What Price Hollywood? A Review

WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD?

I am told that What Price Hollywood? should be included in any A Star is Born retrospective in that the film hits on similar themes. I am not convinced that What Price Hollywood? is the original A Star is Born due to certain differences between the films. I won't argue for or against the idea, however. What Price Hollywood? is a fine film separate from any connection to the oft-told tale of one star's rise and another's fall.

Waitress and aspiring actress Mary Evans (Constance Bennett) finds drunk film director Max Carey (Lowell Sherman) amusing and nice even if he is sloshed. Carey has stopped by the Brown Derby for more than a few aperitifs before heading towards his film's premiere. Almost as a lark, he invites Mary to join him, and she does. Soon, she manages to get thanks to Max a screen test, and a Star is Born with Mary becoming "America's Pal". 

Mary also finds love and romance with Lonny Borden (Neil Hamilton), a dashing polo player who has no idea who Mary is, much to Mary's irritation. Despite that, a love affair blossoms between Mary and Lonny. She, however, will not be denied her career, costing her the marriage to Lonny. One good thing came about from that, however: her son Jackie. For his part, Max's career is going down while Mary's continues to rise, his drinking shifting from amusing to dangerous. 

Mary does her best to help her friend and mentor, bailing him out and attempting to encourage him to make a comeback. However, his troubles are too great, and he takes his own life as he attempts to dry out at her mansion. The scandal causes her to flee to France, where coincidentally Lonnie is staying too. Will Mary find love again or will she find that she is willing to pay a price for Hollywood glory?

I can see why people hold that What Price Hollywood? is the original version of A Star is Born (the latter's first adaptation premiering five years later). You have an ingenue and her creator, the female's rise as a counter to the male's fall, drunkenness, suicide and scandal. I do see some differences, however. In all versions of A Star is Born, the female marries the male mentor. This does not happen in What Price Hollywood? You have a love interest for the female separate from her mentor. You also have a child, something missing from all four A Star is Born films. Are those enough to make A Star is Born different from What Price Hollywood? I lean towards yes, but barely. At most, I think one can say that A Star is Born was "inspired" by What Price Hollywood? but I won't belabor the point. It is up to those who have seen both What Price Hollywood? and A Star is Born to come to their own conclusions. 

Separate from that, let's look at the film itself. What Price Hollywood? is a well-acted piece of drama. Constance Bennett, I imagine, is at most a faded name from the so-called Golden Age of Film. That seems a pity, for she gives an excellent performance in the film. She is funny and charming and even is able to show Mary as a strong woman who is an ambitious little minx. Her determination, for example, to redo a screen test that went badly showcases Mary to be no shrinking violet. Her genuine anger at not being known, followed by genuine love and heartbreak for both Jackie and Max's eventual fall reveal a strong actress.

An element that did surprise me when it came to Sherman's Max Casey was on any suggestion of romance between him and Mary. Perhaps I am reading too much into things, but I thought that Max came across as slightly fey to gay. I never got the sense that Max was in love with Mary, at least sexually. He seemed fond of her, amused by her, but I never saw anything close to desire. Jealousy perhaps, but more of a possessive sort than an erotic one. Yet I digress.

Sherman did well as the ultimately self-destructive Max. He was amusing, almost endearing as the happy drunk who was at heart a nice fellow. As What Price Hollywood? went on, however, we saw how Max could also be snippy and harsh. Still, at the end, we see the tragedy of Max Casey. In another moment eerily similar to A Star is Born, Max calls Mary. "I just wanted to hear you speak again, that's all".  To be fair, I cannot remember if this was a telephone call or when he was trying to dry out at her home. However, I found this moment sad, almost resigned.

Again, it should be noted that this line, with its echoes of A Star is Born's "I just wanted to take another look at you," comes at the end of the film, not at the beginning like all the A Star is Born versions. In those versions, that line suggests the start of a beautiful but doomed romance. In What Price Hollywood? it is closer to the acceptance of the end of a beautiful but doomed friendship.

Interestingly, What Price Hollywood? has a good number of clever lines in Gene Fowler and Rowland Brown's screenplay. Early on, Max mocks Mary's suggestion that he is any kind of genius by recounting a past marriage. "I proposed to her once for saying just that," he says. "She turned around and sued me". "For being a genius?", she asks. "No, for fifty grand", he replies. At the premiere, Max continues with a gag that Mary is an unknown aristocrat. Playing along with the bit about her being "the Duchess of Derby", she tells the premiere radio host, "I must go now. Mr. Cary is waiting there is nothing so exasperating as waiting on people". As they leave, she wisecracks to Max, "I ought to know".  

That does not mean that What Price Hollywood? is a comedy. It manages to also have strong dramatic moments, even cutting ones. When, for example, Lonnie objects to his wife continuing to work on film, he is told by one of her directors, "Why don't you let me direct Miss Evans and you be Mr. Evans?".

I would argue that the weak link in What Price Hollywood? is Neil Hamilton. To be fair, it is all but impossible to not see Commissioner Gordon from the 1960's Batman television show when you see Hamilton on screen, making it hard to see him as a romantic lead. Even if I were unaware of Hamilton as the ultimate camp square facing off against King Tut or Marsha, Queen of Diamonds, I found him rather stiff to silly as Lonnie. He was acting with a Capital A, making their long scene of romance a bit hard to take. Still, even here we have some of the film's wit. "I'm in pictures," Mary tells Lonnie, miffed that she is not recognized after an initial altercation. "Well don't blame me," he replies.

What Price Hollywood? may or may not be first version of A Star is Born, but on its own, it is a good film worth finding, if only to decide to yourself whether what came after was a homage, an inspired by or a plain old rip-off. 

DECISION: B+

Skippy: A Review

SKIPPY

One should know that what was once insanely popular in one generation is pretty much forgotten in the next. Such is the case with both the source material and film adaption of Skippy. Innocent, sweet and charming, Skippy is a delight.

Little Skippy Skinner (Jackie Cooper) is at heart a good kid, though prone to get into trouble. Though he is the son of wealthy Doctor Skinner (Willard Robertson), Skippy likes to slum it on the literal wrong side of the tracks, which he considers more fun. In Shantytown, Skippy is unofficial leader of a tween gang and soon bonds with a local boy, Sooky (Robert Coogan). Sooky's whole life is his dog, Penny, though the dog is technically illegal as Sooky's family is too poor to afford the $3 license.

Skippy does his best to scheme his way to get those $3. His efforts at getting at his savings flop, so he organizes a benefit, where Eloise Sanders (Mitzi Green), the girl who is sweet on Skippy, will be the openly hammy star. It is all for naught, as the evil dogcatcher Mr. Nubbles (Jack Rube Clifford) uses the money raised to repair the windshield Skippy and Sooky had accidentally damaged. It does not help that Mr. Nubbles is father to Harley Nubbles (Donald Haines), the Shantytown tween bully. More complications come when Skippy learns that his father believes the best thing to do is shut Shantytown down and has the power to do so. Will Skippy succeed in his efforts to save Penny and Shantytown?

What makes Skippy so successful is that we get this story from the kids' point of view. Skippy does not pretend to be highbrow. Instead, it is very open about how these kids, in their own world, operate. There are little touches that give us this perspective which make Skippy so sweet and delightful. At the benefit show, there is an offer for what they bill as a "cachurs gluv" for 31 cents. The use of the phonetic spelling shows the first commitment to making Skippy as real as possible.

The simplicity and directness in Skippy become more amusing when these kids attempt to take adult situations. Skippy's best friend and Eloise's brother Sydney (Jackie Searl) tells Skippy that he cannot fight anyone, even the smaller Sooky. "I'm nervous and I'm strung high", he tells Skippy. Later, Skippy asks Sooky, "What does your father do?". Sooky replies, "He just stays where he is. He's dead". It is said so matter-of-factly in a thoroughly innocent and guileless way that it makes it all the more hilarious.

A perhaps less-noted aspect in Skippy is how the kids are quite free of prejudice. There is one black member of Skippy's Shantytown gang, the perhaps ironically named Snowflake. None of the kids ever exclude him from the goings-on. His race is never mentioned or noted. He even participates in the benefit show when he is part of the sawing in half act. The fact that Sooky, who is supposed to be the one being sawed in half, has a white head but black feet make the scene sweeter. 

Director Norman Taurog, who won Best Director for Skippy and was the youngest Best Director winner for decades until Damien Chazelle won for La La Land, should be credited for being able to get solid performances from his mostly child cast. Granted, the story of how Taurog got his nephew Cooper to cry by threatening to shoot his dog is cruel.

Minus that, the performances from everyone in Skippy are delightful. Jackie Cooper received a Best Actor nomination for the title role, making him at age nine the youngest nominee in this category. He more than earned that nomination. Skippy is sweet and well-meaning even when disobeying. Sydney bemoans how he and Skippy went to Shantytown despite Skippy's promise to his father that he would not go over the railroad tracks. Skippy replies that he kept his word to Doctor Skinner in that he did not cross over the railroad tracks. They went under them. 

We first see Skippy calling out to his mother that he is getting dressed even though he is still in bed. Once he hears his father calling, one never saw a kid jump out of bed that fast. Cooper had the comic bits down well. However, Cooper was able to move your heart and bring you to tears. Late in the film, Skippy is praying for Sooky, devastated by the loss of Penny. Skippy's sincerity and compassion gets to you. Few child actors were able to cry as effectively as Jackie Cooper, his sweet face and genuine acting performance moving the viewer.

The other child cast members were equally strong.  Robert Coogan was delightful as Sooky, so much so that he got his own film in a sequel. To be fair, Coogan was not on Cooper's level, but as he was much younger one can cut him some slack. Coogan has a wonderful moment where he applies a certain logic on how Penny is more thoroughbred than genuine thoroughbreds. It is an amusing moment where Coogan draws attention away from Cooper, not an easy task.

Searl and Greene were amusing as Skippy's wealthy friends, forever getting roped or roping themselves into Skippy's newest ventures. Haines' Harley Nubbins balanced being the bully with being himself bullied by his father. 

In one scene, Harley was actually sympathetic. In their efforts to get money to bail Penny out, Skippy and Sooky see that Harley had bought himself an ice cream cone. Both of them do want the money but also a taste of Harley's ice cream. For once, Harley is the innocent party as his frenemies attempt to hoodwink him out of money and ice cream. 

Skippy is a genuine cinematic treat: sweet, innocent and appealing to mass audiences. I think both the film and the comic book series it is based on have mostly been forgotten. If anything, more than likely if Skippy is mentioned, it will be the peanut butter that comes to mind, not the Academy Award-winning film. That is a real shame, for Skippy is a wonderful film, taking the child's perspective and giving us a nice glimpse on their unique brand of logic. A simple story told and acted well, Skippy charms. 

DECISION: A-

The Mummy (1932): A Review (Review #1873)

 

THE MUMMY (1932)

The discovery of Pharoah Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922 inspired a wave of "Egyptomania", where anything connected to the Land of the Pharaohs was in vogue. Ten years later, the very first film version of The Mummy was released. Atmospheric and effective with a standout central performance, The Mummy is not scary but well-crafted. 

A British Museum expedition to Egypt in 1921 has uncovered a previously unknown tomb. Archeologist Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) is thrilled with the discovery. Here, Whemple finds the mummified remains of Imhotep, an Egyptian priest who was buried alive. Alive again Imhotep becomes when a young archeology photographer opens a seal casket, reading the ancient Scroll of Thoth. The Mummy now walks free.

Now in 1932, Sir Joseph's son Frank (David Manners) follows in his father's footsteps. He is about to close out this season when a mysterious Egyptian figure calling himself Ardath Bey (Boris Karloff) guides him to another previously unknown tomb. This is the tomb of the Princess Ankh-es-an-Amon, which thrills Frank and is important enough to bring Sir Joseph back to Egypt after the latter swore off the land of Pharaohs after the 1921 expedition. The Whemple family friend, renowned occult expert Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan) is in Egypt too. He is the informal chaperone to Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), the half-Egyptian daughter of the British governor of the Sudan. 

Helen soon falls into unexplained trances, leading her to the Cairo Museum where Ankh-es-an-Amon's treasures are located. She and Frank find themselves soon attracted to each other. She also bears a striking similarity to the Egyptian princess. What power does the mysterious Ardath Bey have? Could the dead really walk among the living? Will Helen find herself the Mummy's bride?

Looking at it now, almost a century after its release, The Mummy is by no means scary. It, however, builds up the mood and atmosphere, giving The Mummy an appropriately spooky sense. Karl Freund, best known as one of the premiere cinematographers of his time, takes on directing responsibilities in The Mummy. 

In terms of the overall look and feel of The Mummy, Freund did wonders. In the opening sequence, we get Imhotep's slow awakening in an effective and chilling manner. The mummy slowly opens his eyes, then moves, again slowly, building up the tension. We do not see the mummy himself, but just the wrapped hand come upon the table. Bramwell Fletcher as the unfortunate expedition photographer Ralph Norton only reacts to what he sees as a terrifying figure. The fact that we do not see the mummy himself, coupled with Fletcher's crazed laughter, gives us the suggestion of something utterly frightening.

It is, as a side note, curious that while the popular image of The Mummy as this heavily wrapped figure shuffling along is engrained in pop culture, we get very little to no actual images in The Mummy to match that image. There is the opening scene of Karloff as Imhotep resurrected. However, we see only a bit of the mummy himself in The Mummy.

In most of The Mummy we get the character of Ardath Bey, this eerie, slightly withered figure. While Boris Karloff will always be best remembered as the Monster in Frankenstein, he does an absolutely excellent job as Bey/The Mummy. He is courtly and calm, frighteningly so, making the viewer feel slightly unnerved. Karloff has great eyes which The Mummy enhances with excellent camerawork, suggesting the sinister evil going on behind them. 

Boris Karloff, billed as "Karloff the Uncanny", gives it his all in The Mummy and delivers an exceptional performance. It is the rest of the cast that lets him down. Zita Johann is pretty as Helen, the lost princess returned. However, I found her rather exaggerated in the film, and a bit stiff. Manners was breezy, charming and also pretty as Frank, the young man who aims to protect his lady love. However, there was not much for him to do in my view.

Van Sloan brings gravitas to Muller, the man forever warning and fighting against the forces of darkness. While Byron did well enough as Sir Joseph, his final scene seemed exaggerated, almost funny.

The acting may have been overall a bit stiff to overwrought from the cast save Karloff. However, I will grant that part of it may be due to this being Karl Freund's first time directing a film versus just photographing one. I think his past experience as a cinematographer gave him a leg up in how The Mummy looks. Freund is the man who shot Metropolis and Dracula, the latter another Universal Film with a malevolent monster attempting to have a woman as his dark queen of the dead. 

The Mummy looks impressive. The sets were well-crafted, blending ancient Egypt with the current setting. The overall look and feel of The Mummy showed great skill in giving the viewer an eerie world. In that, Karl Freund did brilliant work. In terms of the acting, only Boris Karloff came away looking like he knew what he was doing. 

The Mummy is atmospheric, well shot, and with an excellent performance from Boris Karloff. It may not frighten people now, but I think contemporary audiences would have been at least caught up in most of the menace that rose from the Valley of the Kings. The Mummy comes alive and does so quite well.

DECISION: A-

The Mummy Retrospective: An Introduction

The Mummy (1959)

The Mummy (1999)

The Mummy (2017)

The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

Viva Villa!: A Review

 

VIVA VILLA!

I was wary when I heard that Wallace Beery was playing Francisco "Pancho" Villa in a biopic. While the casting is still a bit jarring, I was surprised at how much I liked Viva Villa! thanks to some excellent work in front and behind the camera.

After seeing his father killed by a wealthy landowner, young Pancho Villa kills that landowner and flees into the night. Decades pass, and now the adult Pancho Villa (Beery) has come to keep his war against the powerful going. He may have found a surprising ally in Don Felipe (Donald Cook), who seems sympathetic to the peons' plight. Also sympathetic is Don Felipe's sister, Teresa (Fay Wray), who is also quite attractive. 

There will be no romance between Villa and Teresa however for a variety of reasons. First, Villa is married, though exactly to how many women is a subject for debate. Second, sequestered American reporter Jonny Sykes (Stuart Erwin) warns Teresa not to wave at Villa, which for some reason is his cue to make his moves. 

Finally, there is the growing Mexican Revolution itself. Villa finds a hero in another Pancho of sorts: the elegant intellectual Francisco Madero (Henry B. Walthall). Madero is sincere in wanting to improve the lot of Mexicans like Villa, and the general takes a liking to his little man. With that, Villa agrees to use his men to overthrow the dictator Porfirio Diaz and make Mexico great again. Villa also commandeers Sykes to be his personal de facto press agent to the world.

Villa has military successes, culminating with the capture of Ciudad Juarez. However, he is also reckless, disobedient and ultimately pushed out of both the revolution and Mexico itself. Exiled in nearby El Paso, Villa is devastated and angry when he learns that Madero has been assassinated. It is now up to Pancho Villa to restore the revolution and punish those who went after his little buddy and hero. It means a falling out with Felipe and Teresa, a falling out that will have ultimately deadly consequences for some of them.

It would shock no one that Viva Villa! is wildly historically inaccurate. Villa, for example, was never President of Mexico, which the film has him as. Villa's assassination was more than likely political rather than personal. It is surprising that Viva Villa! opted for this retelling of history given that Villa had been killed in 1923, a mere nine years before Viva Villa! premiered. 

However, I think Viva Villa! was not interested in history but in a mix of mythology and even comedy. On those levels, the film is a great success. 

The Villa in Viva Villa! is almost a sweet innocent, not buffoonish per se but with a few quirks. He could be menacing, even psychotic, like in Beery's first scene. Sweeping in to avenge the unjust killing of peons, he storms into the kangaroo court with their corpses, sitting them down to serve as a "jury" against the wealthy landowner who had them killed. Villa from time to time mockingly addresses the jury, asking them what they want him to do. It is clear that Villa is enraged at the extrajudicial murders and will hold those responsible to justice. Beery, to his credit, makes Villa here eerily dark and dangerous.

However, for most of Viva Villa! Wallace Beery makes him almost endearingly sweet. He, for example, explains to a general why he won't follow the orders he's been given. "You give me orders that I like, fine, then I do what you say. Otherwise, I do as I say". Beery as Villa does not say this in a belligerent or angry when he says this. Rather, he says this in an almost apologetic and sweet manner. It tells us that Pancho Villa is not a terrible man. He's actually a bit of an innocent, one who kills but who also is quite pleasant.

We see this also when he is President. Complaining loudly that his ministers do nothing but talk about the budget rather than the land reform he and Madero wanted, he berates them for not having the money for anything. However, he, Pancho Villa, has come up with his own brilliant and logical solution. He merely has printers literally make more money. If you need money, you just make more money. Villa goes so far as to arrest the printers who dare ask for payment. The logic of hyperinflation escapes the President. The adding of doves to the currency rather than the bulls he demanded, however, does not.

Beery's Villa does have something of a moral nature. He, for example, agrees to assault a town because Sykes had already reported that he had, and Villa does not want to disappoint a friend. He also chides two of his men for trying to take some treasures home when he decides to resign the Presidency. However, Ben Hecht's screenplay gives this a bit of humor when Villa himself takes a gold bull. We do not dislike Villa for this brazen act of hypocrisy. Instead, given how Beery has played Villa, we end up finding it endearing. 

Beery has a warmth and again, sweetness when it comes to Villa. I think people now would fiercely condemn the casting of Wallace Beery as Pancho Villa, and to be fair his stabs at an accent do fall short. However, thinking on it, I think General Villa would have been tickled at the idea of having a major star at the time like Wallace Beery play him. Giving Beery credit where it is due, he did a good job if it was to show Pancho Villa as a bit of a charming, childlike rogue.

There is a running gag of him marrying almost every beautiful woman he meets. The one he could not get is Teresa, though not for lack of trying. Few people would try a pickup line like, "Are you in the Revolution too?".

Walthall was nobility itself as the moral, idealistic Madero. Wray's Teresa was excellent: sincere in her concern for peons that eventually morphed into contempt for her former ally Villa, albeit due to his actions to avenge Madero. Leo Carillo balanced menace and mirth as Sierra, Villa's second-in-command. Sometimes cruel, sometimes silly, Carillo did an equally strong performance.

One of the highlights in Viva Villa! is the cinematography. The film had two cinematographers. One of them was Charles G. Clarke. The other was James Wong Howe, who could go on to be ranked among the greatest of all time. While it is difficult to impossible to know who shot what, I think we can pick out the scenes that Howe filmed. In particular are the night scenes when Villa is ordering the killing of the Federales. The use of shadows to counter the killings is beautifully filmed. My sense is that this scene, some dance hall numbers, and Madero's introduction were made by James Wong Howe. I may be wrong, but they are well-shot.

Viva Villa! is open about being more fiction than fact. Its opening title crawl says, "It is fiction woven out of truth and inspired by a love of the half-legendary Pancho and the glamorous country he served". A legend in his own time, Villa's myth grew right after his death. It is a legend that will not fade into history and one enhanced by Viva Villa! While it may not be history, it is entertaining, and I think even the General would not object to that. 

1878-1923

DECISION: B-

Red Dust: A Review

RED DUST

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Jean Harlow.

Passion among the white savages abounds in Red Dust, a sultry story of steamy romance in the jungle. With strong performances and a fast run time, Red Dust tells us a lot without showing us all.

Rubber plantation head Dennis Carson (Clark Gable) is forever barking at his workers and desperate to have a good product. He has little time for anything else, which is why the sudden appearance of brash Vantine (Jean Harlow) startles and irritates him. Vantine is a good-time girl who is trying to hide out from the Saigon cops for some unspecified but shady reason. Despite his initial hostility, they do manage to hit it off in more ways than one soon enough.

Things are looking all right until engineer Gary Willis (Gene Raymond) shows up with his patrician wife, Barbara (Mary Astor) show up. Gary's constitution is not up to the jungle surroundings and has to be nursed to health. Barbara and Dennis soon start being drawn to each other, much to Vantine's displeasure and Gary's obliviousness. As the rainy season begins, the passions collide in fiery ways. Dennis now has to decide whether it will be the tart or the lady, but will both reciprocate or find that even in the sweltering Asian heat, there is room for only one mistress?

Red Dust is full of fiery passion from Gable and Harlow, these two figures obviously drawn to each other but generally unwilling to admit it, at least outside the bedroom. Harlow is wonderful as this tough broad, mouthy, belligerent and unafraid to speak her mind. In the beginning, she seemed a bit hesitant and mannered in her performance, but she soon got into the spirit of things.

"This place is full of lizards and cockroaches as it is," she tells Dennis when attempting to find another room after she unexpectedly shows up at the rubber plantation home. Gable's Dennis merely looks her over and replies, "One more won't hurt". I don't think Vantine got what he said. However, their scenes are always wonderful to watch. Shortly after this scene, Vantine can wax rhapsodic about how Gorgonzola cheese is made, which is in turns funny and almost daring. 

That is the quality that Harlow brings to Red Dust, a mix of tawdry and gleeful sensuality with a hint of naivete. Whether she is aware of how dumb she sounds attempting to explain slapping methods to get cows to make milk or toying with Dennis, Harlow excels in Vantine's brazen manner. The scene where she is openly bathing is daring for even pre-Code Hollywood. 

Dennis, horrified that Vantine might be seen by Barbara, demands that she draw the curtains specially placed for Barbara. Vantine reminds Dennis that everyone has gone far off so there is no risk of her being observed nude. He insists on drawing the curtains, which only makes her more mocking in manner. "What's the matter? Afraid I'll shock the Duchess?" is Vantine's quip to Dennis' faux moralism. 

She is obviously contemptuous of Barbara and especially her liaison with Dennis for a variety of reasons. While she is jealous, she is also upset that Gary is being deceived. Vantine may be a tramp, but she has a heart and knows right from wrong. At the end, Vantine stands by her man, proving that she was right for Dennis. We end up liking Vantine, and that is a credit to Jean Harlow's performance.

Gable is surprising beyond how he does not have his usual mustache in Red Dust. He is rugged and daring, commanding the screen whenever he is there. It is easy to see why both Vantine and Barbara fell for him. To be fair, given how milquetoast Gary was, it was no competition. Nevertheless, Gable was abrasive when it was necessary, romantic when needed and even playful. He and Harlow worked so well together, like seeing two of a kind square off.

I think that Astor was more mannered as Barbara, coming across as a bit stilted in her performance. However, as she was meant to be something of a grande dame, I think director Victor Fleming got the correct performance out of her. 

Fleming also managed to move things quickly, with Red Dust running at a brisk 83 minutes. He gets great performances out of his cast, able to shift from Vantine's brazen manner to a more contemplative Dennis when Gary tells him about how much he loves Barbara. While Red Dust could not show everything (the camera movement when Vantine and Dennis first kiss with her on his lap away from them to the observing parrot being suggestion enough), it was quite open about the sexual goings-on.

I think some things don't work so well, mostly due to the changing times and technology. Some of the rear screen projections look awful. The comic relief from servant Hoy (William Fung) might not be palatable to some viewers today. The pronunciation of Saigon as "Say-Gone" versus the more familiar "Sigh-Gone" was always odd.  

Red Dust is a showcase for Jean Harlow, revealing what made her both beautiful and a popular character. Daring and funny at times, Red Dust is like Vantine: bold, brash, sometimes outrageous but never dull.  

DECISION: B-

Hell's Heroes (1929): A Review

 

HELL'S HEROES

In the early days of sound cinema, various studios and production companies were still feeling their way through the new technology. While it is thought that sound brought limitations to film, sometimes filmmakers could find that they could still be creative. Hell's Heroes, an adaptation of The Three Godfathers that would be remade at least two more times in 1936 and 1948, moves quickly in its brief running time and manages to move the viewer. 

Three bandits arrive in the desert town of New Jerusalem to rob a bank. Waiting for them is their ringleader, Bob (Charles Bickford). The bank is successfully robbed, though a clerk is killed. One of the gang members, the lookout Jose (Joe De La Cruz) is killed, but the others manage to escape. Bob, along with his cohorts Thomas or Barbwire (Raymond Hatton) and William or Wild Bill (Fred Kohler) congratulate themselves on their latest heist.

Soon, however, problems emerge. They have little water and the water they passed is poisoned with arsenic. A windstorm drove their horses away. Worse is when they come upon a covered wagon with a baby and his dying mother. She has them promise to take her son to New Jerusalem to be with his father Frank Edwards, a teller at the bank. 

Bob would rather leave the child to die, but Barbwire and Will Bill will have none of it. They agree to go back to New Jerusalem and save William Robert Thomas Edwards, Jr. It's forty miles to New Jerusalem, and the journey is daunting. Barbwire was shot in the escape and knows he is not long for the Earth. Bill knows that there is little water and milk for the baby. Will Bob rise to the challenge and save his godson or put himself first?

I was surprised that Hell's Heroes runs a brisk 68 minutes long given that its successors ran longer. I think it is because screenwriter Tom Reed (adapting the Peter B. Kyne novel) and director William Wyler opted to keep things pretty basic. We had the bank robbery, the discovery of the baby and the efforts to save him. Simple, direct. In that brief running time, however, Hell's Heroes manages to pack quite a lot in it.

The film manages some nice bits of dialogue. "Start reaching for Heaven, stranger, or you're headed straight to Hell," Barbwire taunts the unfortunate bank clerk in the holdup. The gang's discussion over the meaning of "toilette" is also good, a nice touch of humor in the film. When seeing a sign to New Jerusalem, the gang manages a nice quip. "3 Miles to New Jerusalem, a bad town for bad men", it warns. "How did they know we were coming?" Will Bill quips.

Wyler also has some wonderful visual moments that hold up quite well. When reading the sign to New Jerusalem, there is a shot of Bill metaphorically hung by the noose hanging on the sign. There is an amazing shot of us looking down on a stumbling, exhausted Bob that moves down to eye level. It is almost like a drone came down to see him. 

We even get a bit of Pre-Code naughtiness when the randy Sheriff (James Walter) "drops" something in the saloon to get a glimpse at the charms of Carmenita (Maria Alba), the dancehall girl Bob is sweet on. 

Wyler got good performances out of his three leads. Bickford seems a strange choice to be Bob given how future roles had him play mostly upright characters. Here, Bickford does well as this criminal who despite his own sense eventually gives his life to save an innocent. Raymond Hatton brings an almost sweetness to Barbwire, his last scene where he asks Bill not to let the baby die between two thieves is touching. Kohler's Bill brings some humor but also sadness when, realizing that there is not enough water for him, Bob and William Robert Thomas Edwards, Jr., he thinks on what he is to do.

Hell's Heroes is not subtle in some ways. Barbwire for example, dies under a tree curiously shaped like a cross. The minister at the Christmas Eve service the town attends is standing under a sign that reads, "Suffer little children to come unto me". On the whole, however, Hell's Heroes is a good film and a good adaptation of a story that would become better known.

DECISION: B-

Christopher Strong: A Review

 

CHRISTOPHER STRONG

There may be a notion that Christopher Strong is about the Katharine Hepburn character given her prominence in the film and poster. She is not the title character. She is, however, that not-so-obscure object of desire to the title character. Christopher Strong is a good albeit dated film.

A Roaring Twenties scavenger hunt among the Lost Generation does not have wild success. Its host, Carrie (Irene Browne) then offers prizes for the most outlandish finds: a man married more than five years who has remained faithful and a woman over 30 who has never had a romance. Carrie's niece, Monica Strong (Helen Chandler), knows the perfect person for Exhibit A: her father, Sir Christopher Strong (Colin Clive). Monica's married lover, Harry Rawlinston (Ralph Forbes), almost crashes into Exhibit B: Lady Cynthia Darrington (Hepburn), a famous aviatrix.

Monica takes an instant liking to Lady Cynthia, seeing in her something of herself, a daring independent woman. Lady Cynthia is also supportive of Monica being Harry's mistress, something Monica's mother Lady Elaine (Billie Burke) is not. Soon, Lady Cynthia becomes a heroine for Monica. Eventually though, we find that Exhibit A and Exhibit B will no longer fit their categories. Like the moth that Lady Cynthia dressed as for a costume ball, Sir Christopher is drawn to her fire. 

Unsurprisingly, an affair begins between Strong and Darrington. In short time, Harry is now divorced and free to marry Monica. Just before their nuptials, Monica discovers Sir Christopher and Lady Cynthia in an intimate tête-à-tête where she and Harry would meet. Monica, despite her issues with her mother, will protect her from hurt. Monica soon is with child, and so is Lady Cynthia. Lady Cynthia ends her retirement from flying, ostensibly to break an altitude record. However, she dies in the process, and a statue to Lady Cynthia Darrington is built in her memory.

Christopher Strong was directed by Dorothy Arzner, the rare female director working at the time. That may be a reason why Christopher Strong is more remembered nowadays, but that would be a disservice to both Arzner and Christopher Strong. The film is quite good for the most part.

One is slightly taken aback at the thought of Colin Clive as the romantic lead. Given that his most famous role is that of Dr. Frankenstein in the 1931 Universal film. I would argue that he is a bit stiff as the title character, but it works here given that Sir Christopher is a bit stiff. 

Hepburn is in her second film with Christopher Strong, playing a part both typical and atypical for her. The atypical part is that Hepburn is playing a mistress. The usual Hepburn persona would not tolerate an affair with anyone while they were married to someone else. The typical part is how Hepburn is a strong woman, an aviatrix no less. I would say that there is a bit of a formality to her acting too, as if trying a bit hard to be British. However, on the whole it was a good performance.

Interestingly, one of the most surprising performances was that of Burke as the wronged wife. She was nowhere near as fluttery as she so often played in films such as Topper or even The Wizard of Oz. Here, she was stoic, even tragic. One can't blame her: her husband is shtupping a glamorous aviatrix, her daughter is a man's mistress. 

One thing that does take modern viewers a bit by surprise is how daring and open Christopher Strong is on the subject of infidelity. A major subplot is Monica being Harry's mistress. Harry is presented as a surprisingly good man, one who cares for and about Monica. While I think the film makes a point of noting that Harry's wife is not a good person, it still is surprising how him having an affair with another woman is not held against him. In fact, only Monica's mother seems upset by the liaison, with Christopher not being pleased but also not pushing hard to end it.

More daring is a scene where Christopher and Cynthia are having pillow talk. Christopher and Cynthia reunite in New York after she has successfully circumnavigated the globe. We see a lamp turned on, and a hand appear, admiring a diamond bracelet. "No I am shackled," Hepburn states. Let us put apart the overt symbolism of Zoe Adkins' adaptation of Gilbert Frankau's novel. As directed by Arzner, it is as overt a statement that Christopher and Cynthia are in bed after a tryst. We do not see their bodies or even their faces, just Cynthia's hand and wrist. 

However, we hear their voices as they say words of love, soft and tender, to each other. He begs her to retire from aviation, and it sets up her future out-of-wedlock pregnancy. It is overt without being in your face. A very thin case can be made that they are merely sitting together, with her turning the light on. However, it cannot be read any other way other than they had sex and are now enjoying a little afterglow.

Finally, the closing montage of Cynthia's remembrance of her first and only romance is well edited in a montage as she reaches the heavens only to literally crash back to Earth. Arzner also has an interesting way of transitioning between scenes: not exactly a swipe but more like drawing curtains. 

Christopher Strong, apart from being a bit staged and stilted owing to the limits of the times, is a good film. We see early Katharine Hepburn as she begins to build her career and persona. This might be worth revisiting in a remake. 

DECISION: B-

Taxi! (1932): A Review

 

TAXI!

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Loretta Young.

Taxi! is a curious James Cagney pre-Code film in that he plays someone on the right side of the law. He's still a brawler, but Taxi! gives Cagney a rare chance to show a slightly less belligerent side. 

Shady men are trying to muscle in on legitimate taxi drivers in New York City, leading to a turf war. One cab driver, Matt Nolan (James Cagney) is able to stand up to the mobsters. However, another cab driver and acquaintance of Matt's is not so lucky. Older driver Pop Riley (Guy Kibbee) fights for his spot, but in the melee he ends up killing the gangster. Sent up the river, Pop dies in prison. His daughter Sue (Loretta Young) is with Matt's de facto union in spirit, but is also against the eye for an eye philosophy Matt espouses. Matt for his part is both cold towards Sue's views but hot for her, and despite themselves they fall in love and get married. 

Things by this time settle into an uneasy truce between the legitimate and illegitimate taxi drivers. As Matt and Sue celebrate their wedding with a night out with Matt's brother Danny (Ray Cooke), there is someone else at the nightclub that spells trouble for the Nolans. It's Buck Gerard (David Landau), the man responsible for muscling in on Pop Riley's spot who still holds a grudge against Matt. Despite the best efforts of Sue and Marie (Dorothy Burgess), Buck's girl, there is a killing that threatens Matt and Sue's happiness. Will Matt end up following Pop's path in his thirst for revenge? 

What makes Taxi! work well is the overall acting. Of particular note is Guy Kibbee. Known for playing mostly comic characters like sweet sugar daddies, Kibbee is quite effective and tragic in his few moments on screen. 

The film's two stars are also excellent in their roles. While Loretta Young eventually became the embodiment of class and fashion through her eponymous television series, early in her career she played working class women, some of easy virtue. In Taxi!, she is simultaneously gentle and firm as Sue. Young shows Sue's spine when standing up to Matt at the taxi drivers' meeting, but she also shows a vulnerable side when attempting to save Matt by trying to get Buck out of town. Young blended a strength and vulnerability to Sue, which made for great viewing.

James Cagney, as stated, was not playing the gangster but the mob victim here. It's a nice change of pace, but we still saw the fiery, short-tempered but charming figure he played in his pre-code films. He is rakish, even devilishly sweet when working with Young. When facing Buck or in an early role George Raft as a rival dance contest participant, Cagney is the tough, brutal figure. His scene where he sees someone close to him die, however, will break your heart.

Taxi! even allows for Cagney to show humor, such as when he manages to pick up a fare who speaks only Yiddish. A little-known fact is that Cagney himself spoke Yiddish, which he used to his advantage when the Warner brothers attempted to keep things secret from him in his presence. It gives Taxi! a realistic manner, with Cagney as what he was: an authentic New Yorker.

Taxi! is a surprisingly short film, running a little over an hour. However, it packs a lot into its running time. This gritty story of tough men and the tougher women they love is a strong film. The Kubec Glasmon and John Bright adaptation of Kenyon Nicholson's play moves fast, with director Roy Del Ruth putting things together well. Well-acted by the cast, Taxi! is a strong film.  

DECISION: B+

An American Tragedy: A Review

 

AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY

An American Tragedy is the first adaptation of the Theodore Dreiser novel. Pretty much forgotten now compared to the second adaptation, A Place in the Sun, this adaptation has some positives in one performance and echoes of the silent film era. However, it is also a bit of a slog which has not dated well.

Handsome, ambitious hotel porter Clyde Griffiths (Phillips Holmes) loves good times and good-time girls. A car accident where he is a passenger, however, forces him to flee Kansas City. Moving to Lycurgus, New York, Clyde finds a job as section head of a garment factory thanks to distant relatives.

There is a strict rule against fraternizing with employees, but Clyde cannot control his lust for pretty, innocent Roberta Alden (Sylvia Sydney). They begin a secret romance, but soon Clyde's eyes shift to Sondra Finchley (Frances Dee), the factory owner's pretty and wealthy daughter. As he squires Sondra about, "Bert" begins having doubts about Clyde's loyalty and love. This grows more complicated when Roberta ends up in trouble. 

Roberta pushes Clyde into marrying her, but he knows such a thing will keep him from Sondra and her money. Does this, however, mean he would commit murder to keep what he is so close to obtaining? A trial convicts him of such an act, though perhaps he is more morally than legally guilty. 

An American Tragedy came when film was still struggling to enter the sound era. As such, director Josef von Sternberg shapes the film in some ways as a silent film. There are title cards filling in information and written in a somewhat dramatic fashion that could be straight out of a silent film. However, they all play over the sound of flowing water, the suggestion of the impending tragedy coming across.

The film has strong visual moments, such as a wild Jazz Age party early in the film. An American Tragedy has touches of Josef von Sternberg's visual style. The factory, for example, has things going on in the fore and background, in keeping with von Sternberg's method of filling the screen with as much as possible.

Josef von Sternberg in some ways seems an odd choice to direct An American Tragedy. His forte was in the elegant, grandiose lives of the wealthy in exotic locales. An American Tragedy is squarely Middle American working-class. Despite this, he makes the most of the locations. There is a scene where Roberta hands Clyde a note, and he moves off to read it. We cannot get a full image of Clyde's reaction, but we know that it elicits a smile from Roberta. 

Sylvia Sydney is the standout in An American Tragedy. She plays the innocent so beautifully, unaware of Clyde's darkness. She is shocked by his kisses, and her naivete when coming close to her end is beautifully played. 

It is curious that while Phillips Holmes is not bad looking, he seems a poor choice to play this selfish individual. I found him to be overly dramatic, someone who seemed to be trying for a stereotypical silent film performance. His courtroom scenes were particularly weak, though to be fair the lawyers were all hamming it up to the Nth degree. I do give him credit for making Clyde cold and sinister underneath the charm. However, I found him somewhat stiff in manner. 

Dee was sadly pretty much a nonentity in An American Tragedy. She may have been the motive, but she was on screen so little that she had no real impact. 

This may be due to the film's surprisingly brief running time of 96 minutes. It is curious, however, that despite its remarkably short length the courtroom scenes felt rushed. A lot of An American Tragedy seemed to have information filled in via newspaper headlines. That had the effect of rushing things to move the story forward. 

Once or twice is nothing out-of-the-ordinary for early sound films. An American Tragedy, however, seemed to go slightly overboard with this technique.   

An American Tragedy is worth watching for Sylvia Sydney's performance and for certain cinematic elements from Josef von Sternberg. It is not a bad film by any stretch, though not as good as it could have been. 

DECISION: C+

Rain (1932): A Review

RAIN

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Joan Crawford.

Joan Crawford was set on taking on more demanding parts in her career. Rain, made outside her home of Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, gave her a chance to dive deep into a standout performance. 

Missionary couple Alfred Davidson (Walter Huston) and his wife (Beulah Bondi) are temporarily docked in Pago Pago en route to Samoa. Also aboard is Miss Sadie Thompson (Joan Crawford), a woman of ill repute. She loves jazz, liquor and men, all of which make her persona non grata to the pious Davidsons.

All find temporary lodgings at Horn's General Store, run by Joe Horn (Guy Kibbee), who is more put off by the devout Davidsons than our South Seas floozy Sadie. She finds romance with Sergeant O'Hara (William Gargan), whom she nicknames "Handsome" and does not care what kind of woman she is. Unfortunately, the Davidsons do care, enough for Alfred to report her to the governor. Davidson puts the squeeze on him to have Sadie deported back to San Francisco.

The prospect of going back to the States terrifies Sadie, but the rigid and moralistic Alfred refuses to budge or even allow her to go to Sydney instead. Despite her pleas and that of Dr. McPhail (Matt Moore), Davidson gets his way. Sadie, repentant, accepts her fate as punishment for her myriad of sins. However, even the most sinless among us can be lured to wicked intentions, leading to a shocking act.

Rain is an early indication of the talent Joan Crawford had. This is an unglamorous character, a woman who has a tawdry past that she in turns embraces and attempts to run from. Our shady Sadie begins and ends by appearing in parts, bracelets jangling and enveloped in a world-weary mode. Over the course of the film, Crawford reveals the haunted, scared, even repentant woman beneath the devil-may-care attitude.

As we slowly learn about Sadie, we see how frightened she is about being forced to return to America. We see her genuine affection for Handsome and hopes to start fresh in Australia, where she can cleanse herself from her past. As she confronts the rigid, heartless Davidson, her pleas mixed with anger and condemnation (self and otherwise) make one sympathize with this hussy.

Rain is a showcase for all the actors. As the moralistic missionary who eventually succumbs to his own fleshly desires, Huston is appropriately rigid and haughty. However, he never came across as sadistic or intentionally cruel, merely wrapped up in his own righteousness. Rain also gave us a rare dramatic turn for Kibbee, who usually played daffy and endearing sugar daddies. He too was excellent as the nonjudgmental general store owner, one who straddles but is not part of either the Sadie or Davidson worlds.

Though her role is small, Bondi too did well as the equally righteous Mrs. Davidson. Her last scene though makes her sympathetic, a woman aware that her husband is also a man.

Rain has some exceptional directing from Lewis Milestone. Not only did he get excellent performances out of his cast, but he also had some visually arresting moments. Milestone's camera flowed freely while still keeping to a stage-like presentation. The use of sound is equally excellent, particularly when the native drums echo Davidson's desires.

Rain feels longer than its 90 minutes, and perhaps the symbolism is a bit overdone (such as the loud jazz music Sadie chooses to play). On the whole, however, Rain has excellent performances and a strong story. Sandwiched between the original 1928 silent version and a 1953 Technicolor version, Rain more than holds its own.

DECISION: B+

Queen Christina: A Review

 

QUEEN CHRISTINA

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Greta Garbo.

Before His Majesty King Edward VIII gave up the British throne to marry a twice-divorced American woman, another monarch gave up power for love.  Three years before the world knew of the love affair between the future Duke and Duchess of Windsor, the biopic Queen Christina told the tale of the Swedish monarch whose romance with a Catholic Spaniard forced this unmerry monarch into romantic exile. At times theatrical, Queen Christina has some beautiful moments and a strong central performance.

Ascending the throne at six, Queen Christina (Greta Garbo) has carried the heavy weight of kingship, leading Sweden through the Thirty Years War. She, however, wants an end to war. She wants peace, with agreeable terms for her foes. She also wants to avoid marriage to her cousin, Prince Carl Gustav (Reginald Owen). She does not want marriage, but she is not disinterested in love.

Love comes her way when, while taking a secret sabbatical from the Palace, she encounters Spanish envoy Antonio Pimentel (John Gilbert). Antonio, unaware both that "he" is a she and that she is the Queen, first jokes then falls in love with her. She reciprocates, but their duties collide with their passions.

Count Magnus (Ian Keith) whips up the Swedish people into anti-Spanish (and anti-Catholic) frenzy as the Christina/Antonio affair becomes more open and intense. Now that Antonio has been sent back due to his original mission of arranging a marriage with the Spanish king has fallen through, Queen Christina now must decide between love and duty. She chooses the former, but at a tragic cost.

Queen Christina the film, like the final shot in it, can be read many ways. Some interpret a gay subtext, particularly due to the queen's relationship with Countess Ebba (Elizabeth Young), her pretty young courtier. The queen kisses her on the lips not once but twice (though the second kiss is obscured by Christina's hat). A pretty barmaid flirts with Christina when the latter was in drag and kept being called a boy. There is her declaration that she will not die an old maid but die "a bachelor". 

Add to that the open way she is declared "King" and that how it is openly stated that she was brought up as a boy. If there is any gay coding in Queen Christina, it was barely subtle.

I would not argue for or against such an interpretation. I would make a case that Queen Christina is very daring in its portrayal of love and sex. The Innkeeper all but says he can bring a woman to keep "His Lordship" company at night. The not-married Queen and Count spend three days together, and there is a scene where we see a member of Antonio's entourage speak to him behind bed curtains, the suggestion that he and Her Majesty are sharing a bed pretty clear.

It's almost daring how Queen Christina says much by saying so little, the film making things both clear and opaque enough to read what one wants to. It is a benefit to see that we did not have to hide the Antonio/Christina romance while simultaneously not have to see everything.

The film is a showcase for Garbo both as actress and as a beauty. She and John Gilbert had been the silent era's great screen lovers, and there is a sequence where Christina wanders around the room silently, making sure to remember everything there. This is a beautiful scene done well by Garbo, where we see the luminous beauty that she was.

In terms of acting, Queen Christina is one of Garbo's best performances. She was able to draw on her silent film acting and use her face and eyes to express so much. As the mob stormed the palace, Christina faced them down. We see a mix of fear, anger, and contempt rolling through her without her having to say a word. When she does speak, she is capable of moving you. It would be hard not to be emotionally moved when she abdicates, her speaking and looks blending to reveal a conflicted woman.

John Gilbert has been derided for having a weak, high voice, but Queen Christina disproves that long-held myth. I was expecting something almost Mickey Mouse to emerge, but Gilbert's voice was strong. He does look better than sound better, his acting something being a bit bigger than it should be. That being said, it is sad that Gilbert did not survive the transition as Garbo did. I would put it down to style than speech: Gilbert at times acting with his face than his voice. 

Nevertheless, the on-screen pairing of Gilbert and Garbo reveal some of what made them such formidable screen lovers. Their scenes were filled with humor and passion, even a bit of tenderness.

Gilbert's acting was certainly better than Lewis Stone, who did survive into sound. His performance was comically theatrical, to where one wondered if he was deliberately spoofing the script.

There were excellent touches from director Rouben Mamoulian that went beyond the directing of the actors. One particularly clever moment was when Christina had given up the crown. As she spoke to her Court, we could see the crown on the throne rise over her head, a metaphorical crown still upon her as she bids farewell.

Queen Christina is a beautifully shot film, with an excellent performance from Greta Garbo and a strong one from John Gilbert. Perhaps not as lavish as it could have been, and more than likely not historically accurate, Queen Christina still holds up well.  

1626-1689

DECISION: A-

The Public Enemy: A Review

 

THE PUBLIC ENEMY

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is James Cagney.

James Cagney first came to major prominence playing gangsters, and The Public Enemy was the film to put him on the map. An exciting, brutal look at the early days of Prohibition, The Public Enemy may try to pass itself off as a cautionary tale, but it does glamorize this seedy world a bit.

Ever since they were boys, Tommy Powers and Matt Doyle had gotten involved in petty crime. As adults, Tommy (James Cagney) and Matt (Edward Woods) have increased their criminal activities to grand larceny, but after a botched robbery leads to a dead cop their fence Putty Nose (Murray Kinnell) leaves them hanging.

Fortunately, both World War I and Prohibition go in Tommy's favor. His more upright and moralistic brother Mike (Donald Cook) goes off to war, while Prohibition lets Tommy and Matt become enforcers to bootleggers under the protection of Samuel "Nails" Nathan (Leslie Fenton). Tommy's raking in the dough, keeping his sweet mother (Beryl Mercer) oblivious to his criminal acts.

Now with Tom as one of the Kings of Chicago Gangland, Tommy feels all-powerful. Mike, back from the war, is appalled at his kid brother profiting off "booze and blood" and reproaches him, but neither want to hurt Ma, so they have a most uneasy ceasefire. Tommy takes up first with Kitty (Mae Clarke) then with glamorous Gwen Allen (Jean Harlow). However, ultimately we find that crime indeed does not pay, and our public enemy, having taken his revenge for Matt's killing, pays for his sins in a brutal and sad way.

The Public Enemy starts and ends with text making clear that it does not set out to glorify the hoodlum or criminal, and that this is a problem society must address. This is a case of having your cake and eating it too, for The Public Enemy makes a case that Tommy's life is more exciting than that of the morally rigid Mike.

Tommy gets beautiful girls, goes to swinging nightclubs, gets to slap people around and even kill with no consequences. Running gin by sneaking it in gas delivery trucks looks more fun than riding the streetcar or working there. If it weren't for the affection he has for his mother, Tommy would be a totally repellant psychopath. 

I would argue that he is, but it is to Cagney's extraordinary performance that Tommy is almost likable and sympathetic, his brutal end shocking and terribly sad. The Public Enemy is one of if not James Cagney's greatest gangster role, with perhaps White Heat being the bookend to the types of roles most often associated with him.

His Tommy is unapologetic, cruel at times but also with his own code of morality. Though he has no issue with plugging his former mentor Putty Nose, part of us feels that he did the right thing given what Putty did. "If it hadn't been for you, we might have been on the level," Matt tells Putty when he and Tommy confront him. Cagney gives a quick look to Woods that suggests Tommy does not regret his life, but goes along with Matt's genuine anger to back up his buddy.

Cagney isn't afraid to go into dark places, to make Tommy unsympathetic. However, he also shows him as vulnerable and ultimately tragic. He, for example, does something of a dance after dropping Gwen off, a surprising turn amidst the gangland killings. After achieving his revenge, we see him, wounded, literally in the gutter as he says to the rain, "I ain't so tough", as true a confession as heard. The Public Enemy has to be among James Cagney's finest performances.

The Public Enemy has strong performances from Beryl Mercer as Ma Powers, loving to her two boys. The cheerfulness she has preparing Tommy's room for what she thinks is his safe return will break your heart. Joan Blondell in an early role too does excellently as Daisy, Matt's eventual wife who loves her man but fears for him too. While The Public Enemy is an early role for Jean Harlow and we can see she hasn't quite mastered the art of acting, we see hints that she could become a strong dramatic actress and not just a comic foil or alluring temptress. She has a monologue in her final scene with Cagney commenting on how he's a bit of a little boy in his desires that is quite well done.

It is only some of the other performances, such as Cook as the rigid, almost priggish Mike and Woods as Tommy's toady Matt where I would argue the film flounders a bit. Both appear to act as if The Public Enemy is a silent film, which is understandable as the industry was still struggling with the transition. 

The film, under William Wellman's direction, is surprisingly fast. The scenes run quickly and are brief, transitioning from one to the other to where many of them last less than five minutes at most. There are quite a few scenes where the dialogue is unnecessary to say what is going on, such as the mass booze buying spree the night before Prohibition starts or Tommy's rain-soaked stakeout of his rival's headquarters.

The Public Enemy, if remembered by most, is for the infamous scene where Cagney slams a grapefruit into Mae Clarke's face. I figure that many modern viewers would either laugh or be enraged at this moment, but it is perfect for the character of Tommy Powers, selfish, arrogant and unapologetic.

The film also has a great use of the vernacular of the time, which would serve well for those attempting to study how the Roaring Twenties and Thirties sounded like among the less posh element. After Matt berates Putty for their life of crime, Tommy joins in. "Sure, we might have been ding-dings on a streetcar", he adds. The film captures the authentic sound of the era that sounds contemporary for the times but that now may be a bit opaque. That, however, does not make it inscrutable to present-day viewers.

The Public Enemy is beautifully filmed with a powerhouse performance from James Cagney as this reprobate who will break your heart. It may try to pass itself off as a moral warning, but gangsters never came better than The Public Enemy.

  

DECISION: A-

Anna Christie: A Review

 

ANNA CHRISTIE

"Garbo Talks!" That was the selling point in Anna Christie, as Greta Garbo, the Swedish Sphinx, finally was heard on film for the first time. A bit daring if stage-bound, Anna Christie still holds up surprisingly well.

After a nearly fifteen-year absence, Swedish sailor Chris Christopherson (George F. Marion) is going to see his daughter Anna (Garbo). Anna thinks her estranged father has moved up slightly in the world, but instead she finds he still sails on a tugboat despite his constant condemnation of "the old Devil Sea".

Despite Chris' duplicity Anna soon takes to the seagoing ways, serving as unofficial shipmate and restoring their relationship. It isn't until they rescue Irish sailor Matt (Charles Bickford) that there is trouble. Chris is distressed that his daughter would fall in love with a sailor, fearing the worse for his virtuous daughter.

Little does Papa Christopherson know that Anna has a past. Like Chris' discarded mistress Marthy (Marie Dressler), Anna has worked in the world's oldest profession to keep body and soul together. Anna's past in a Minnesota brothel is something she keeps secret, fearing her shame will drive both men away. At last though, she tells them the truth, and after both men struggle with the news, things sort themselves out with Matt not reneging on his proposal and Chris embracing his daughter and future son-in-law.

MGM executives despaired that Garbo's Swedish accent would cost them their biggest star. They had seen other silent film stars, both foreign and American, fall due to either their accents or their voices. Here, they found the perfect material to allow Garbo to have an accent, but would audiences respond to both said accent and her voice?

The answer is a firm "yes" on both counts. Anna Christie, daughter of a Swede brought up by Swedes, should have an accent. Truth be told however, I found her English quite strong. Apart from saying "yob" for "job" I didn't find Garbo's accent that strong as to make her unintelligible. Her speaking flowed quite smoothly, and soon you find the novelty of Garbo speaking, let alone speaking English, wears off. She sounds excellent and speaks quite well.

Garbo's low, sultry voice also added to her performance. It made it plausible for her to be this alluring woman to be a former hooker despite looking no less for wear. She seems almost too elegant to have plied the same trade as the more dowdy, frumpy Dressler, but that husky voice makes her first line, "Gimme a whisky, ginger ale on the side...and don't be stingy, baby," blend allure with a sad world-weariness. 

Overall, Garbo's performance in Anna Christie is excellent. She shows true love to Matt, genuine affection for Chris, and even hints of regret and fear when Matt tries to send Marthy away. Near the end it does become a bit theatrical, but given that Anna Christie still has some of the early sound film limitations of single set scenes and limited camera angles that can be forgiven.

Despite the struggles of early sound films, we see that Anna Christie did take surprising steps technologically. A sequence where Marthy and Chris walk to the bar is an extraordinary one, with both dialogue and street sounds coming through. The scene at Coney Island where Anna and Matt are on the roller coaster too show that director Clarence Brown were making efforts to break away from whatever barriers they faced. The roller coaster ride may not have the fluidity we are used to, but it was a bold step to film it without a rear-screen projection.

Anna Christie also has mostly strong performances from the cast. Had the category existed Marie Dressler would almost certainly been a Best Supporting Actress nominee for her performance. In turns comic and tragic, Dressler's Marthy elicits sympathy and laughs in equal measure for her drunk tramp. She dominates her scenes with Marion and is more than equal to Garbo when they share the screen. Her drunk moments were funny, but her farewell to Garbo on Coney Island is deeply moving.

Marion's Swedish Papa was strong and effective, also in turns funny and serious. It's a curious accident of history that he could either be "Chris Christopherson" or if we go by Anna's nom de guerre "Chris Christie" but I digress. I admit finding Bickford's Irish rogue a bit hard to believe, but that is a minor point. 

Anna Christie is a bit stagey and it has title cards which show how it might have still been shown as a silent film. On the whole however, it is a good film that holds up well.

DECISION: B+