.
The sister, in a mean and bratty move because she' angry her sister, Harding, has married a wealthy man, exposes to the unaware-until-now Powell that he was tricked by Harding into the marriage.
With everything blowing up in Harding's face, the movie races to a climax. We want to see their marriage survive - Powell and Harding are now truly in love - but respect that Powell is rightfully angry at being duped.
There are a few related side stories including Harding's bratty sister having a failing marriage because she is outspending her husband's reasonable income. Of the two siblings, Harding is the keeper.
Also, Powell's loyal manservant, played by the always enjoyable Reginald Owen, becomes a Harding advocate and, at Harding's direction, Powell begins to take an active and healthy interest in his own family's shipping business.
It's a smartly constructed story that has your sympathies lying where they ostensibly shouldn't be, with Harding, a woman who tricked a nice man into marrying her under false pretenses.
Harding believably conveys the feeling that she hates what she did and is sincerely trying to make amends. It's a wonderful real-life type of nuance that respects its audience.
Harding and Powell also have such incredible chemistry - Powell had that with so many of his co stars one has to assume he was easy to work with - that you can't help rooting for them to stay together.
Kudos to the writers and director John Cromwell for making a movie long on intelligent and realistic dialogue and situations that challenges easy moral answers by weaving in the messy grayness of real life. And all that happens in just over an hour of screen time.
From a play, Double Harness is light on action, but it doesn't need it as its story is engaging and Powell and Harding are so appealing that you are frustrated by the rushed ending.
Other than a few pointless slapstick moments, Double Harness is everything a pre-code movie should be: a well-acted, thoughtful, honest-about-sex, morally complex and smartly written picture that entertains in a way that respects its audience's intelligence.
It's a shame that, with the coming of the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code in only a year, fewer movies would be made that had adult characters actually acting like adults as they do in Double Harness. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 26, 2023 13:54:03 GMT
Good review Fading Fast. I agree that it's refreshing to see a more realistic love story, played by such credible leads.
***
I found an earlier review I had written about DOUBLE HARNESS in 2016. This one focuses on Ann Harding's acting a bit more:
This is easily one of the ten best films RKO made in the early 1930s. John Cromwell's direction is casual yet precise, and so is William Powell's performance as a wealthy playboy who falls into Ann Harding's trap. What's great about Harding in this film is she usually plays more sympathetic women in her movies, but that's not exactly the case here. This time she's a woman facing an unmarried and uncertain future. She is affected by her younger sister's engagement, and fearing she might become an old maid, she schemes to do something about it.
As the early scenes unfold, she sets her sights on Powell and figures he's the perfect target to end her aloneness. Powell has money and status, but he lacks motivation; so Harding will project hers on to him. Of course, we pity and understand her actions. It's all rich material for Harding to play, and we surmise underneath she's a woman who must obviously have a streak of decency in her. She comes from a good family; and she strives to make life pleasant for her sister and father. But with her own insecurities gnawing away inside her, she takes steps to force Powell into marriage.
Of course, this is only the beginning of their unusual romance. During the course of the story, Harding works to make us see the character from multiple vantage points. She is able to transport us with her performance from trickery and deception towards redemption, without really missing a beat. It couldn't have been an easy role to perform, but Harding does it almost effortlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 26, 2023 14:27:50 GMT
Good review Fading Fast. I agree that it's refreshing to see a more realistic love story, played by such credible leads.
***
I found an earlier review I had written about DOUBLE HARNESS in 2016. This one focuses on Ann Harding's acting a bit more:
This is easily one of the ten best films RKO made in the early 1930s. John Cromwell's direction is casual yet precise, and so is William Powell's performance as a wealthy playboy who falls into Ann Harding's trap. What's great about Harding in this film is she usually plays more sympathetic women in her movies, but that's not exactly the case here. This time she's a woman facing an unmarried and uncertain future. She is affected by her younger sister's engagement, and fearing she might become an old maid, she schemes to do something about it.
As the early scenes unfold, she sets her sights on Powell and figures he's the perfect target to end her aloneness. Powell has money and status, but he lacks motivation; so Harding will project hers on to him. Of course, we pity and understand her actions. It's all rich material for Harding to play, and we surmise underneath she's a woman who must obviously have a streak of decency in her. She comes from a good family; and she strives to make life pleasant for her sister and father. But with her own insecurities gnawing away inside her, she takes steps to force Powell into marriage.
Of course, this is only the beginning of their unusual romance. During the course of the story, Harding works to make us see the character from multiple vantage points. She is able to transport us with her from trickery and deception towards redemption, without really missing a beat. It couldn't have been an easy role to perform, but Harding does it almost effortlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 1, 2023 12:08:05 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
Down will come baby cradle and all
Though the film had a troubled production history, this RKO precode comes off fairly well. Mostly, it’s a tour-de-force for lead actress Constance Bennett playing a role that was originally intended for Gloria Swanson. Swanson bought the rights of the unpublished play and the story upon which it is based, but then sold these properties to RKO. Producer David Selznick was keen to use the material as a showcase for his all-important star at the studio.
Many scenes had to be redone when the director was fired and replaced by Selznick with George Cukor. The leading actor was also dropped and so was one of the supporting players. These changes necessitated reshooting when Joel McCrea and Jobyna Howland, one of my favorite character actresses from this period, were brought on board in the middle of production.
Miss Bennett had costarred with Mr. McCrea in two previous pictures, so they were a proven commodity. Plus they share considerable chemistry on screen together.
Some scenes already shot with Bennett and the costars that were not replaced have been retained and “blended” with the newer footage. As a result, the film is a hybrid of two versions that features shots from before the switch in director and subsequent cast changes, with Cukor’s stuff. This sewing together of shots is a bit noticeable, because the editing is not exactly smooth in a few spots.
Also, while Selznick was careful to match Bennett’s hairstyle, make-up and costumes with the older footage, you can still sense a different energy in what was filmed earlier compared to what was done later with Cukor.
Despite the behind-the-scenes difficulties, the finished picture is mostly cohesive. I would be lying if I said what we have is a great movie, but ROCKABYE does contain engaging performances. One thing that helps is how Bennett seems to take chances with the material. She does an admirable job; and while she addresses the script’s stiffer tearjerker moments with skill, she manages to loosen up and give us some manic comedy bits. These dimensions seem to suggest the screwball roles she would do for Hal Roach a few years later.
In the story, she portrays a renowned Broadway personality who finds that happiness eludes her. When her character thinks she has finally found true love with McCrea, appearing as a neophyte playwright, it is all snatched away from her. The relationship must end when it turns out his estranged wife secretly had a baby, and he has to go back to them. Ironic, since a theme in the movie is that career gal Bennett has been anxious to settle down and have a baby of her own.
If this film had been produced at Warner Brothers, it certainly would have been made with Bette Davis and George Brent. It is that type of film, where the melodrama is dialed up and the lead actress is encouraged to overplay the more full-blown aspects of heartache and pain that come her way.
In the end, she will make a supreme sacrifice so that we can see her suffer valiantly before the closing credits, and so we can be assured she’s not really self-centered at all, but a great lady.
Probably the best performance in this piece belongs to Jobyna Howland. She is on hand as Bennett’s mother, a soused matriarch who sneaks sips from a hidden flask and is first out the door when someone mentions a party.
There is a wonderful scene where she has to walk down some steps inside her daughter’s posh apartment. Just as she reaches the bottom landing, and it seems she has miraculously maintained her balance, she hobbles forward then falls flat on her face. It’s quite funny.
Another thing that’s interesting about Howland’s character, which the writers neglect to explore in any real detail, is that she is in direct competition with Paul Lukas’ manager character for control of her daughter. She takes credit for Bennett’s stage triumphs, but she has been a total flop, literally, in the motherhood department. This ties in thematically with the fact that Bennett still wants to be a mother herself…maybe to prove that she can give a child a better set of circumstances than she was given.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 1, 2023 12:25:08 GMT
Rockabye from 1932 with Constance Bennett, Paul Lukas and Joel McCrea
Even for a pre-code, Rockabye mixes in an awful lot of soap suds and "controversial" subject matter for one movie. It doesn't fully work as there's no one focal point, but Constance Bennett, near her career peak, along with Paul Lukas and Joel McCrea make it worth the watch.
Bennett plays a girl whom we are told comes from the poor part of town. Under the tutelage of her manager, played by Paul Lukas, she has "reinvented" herself into a proper lady and Broadway star. Lukas is carrying a torch for Bennett, but she doesn't know it.
When the movie opens, we see successful Bennett's public image take a hit as a former boyfriend, played by a very young Walter Pidgeon, is on trial for a shady political deal. At that trial, it is all but stated that they were having an affair at a time when, publicly at least, that was a big deal.
We then learn that single Bennett had just adopted a baby girl, whom we see she deeply loves. But the adoption agency, since the adoption had not yet been finalized, takes the baby back owing to the negative publicity of the trial.
After a trip abroad to get over things, Bennett comes back to start work on a new play by a young, handsome and well-bred playwright, played by Joel McCrea. While she was abroad, Lucas, against everything that is normal today, arranges with the new parents of Bennett's formerly adopted baby for Bennett to spend a day with the child from time to time.
In quick order, we see Lukas continuing to pine for Bennett as Bennett falls in love with McCrea, who then joins Bennett on one of her days with the baby girl in an awkward "don't we make a nice family" scene that is kinda creepy.
Amping up the melodrama, McCrea asks Bennett to marry him, um, er, uh, once his divorce is finalized. Bennett tosses aside the normal concern about marrying a man getting divorced at the same time he's planning his next marriage. She and McCrea vow to have many babies.
That would be enough plot twists and soap suds for most movies, but Rockabye has one more big one when McCrea's mother shows up to tell Bennett that McCrea's wife just gave birth. McCrea didn't know his wife was pregnant when they decided to divorce, but now that he has a son, the mother wants Bennett to step aside so that McCrea isn't separated from his new baby.
The climatic scene has Bennett at a party celebrating the success of her new play, the one written by McCrea, but while everyone is applauding her performance, Bennett is faced with the gut-wrenching decision of whether or not she will stand between McCrea and his new son.
It's too much story to hold together as threads are opened, but then, dropped or not fully developed. The ex-boyfriend angle is interesting, but never explored. Bennett's humble beginnings don't really play into her climatic decision. Lucas' unrequited love is left, well, unrequited.
Despite all that, Bennett shines as the Broadway star who hasn't forgotten where she comes from as she gets to sing, dance and do slapstick all with engaging verve. Lukas puts in his usual professional performance and McCrea is in his sweet spot as the hunky boy-toy, but it's not enough to overcome the challenges.
Rockabye is a story in need of a rewrite to tighten up or trim away its loose ends and to give the movie a more-cohesive narrative arc. The actors are enjoyable to see and there are several interesting themes, but Rockabye never fully gels, leaving the viewer watching a movie whose parts are better than the whole. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 14, 2023 13:43:09 GMT
This neglected film is from 1940.
Worthy follow-up
Six years had passed since child star Dawn O’Day made an impression in RKO’s adaptation of ANNE OF GREEN GABLES (1934). The actress became identified with the Anne Shirley character created by Canadian writer Lucy Montgomery, and she changed her stage name to reflect this strong connection.
By 1940 she had matured into a fine young adult actress. During the intervening period, she’d ascended the ranks at the studio. After Katharine Hepburn’s abrupt departure from RKO in 1938, Miss Shirley was basically the lead ingenue. She starred in many productions until her early retirement in 1944. Most of these pictures did boffo business with audiences.
It is no surprise that RKO execs were keen to do a sequel. And I think it is to their credit they did not rush the sequel. The wait allowed the actress to grow up, and for her to improve her skills. Now several years older, it is believable that she could play Anne who at this point in the narrative leaves Prince Edward Island to venture far from home to begin her teaching career.
In some ways Montgomery’s plucky heroine is similar to Louisa May Alcott’s Jo March in Little Women and Little Men, also a teacher. Many adventures take place when she arrives by train in a remote location called Pringleton. The village is run by the founding family, the Pringles. For reasons not initially clear, the Pringles are rather inhospitable. This causes Anne to find lodging at a home known as Windy Poplars, which is reminiscent of Green Gables.
At Windy Poplars she is taken in by a kind caretaker (Henry Travers) and his wife (Elizabeth Patterson). They work for an eccentric woman (Minnie Dupree) who is happy to have additional companionship.
Subsequent scenes introduce us to an assortment of colorful characters. Some of these folks are amusing, others are a bit tragic. Shades of Norman Rockwell meets Thornton Wilder. The first student we meet is a young orphan girl (Joan Carroll), whose wild imagination makes her seem like a throwback to Anne’s own early days.
During the various introductions that occur, we get a sense of the community as a whole, including the way the local school is operated. Most of this seems innocent but there are secrets, too. We have an interesting scene where old matriarch Hester Pringle (Ethel Griffies) gathers her brood and learns that outsider Anne Shirley is staying and has taken up residence at Windy Poplars. She is not pleased.
In typical Montgomery fashion, there is a romantic friendship. While we see Gilbert Blythe (Patric Knowles) at the beginning, he is absent for much of the first half of the movie. He remains away finishing his studies as a doctor. Meanwhile, Anne settles in to life in Pringleton, and she befriends a handsome member of the Pringle family (James Ellison). Ellison’s character has a drinking problem, because he’s in love with someone else that he can’t have at the moment.
Gilbert shows up for a Christmastime visit in the middle of the story, and it’s clear that he and Anne will soon be married…especially when they kiss under the mistletoe. Their bond is made even more unbreakable when Joan Carroll’s character takes ill and she is treated by Gilbert. This paves the way for the couple to adopt the girl.
This is a story about new beginnings, small town prejudices and fortitude. It is also a fish out of water tale. Main character Anne Shirley as an adult is repeating the previous situation of coming to a new community; of being disliked and unwanted…then, gaining acceptance. It’s a nice motion picture and a worthy follow-up to the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 14, 2023 14:22:06 GMT
...The actress became identified with the Anne Shirley character created by Canadian writer Lucy Montgomery, and she changed her stage name to reflect this strong connection.... |
|
|
|
RKO
Jul 14, 2023 14:38:09 GMT
Post by topbilled on Jul 14, 2023 14:38:09 GMT
...The actress became identified with the Anne Shirley character created by Canadian writer Lucy Montgomery, and she changed her stage name to reflect this strong connection.... |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 14, 2023 14:40:08 GMT
Incidentally ANNE OF WINDY POPLARS has never aired on TCM, so it's truly a neglected film.
A copy can be viewed here:
ok.ru/video/2611772590772
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 23, 2023 16:51:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Wheeler and Woolsey give ’em the raspberries
A Blu-ray release of the film was made available in 2020, and it’s nice to see a print of the popular duo’s most successful feature in such great condition. This effort was directed by George Stevens, who also helmed THE NITWITS (1935).
For those who don’t know, Bert Wheeler & Robert Woolsey were solo vaudevillians who were paired together for RIO RITA (1929). Their comedic shtick and ability to do song-and-dance numbers made them a hit with audiences. A team was born and RKO presented the pair in motion pictures for the next eight years.
In KENTUCKY KERNELS, the formula from their earlier precodes is continued…though with a bit less bite as the code was now starting to be enforced. The boys are put into a wacky situation– saving a suicidal man by helping him adopt an orphan (Spanky McFarland). There is a sexy blonde on hand (Mary Carlisle); and over-the-top comic foils in the form of Margaret Dumont and Noah Beery Sr.
A lot of the humor comes from puns, sight gags, role reversals and exaggerated moments where violent happenings are translated into laughs. One routine has Wheeler as the more emasculated of the pair, doing dishes, mending clothes and even dressing as a woman during a climactic shootout. Another routine involves young Spanky’s propensity for breaking glass, and by the time the film is over, countless shards have been left everywhere.
The plot kicks into gear when it is revealed that Spanky has inherited a southern estate. With the newly adoptive father away on a honeymoon, the boys take Spanky to Kentucky to claim his inheritance. The plantation is a large one and comes with all the finest amenities and stereotypes. Unbeknownst to our trio, a rival family with a plantation and servants of their own, have declared war on Spanky’s family.
A huge feud plays out. However, the daughter of the other family takes a shine to these newcomers. She provides a lovely presence on screen.
Her character sets the stage for a shotgun wedding later on, which culminates in “bloodshed.” Because this is a Wheeler & Woolsey farce, raspberries are used for ammunition instead of actual bullets.
It all becomes more and more far-fetched, until a letter arrives explaining that a mistake was made back at the orphanage. Spanky is not really the heir of this plantation, so he and the boys have no reason to stick around and continue fighting. A truce is declared, and the two pals are able to leave mostly unscathed with the nice lady riding back north with them. I guess Wheeler won’t have to cook, clean and sew anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 23, 2023 17:25:10 GMT
Kentucky Kernels from 1934 with Bert Wheeler, Robert Woolsey, George "Sparky" McFarland and Mary Carlisle
Kentucky Kernels is farce and slapstick with a thin and silly plot that exists only to knit together a bunch of comedy sketches by "Wheeler and Woolsey" and a talented cast including six-year-old George "Spanky" McFarland.
The former Vaudevillians Bert Wheeler and Robert Woolsey, who teamed up on screen as "Wheeler and Woolsey," weren't as big as the Marx Brothers or Laurel and Hardy in their day, but they were very popular, despite having been all but forgotten now.
The plot of Kentucky Kernels starts off with Wheeler and Woolsey accidentally, kinda sorta, adopting six-year-old McFarland. Then, because McFarland supposedly inherits a Kentucky estate, they all go south where they land in the middle of a southern family feud between the Milfords (MacFarland's side) and the Wakefields.
While there, Burt Wheeler, seen as being on the Milford side, falls in love with a Wakefield, played by Mary Carlisle (she's adorable and adds a fun feminine spark to the movie), which only amps up the feud. Here's the thing, though, none of this matters and the audience knows it.
The wobbly plot construct exists only for the comedy sketches, pranks, partfalls, songs and Keystone Cop routines. Early on and before heading South, we see one of the sketches as Wheeler and Woolsey are keeping house together with Wheeler clearly in the role of the woman: it's subversive homosexual humor for its day. It was probably fresh and edgy in 1934, but we've seen that skit too many times by now for it to work for modern audiences.
That's the challenge for a movie like this for today's viewers. "Baby" Macfarlane has a penchant for breaking glass that was probably funny then, but is all but irritating now. There's also a bit about a horse getting drunk on moonshine and then running wild with Wheeler and Woolsey in the cart behind him that is past being trite today.
On and on it goes, with a few magic tricks that we've all seen a billion times and Catskill-like jokes that we've all heard a billion times. It doesn't help for modern audiences that the main black character - the talented actor Willie Best - is a horrible stereotype of the era.
The plot itself climaxes with a massive Keystone Cop-like gunbattle between the Wakefields and Milfords, with no one getting shot despite a million bullets flying. After that, all the threads are easily resolved as the movie closes with the big broken-glass gag you knew was coming all along.
Kentucky Kernels has a talented cast and, here and there, something funny for modern audiences pops up, but much of it is too silly, dated or irritating for today's viewer. It's kind of okay if you watch Kentucky Kernels as a time capsule or historical entertainment curio, but otherwise, it's hard to sit through it today for just its entertainment value. |
|
