|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 11, 2023 13:21:50 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
Different types of education
I wonder what it was like for young 20-somethings watching the film during its first release in the summer of 1933. How did it resonate with contemporary viewers? After the film ended I imagined what sort of life Dora (Arline Judge) would have after letting Michael (Richard Cromwell) go back to Betty (Dorothy Wilson).
During stretches of the film, Betty wasn’t very likable, and one can’t help but suspect she’d eventually cheat on Michael after they were married. She has supposedly learned to value her relationship with Michael, but I think she’s the kind that likes to be validated by all men. Dora just wanted to be validated by Michael.
We don’t even get a scene with Michael and Dora at the end. Michael is too busy watching Duke (Eric Linden) die and too busy tending to Betty. Dora’s only consolation is her father (Reginald Barlow), which frankly, doesn’t seem like much!
A thought I had reflecting on the film is that Dora’s the only character whose parent is shown. We don’t know anything about Betty’s family or Duke’s family (except that Duke’s family is rich enough to buy him a fancy car). And all that is said about Michael’s background is he had a grandfather or great-grandfather who had drafted some law, and was probably an attorney.
I suppose John Halliday’s character is meant to function as a surrogate father for Duke and Michael; and Aileen Pringle’s character is a surrogate mother for Betty. But it was a bit strange that when Duke lay dying in a hospital bed, none of his actual family was there. Where were his parents when he died?
Of course the emphasis of the film is mostly on youth. It is about their passions and their struggle with right versus wrong.
But we don’t get a complete picture of these people. We’re not even told what type of job Michael’s going to take in California. Also, the film seems to champion the notion that people don’t need a college education, which is counter to what a lot of people think today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 11, 2023 14:37:13 GMT
The Age of Consent from 1932 with Dorothy Wilson, Richard Cromwell and John Haliday
This is what pre-code movies are all about. Set in a generic Midwest college, The Age of Consent is no rah-rah college musical or happy sorority-house-party movie like Hollywood's assembly line would stamp out with regularity in the second half of the decade. Instead, it's an honest look at the taut sexual relations at college in the early thirties.
Dorothy Wilson and Richard Cromwell are the young college lovers who fight out of frustration as they, simply put, want to have sex but believe, based on the conventions of the day, they shouldn't. So they continue to see other people and only end up making themselves jealous and unhappy.
They debate quitting school and getting married, but realize leaving college without a degree isn't a smart move either. One night, while they're on the outs, Richard walks a waitress friend home, they get drunk and have sex - yup, that's exactly what happens.
The girl's father walks in afterwards (thank God, not sooner) and has Richard arrested as his daughter is a minor (she's seventeen). The father wants Richard to "do the right thing" and marry his daughter or he wants him prosecuted and sent to jail. Holy smokes - right? This is no "are we going to win the 'big game'" or "will he ask me to the 'spring dance'" college movie.
The conclusion, involving a car accident and hospital scene, forces everyone to reflect hard on his or her beliefs. The waitress begins to buck her father; the father reexamines his religious views; Richard and Dorothy consider anew the value of their love and a few of the older faculty members see relationships, life and conventions in a fresh light.
Sure, the style of the movie is old fashioned and some of the moral issues seem outdated to us today as we've settled most of these questions (with the help of movies like Age of Consent), but you can feel the intensity of the contradictions and distress these young men and women faced back then.
With the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code by the end of 1934, issues like these would be stripped out of or palliated in movies for the next several decades. This only makes these pre-code movies, clunky as they can sometimes be, more valuable for their realistic look at the moral and social issues of the thirties.
What's going on here ↓? Dorothy and Richard just had a fight, so Dorothy is going on a date with another boy, but she knows Richard is watching so she flashes some gam (note her look-back).
What happens next? Angry-and-jealous Richard walks home with his waitress friend and all goes horribly wrong from there.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 11, 2023 14:57:06 GMT
I like how you managed to squeeze that GIF into the review. 
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 23, 2023 14:08:59 GMT
This neglected film is from 1937.
Comedy nonsense with romance and music
Most films from the late 30s struck a chord with audiences if they presented some laughs, usually from radio comics; tossed in a romantic storyline with attractive leads; and included obligatory music scenes to keep things humming along. In this instance, RKO has put a likable package together in the form of radio star Joe Penner, matinee idol Gene Raymond and musical actress Harriet Hilliard (later, Nelson).
It’s a winning combination. And if that were not enough, some additional comic support comes from veteran scene stealers Victor Moore and Helen Broderick who had done a few other films together during this period at RKO. The studio does not scrimp on talent…they also add comedian Harry Parke (father of Albert Brooks), Margaret Dumont (foil for the Marx brothers), and Billy Gilbert as well as teenaged sensation Ann Miller who does a couple of memorable tap dance numbers.
In addition to the well-known roster of performers, the studio spares no expense on elaborately designed sets some of them in the art deco style. The main showpiece is a hotel staircase and lobby, as this is where most of the action takes place. It really is a breathtaking production with these spectacular sets as well as some lavish costumes that include beautiful gowns for Miss Hilliard and a smart tuxedo or two for Mr. Raymond. In short, the whole film is a visual feast, so that if the plot lags a bit, there is still plenty to enjoy.
One thing I savored was a lot of the sharp comedic banter that occurred between the main characters. Joe Penner, who plays a hapless hanger-on, has an excellent deadpan delivery that is at once endearing and annoying (how’s that for a contradiction!).
Meanwhile Harry Parke goes through the movie as a wacky detective named Parkyakarkus, and he has a lot of amusing dialogue with his costars that consists of clever puns as well as a few funny malapropisms. Overall, the script is very witty and I appreciated the writers’ efforts to give each of the idiosyncratic performers something unique to do.
As for the two leads and the romantic plot, Gene Raymond is once again featured in the role of a charming ladies man. He is so persistent in trying to get a gal (Hilliard) to take him seriously, he almost comes off as a stalker, until she finally gives in and reciprocates his feelings. For many of the film’s early scenes, Hilliard’s line deliveries are appropriately hard, as she is initially meant to spurn Raymond’s advances, even during several scenes that evoke Cinderella and Prince Charming.
But I think she may be a little too edgy in the recitation of some lines. And I couldn’t help but think how Raymond’s usual romcom partner at RKO, Ann Sothern, would have done a better job conveying the flustered yet tender aspects of the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 28, 2023 15:04:19 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Home wrecker or homemaker..?
In this story we have a unique female protagonist. She’s not exactly a homemaker. She’s a morally challenged woman who gives men the sort of personality makeovers they need. And for that, they’re eternally grateful.
There are plenty of sexist stereotypes on display. First, it is primarily a woman’s job to direct the course of a man’s life. Never mind her life. And Wynne Gibson’s character here sure could use some direction herself– she lies, she trespasses, she puts the moves on another gal’s fiance, and she is not above conning her way into someone’s bed, staying for breakfast the next morning.
The men are male stereotypes of the highest order. One is a rough and tumble blue collar dude (William Gargan) who engages in public brawls and winds up in the slammer after assaulting some cops, plural. I find Mr. Gargan a tad miscast; he doesn’t strike me as a real he-man of the universe. Charles Bickford, known for physical altercations in Hollywood, would have been ideal.
Charles Farrell plays the other guy. He’s an overly refined Richie Rich– not a a snob, almost afraid of his own shadow. The sissified aspects of his character are meant to contrast sharply with Gargan’s.
With the help of her housekeeper sister (ZaSu Pitts), Gibson takes refuge in Farrell’s place during a storm. She forges an unlikely friendship with him, and things turn romantic after she teaches him how to be more of a man, ahem. Since this is a precode, she parades around in skimpy undergarments. We see him trying to resist his most basic urges; and that leads to a scene up on a rooftop where he confesses some of the feelings he has for her.
Meanwhile Gargan is released from prison, and he attempts to reconcile with Gibson. Complicating matters is the arrival of Farrell’s posh fiancee (Betty Furness) as well as a stern auntie (Blanche Friderici) who severely disapproves of Gibson. Yes, these are exaggerated stock characters.
In some ways, it’s an RKO production that feels like the type of picture Warner Brothers was making at this time. If it had been produced a short time later, RKO’s new star Ginger Rogers would likely have played the title role. I particularly enjoyed the cleverness of the scenario, how the men sort of reverse themselves.
Gibson stays with Gargan in the end. However, I bet if there had been a sequel, she would’ve ultimately reversed herself and gone back to Farrell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 28, 2023 16:31:30 GMT
Aggie Appleby, Maker of Men from 1933 with Wynne Gibson, Charles Farrell, William Gargan and Betty Furness
Most pre-code movies fit into one of several templates, but not Aggie Appleby, Maker of Men. This quirky story with its appealingly quirky female lead goes its own way as it flies on and off the screen in seventy-two rapid minutes.
Rough-around-the-edges Aggie Appleby, played by Wynne Gibson, is a woman struggling to get by in Depression-era New York City. She meets a loud brawler, played by William Gargan, and these two streetfighters move in together. When Gargan gets sent to jail for beating up some cops, Gibson is left on her own to survive.
Gibson, through an only-in-a-movie happenstance, then meets and moves in with a well-mannered milquetoast, played by Charles Farrell, trying to make it on his own in the City. Farrell is rough Gargan's opposite: Farrell is refined, speaks politely, likes classical music, reads books, dresses meticulously and treats women gently and with respect.
Gibson is intrigued by this polite pushover, but believes he needs to be made "tougher" to make it in the hard-boiled city. Through more movie-magic, she transforms him into a "rough" guy who gets a job leading a construction gang. They continue to live together, it's implied, platonically, especially since Farrell has a fiancee back in his hometown.
The subtle twist in the movie is the transition within a transition of Gibson as she begins to see the good in Farrell's refinement (he only becomes a little bit tough) just as her old boyfriend returns. At the same time, Farrell's well-bred fiance, played by the arrestingly beautiful Betty Furness, shows up to give Gibson some competition.
The climax has everyone confused and fighting over whom they want to be with: Gargan wants his old girl Gibson back, but she's fallen in love with Farrell. Farrell, meanwhile, wants Gibson, but now that he's got some grit, his old fiancee, surprisingly, is ready to fight to keep him.
Once again, it all hinges on what the street-smart and street-tough Gibson does as both men want her. She's made Farrell what he is and she'd have to make Gargan into something respectable now if she takes him back. Her surprising decision is nuanced, thoughtful and touching.
Despite having a bunch of forced plot machinations, Aggie Appleby, Maker of Men works because it's real. Gibson's attraction to two, initially, polar-opposite men is believable as her exposure to a different type of man than she's used to gives rise to her personal growth.
While living with Farrell, she comes to see the value in his refinement, even though she has probably mocked men like him her entire life. It's an impressive bit of acting as you believe she is a street kid who doesn't fully know why his manners, culture and discrimination are appealing, but through her facial expressions and body English you see her intuit that what he has is rare and valuable.
Aggie Appleby, Maker of Men is Gibson's movie from beginning to end. While a bit dated in its approach and exaggerated in the two men's dichotomy, the core story of a woman attracted to two very different men is timeless (the TV show Cheers milked eleven seasons out of the idea).
Plus, Aggie Appleby, Maker of Men, has some great Depression Era argot and the wonderful (and wonderfully named) Zasu Pitts in a supporting role as Gibson's dimwitted but well-meaning confidant. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 4, 2024 10:21:58 GMT
This neglected film is from 1951.
Scenes from a marriage on the verge of divorce
Bette Davis was in a transitional phase of her long Hollywood career as a leading lady. She’d recently left her home studio Warner Brothers after 18 years, and was about to make a splash with ALL ABOUT EVE, which rejuvenated her career. But in between, she squeezed in this effective melodrama at RKO, which she made right before EVE, though it would be released afterward in early 1951. For her leading man, she selected Barry Sullivan who was borrowed from MGM; though there was talk that Robert Young, another freelancer at RKO, might take the role opposite her.
Davis and Sullivan have a wonderful rapport as a couple whose union sees more than its share of ups and downs over the years. The film starts in the present day with wealthy Sullivan telling social climber Davis he wants out of the marriage. He’s found a slightly younger and more glamorous woman (Frances Dee). He feels the two daughters he has with Davis (played by Peggie Castle and Betty Lynn) are nearly grown and able to live their own lives, without being anchored by parents who have supposedly fallen out of love.
From here, we have Davis attempting to cope with the abrupt separation, in denial that a divorce will even take place. The story flashes back to earlier periods in the marriage, when they were poor and happy; when their first daughter was born; and when Sullivan’s legal practice got off the ground, though not without a few crafty maneuverings from Davis to help him make the right connections.
In most respects, they are well-suited for each other. But Davis turns cold as they age, pushing her husband towards even greater success and notoriety, while he’s content to just live a relaxing life. Ultimately, they head in two different directions…so that when the action returns to the present, we see they have reached an impasse. Davis realizes a divorce is inevitable.
After talking with her catty girlfriends, led by snooty Natalie Schafer, she goes to a well-known divorce attorney (Otto Kruger) who hires a private detective. Soon she’s obtained pictures of Sullivan and Dee, and in a showdown during a conference involving their lawyers, Davis insists she will ruin Sullivan and his new paramour by giving the photos to the press.
In order to avoid a scandal, Sullivan caves in and gives Davis what she demands. She asks for the house, the cars, jewels, stocks and bonds, a large trust fund…everything!
The next sequence has her going off on a cruise while the divorce is being finalized. In some exotic locale, she meets up with an old society friend (Jane Cowl) who is also divorced but living with a gigolo/protege.
At the same time Davis has met a married man (John Sutton) on board who likes to sleep around when he is on business trips. Neither one of these scenarios appeals to Davis, who now misses her old life back in San Francisco. A telegram from the younger daughter (Lynn) who’s about to be married, signals Davis’ return to her family home, where she will re-encounter Sullivan and the life they once shared together.
There are no easy answers here. The acting is uniformly superb, especially from the leads and supporting actress Jane Cowl (who, sadly, died a few months after filming was completed). Several endings were shot for the last scene, and I’m pleased that the producers didn’t go with a cliched reconciliation. Yes, there is hope they might resolve their issues and stop the divorce at the last minute. But we also know they are not perfect people, and they still have more to learn more about themselves, and what will make them most happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 11, 2024 14:43:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
Compared to the original version
This remake was produced seven years after PANAMA FLO, on the eve of U.S. involvement in the second world war. One wonders why RKO execs chose to remake this particular property, when there were countless other vehicles they could have adapted for up-and-coming star Lucille Ball. She is hardly a stand-in for Helen Twelvetrees…their performance styles are not at all alike.
Also the studio had Allan Lane under contract, and why the bosses thought he was a substitute for Charles Bickford is anyone’s guess. It probably seems obvious to you the reader that I was less enthralled with the remake than its cinematic forebear, though I don’t take issue with either Miss Ball or Mr. Lane. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re miscast, but I don’t think this type of dramatic story is best suited to their unique talents.
During this same year Lucille Ball appeared in the B-action flick FIVE CAME BACK. For some reason, the studio wanted to push her as a dramatic leading lady. But she is better at comedic situations, and so is Allan Lane. It is not surprising that Garrett Fort’s script from the 1932 version was rewritten by Michael Kanin (brother of Garson), who added sarcasm and wisecracks.
Story-wise, the key differences compared to the original are as follows…the villain, previously played by Robert Armstrong, now has less screen time. Donald Briggs, the actor who plays him now, is fifth-billed; and his deviousness is shown almost immediately. Ball doesn’t see him off in the beginning when he smooth talks her…instead, she hides in the back of the plane and they travel to some rendezvous point. She learns he is involved in gun smuggling, related to the encroaching war in Europe.
He has her blindfolded and returned to the saloon. The smuggling subplot is not developed too much, except to clue the audience in on the guy’s obvious villainy and to foster the idea that our leading lady doesn’t deserve a heel like him.
The second main difference is that Sadie the proprietress is renamed Lenore and she does not get away with the scheme to bilk the oilman out of his bankroll. She is arrested, along with Pearl the other hostess. In addition to this, Lenore loses her saloon. Clearly the production code office wanted her punished! We are also told that Ball’s character, unlike Twelvetrees’ character, does not live with the other girls which suggests she has a better reputation than they do.
When Ball goes to stay with Lane at his plantation along the Amazon, she uses Lane’s room, and he sleeps on the couch. However, she soon moves into a separate room. When she grabs one of his guns for protection she just aims it, and he gets the message. She does not fire at him, like Miss Twelvetrees fired at Mr. Bickford. Because of these changes, the remake is a lot more scrubbed up.
There is soft music playing in the background during scenes where dialogue occurs between the leads; in the original there was no real soundtrack except for when they turned on the record player. This version is shinier, and the sets are a bit elaborate, which indicates the money RKO made on those profitable Astaire-Rogers musicals had been wisely reinvested.
Another important deviation comes in the form of the native girl. She has been renamed Cheema and is played by Steffi Duna (wife of Dennis O’Keefe). She is turned into a stereotype and does heinous things. For example, she tries to poison Ball on two separate occasions out of jealousy; and she is the one who fires the fatal shot that kills the aviator. I guess this was done so Allan Lane’s character could be completely blameless and an acceptable partner for Lucille Ball’s character at the end.
The remake runs ten minutes shorter, probably because much of the stuff with the aviator was cut. When he shows up at the plantation, he wastes no time finding the oil lease papers. Then he is shot dead about a minute later. Gone is much of the smoldering passion and the triangle between the oilman, saloon girl and aviator. Most of the scenes at the plantation involve the evil machinations of the native girl as well as a new character named Elisha (Abner Biberman) who assists Lane.
My guess is that people watching PANAMA LADY without having seen PANAMA FLO will find it passable diverting entertainment. But it really is not as good as the original. The biggest issue I had was the updated modern lingo and how Kanin took pains to explain too many things to the audience. In the first picture, we are trusted to make inferences and draw our own conclusions about why these two people wind up together…in the remake it is all carefully laid out so that we do not miss the morally correct reasons their union is acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 12, 2024 14:01:47 GMT
This film is from 1942.
Bambi and subsequent generations
Everyone’s familiar with the animated classic BAMBI. But truth be told, I don’t think I had seen it since one of the ’80s theatrical reissues when I was a kid. It’s a film that lingers in your memory long after the initial viewing.
Key sequences have been uploaded on YouTube. These include the memorable scenes where Bambi’s mother dies, as well as the blazing forest fire that threatens the safety of not only the deer but a majority of other wildlife.
The death of Bambi’s mother is certainly heavy drama and may be hard for some children to take. I guess that’s why it lingers in the mind. I came across some interesting comments under a YT clip I watched where people discussed the merits of how the mama doe dies off screen. A gunshot is heard while she and Bambi run to safety. Bambi has run ahead but he is not rejoined by his mother. His father, the prince buck, finds him and explains his mother’s death to him.
Disney plans to remake the feature. Originally, it was supposed to hit screens in 2021/2022; but the pandemic postponed those plans. Now the remake seems to be on track for 2025/2026. I wonder if it will depict the mother’s death on screen this time. Will the violence of the story be presented differently?
The forest fire is another situation. We do not learn about any animals dying during the blaze, but realistically some of them probably would have perished.
The most memorable image, in my opinion, is when the adult animals reach a haven along a shore with their young. The expressions on their faces as they find refuge makes me appreciate the struggle for survival. It’s something we all can relate to, wanting to keep ourselves and our youngsters from harm.
While watching the clips, I was familiarizing myself with the overall story. I read up on Felix Salten, the Jewish author from Austria who had first published “Bambi, a Life in the Woods” in 1923. I learned he had also written a sequel called “Bambi’s Children” in 1939 after he had sold the rights of the original story to Hollywood.
The sequel follows Bambi’s twins and some new cousin characters that are introduced. Reading the plot summary, it seems clear to me that Salten had woven in some sort of allegory about the Germans. The men that are hunting down these innocent creatures are quite Nazi-like in their pursuit to kill or capture prey.
I would say that on some level Bambi is an eco-horror story. A potentially grim form of environmentalism about what is required to survive. Ironically, the film’s own survival was in jeopardy when a legal tangle occurred between Disney and a publishing company that purchased the literary rights from Salten’s heirs. But fortunately, the copyright issues were resolved and the 1942 film continues to be available for subsequent generations. That’s a good thing because of what Bambi teaches us about ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 12, 2024 14:48:55 GMT
Note: Starting with 1937's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, Walt Disney had a long-term deal with RKO to distribute his feature-length films. So these animated classics are technically RKO releases. It wasn't until around 1952/1953 that Disney ended his association with RKO, which was then owned by Howard Hughes. Disney created his own company to handle feature film releases made by his studio-- the Buena Vista Distribution Company, Inc.-- which evolved into Buena Vista Pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 21, 2024 13:03:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Father, wife, latin heartthrob and the rest of the family
There was considerable ballyhoo when RKO announced Gloria Swanson was back for a lead role in this sparkling romantic comedy. The dynamic actress, perhaps a bit too dynamic for a routine farce, had been on an acting hiatus for seven years. Her return to moviemaking was supposed to start a new chapter in her illustrious screen career. Unfortunately, FATHER TAKES A WIFE underperformed at the box office, so Swanson’s real comeback would not occur until 1950’s SUNSET BLVD.
The details for this film on the AFI website say that Swanson and leading man Adolphe Menjou, who is actually billed over her, had previously costarred in the 1920s. That is not true. Neither one had previously been in a film together. But it’s clear they have a strong rapport, which lends a great deal of oomph to their scenes together. Swanson is cast as a glamorous actress (what else), and Menjou plays a conservative business tycoon who is reinvigorated by a midlife romance with her. A whirlwind courtship quickly leads to marriage.
In addition to working with Menjou, Swanson also shares scenes with young Desi Arnaz as a latin lover type interloper. In fact the scenes with Arnaz are probably the best part of the film. Not only is Arnaz in his prime, he’s very funny with occasional bits that play up his otherness. He is first glimpsed as a stowaway on a honeymoon cruise that Swanson and Menjou are enjoying.
They feel sorry for Arnaz and take him back home to their lavish upscale digs in New York. Of course, there is very little talk about immigration papers; or if he has a family anywhere. But you just have to go along with these contrivances for the sake of comedy.
It seems a tad obvious that the screenwriters (brother and sister team of Dorothy & Herbie Fields) have seen MY MAN GODFREY and are taking their cue from that earlier picture. Though this effort is not as outlandish, we still have an over-the-top wife who is mentoring a foreign protege (the way Alice Brady interacted with Mischa Auer in the previous film)…since Swanson decides she will help Arnaz become the next big singing sensation. Moments where Arnaz is practicing operatic music, which nearly drive Menjou and his son (John Howard) up the wall, are fitfully amusing.
In a way it’s a shame this film didn’t do better with contemporary audiences. Parts of the narrative are quite charming. It’s not laugh out loud funny, but there are plenty of quirky characters to keep one engaged. Besides the cast I’ve already mentioned, we have Neil Hamilton as a persistent admirer.
And Helen Broderick is also on hand to offer up sardonic quips as a character named Aunt Julie. Not sure if she was meant to be Swanson’s aunt; or if that was just a pet name. At any rate, she joins the family after the Swanson-Menjou marriage occurs.
For the most part this is a pleasant way to spend 79 minutes. There are certainly worse romantic comedies from the same era. Ably assisted by her talented costars, Swanson is the main attraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 26, 2024 13:28:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
“It takes courage to speak for one’s principles.”
J. Walter Ruben’s first film as director was in 1931 at RKO with Richard Dix. By the time they made ACE OF ACES two years later, there had been several more collaborations in between. ACE OF ACES was their fifth and final movie together. Leading lady Elizabeth Allan, a British import, had also worked with the director and leading man before. Her approach was much more reserved, but she had a way to mine the simple pathos in a scene; and truly, she is an able match for Dix and a perfect counterpoint, as his style tends to be a bit more bombastic.
In a story like this, which tries to explore both the pro-war and anti-war aspects of battle, the two leads are going to have to explore a variety of emotional depths. Initially, Dix’s character is a sculptor whose artistic work has made him feel intellectually superior to the masses who run off like lemmings, his words, to join the war effort. The First World War has just been declared, and everyone has feelings about it.
When Allan feels Dix’s isolationist stance is a mark of cowardice, she breaks off their engagement. Especially when he criticizes parades with band playing and flag waving as a lot of hysteria. She goes off to serve as a nurse overseas with the Red Cross; while Dix, whose pride has been wounded, decides to enlist and prove her wrong. When he gets to Europe, he becomes an ace flyer, one of the very best, which gives the film its title.
During the middle stretch of the film, he has predictably turned into a full-fledged killing machine. As he spends time with the other flyers, we here things like “here today and hero tomorrow,” to commemorate the men who’ve already died in the air. And “welcome to the ranks of the undead,” to remind us that Dix and the others are still alive with much to prove.
As his reputation grows, Dix gets caught up in the glory of war. He shoots down over 40 Nazi aircraft and is decorated by a French general. As a result of his notable accomplishments, he gets a 48-hour leave in Paris. While he’s there, he runs into Allan again, who’s been working at a dressing station that was just bombed. The bombing scene in which she gets shaken up is superbly acted by Allan and various extras.
As Allan becomes reacquainted with Dix, she realizes how much harder he now is as a man. He challenges her morality, telling her he only has 48 hours of down time, and by gosh, he intends to spend the night with her. She caves in. Since this is a precode and such actions may be morally wrong, her reputation doesn’t seem to suffer much of a setback!
Of course, the story has to eventually come full circle. Dix has to reach a point where he regrets turning into a coldblooded assassin. He has been changed profoundly because of the war, and after it’s all said and done, he has to try to forget and return to his life again back home, with Allan as his wife. Is it too much to ask, for him to find the courage to reclaim his original principles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 26, 2024 14:07:41 GMT
⇧ That is an excellent and thoughtful review by Topbilled. I love the following line of his as it captures the nuance in the actors' approaches to their roles and their on-screen chemistry: "Her approach was much more reserved, but she had a way to mine the simple pathos in a scene; and truly, she is an able match for Dix and a perfect counterpoint, as his style tends to be a bit more bombastic."
My comments below.
Ace of Aces from 1933 with Richard Dix and Elizabeth Allan
Ace of Aces is a thoughtful 1930s anti-war film set during WWI. It has plenty of early talkie clunkiness, but even today, it still packs a powerful punch.
Richard Dix plays a sculptor scornful of the patriotic fever sweeping the USA upon its entry into the Great War. He has no interest in killing another man and is dismissive of the country's gung-ho attitude.
His girlfriend, whom he loves in a modern sensitive way, is played by the beautiful Elizabeth Allan. She gets caught up in the country's flag waving and volunteers as a nurse. Disgusted with Dix's pacifism, she calls him yellow and says she is ashamed of him.
Apparently, no man, not even a pacifist, likes being called a chicken by the girl he loves, as the next thing we see is Dix joining a fighter squadron.
Dix's unit provides an early and realistic look at the surface cynicism and gallows humor men who face death daily use to mask or control their fear. The men drink away their anxiety and sing songs or play games to avoid the only thing they are thinking about.
In a gut-wrenching brief scene, we see a pilot commit suicide with a handgun right after his brother, another pilot, was killed.
Today, that scene would be dressed up in artistic pretensions and would take up five minutes of film, but in Ace of Aces, it is maybe thirty seconds long, has no flourishes, and knocks the wind right out of you.
Once pacifist Dix gets a taste of aerial combat, he becomes a killing machine experiencing a complete personality change. He is cold and aloof to his fellow fliers and only becomes fully alive in the cockpit with an enemy plane in his gun sights. It's a chilling transition.
Dix and Allan meet up by chance when both are on leave in Paris. He is now the heavily decorated and lauded fighter ace loving the war; she's a nurse who, having seen the war's endless parade of maimed and dead men up close, doesn't believe in its glory anymore.
She apologizes to Dix and begs him to love her as he did before, but he tells her he has no interest in or time for that attitude. In a poignant moment, he says he just "wants" her for the weekend - demoralized but willingly - she submits. God bless pre-code realism.
Back with his squadron, Dix shoots down a German pilot who, unknowingly to Dix, was trying to do a nice thing for an American pilot who had been shot down earlier.
Injured himself in the battle, Dix winds up convalescing in the hospital next to the same German pilot. (Since it was not a triage tent, but a far-from-the-front hospital, could that have really happened?)
Now that his enemy is not just a distant plane spiralling to the ground or another glory sticker on his fuselage, but a living breathing human, Dix has the epiphany moment we know was coming as his old pacifictic feelings return.
Despite being offered a safe position in a training school, Dix returns to his squadron in an emotionally confused attempt to figure out his thoughts about the war. He then ignores orders, goes up alone and gets an enemy plane in his sights, but he can't pull the trigger.
The movie should have ended right there, at that exact moment, but Hollywood needed a Hollywood ending, which wasn't worthy of this, otherwise, tight seventy-six minute effort.
Ace of Aces is an unvarnished look at war and the changes it inflicts on the young men and women (nurses on the front then, soldiers today) who live its awful reality.
Every war has its sincere pacifists or conscientious objectors who have something to say, especially as, early, the war "parade" gets up and running. But there's also this: somebody has to stop the past, present and future Hitlers and Putins of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 26, 2024 14:31:46 GMT
I agree the movie might have ended with Dix going back up, unable to kill the next German enemy he encountered. It certainly would have been a thought-provoking ambiguous ending.
However, I don't mind it ending with him and Allan reunited back home after the war...because I don't think it's going to be easy for them to just resume their old lifestyle. Too much has happened to both of them...they've changed significantly.
One thing I especially like is how she's all gung-ho patriotic in the beginning, while he is not...then their attitudes change once they're both in Europe during the war. The scene with them in the Parisian hotel room is one of the high-points of the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 26, 2024 14:56:44 GMT
I do see why they did the ending the way they did it, but it would have been such a powerful way to end the movie with his finger undecidedly on the trigger.
I agree, the Parisian hotel scene was the money moment. So true to life.
|
|
