James A. FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Land of the Mayas (1946) (short)
Production: MGM
Present day Guatemala is the setting, and the village of Chichicastenango, where 2000 years earlier the Mayan civilization held sway. So naturally the first thing we look at is an archway to the village, an architecture principle that the Mayans, for all their advances, hadn’t discovered. The importance of the market, both socially and economically, is shown, although transporting goods there is no cinch--the Indians don’t use horses or even the wheel, they act as their own pack animals! The religion of the Indians is a unique hybrid of Catholicism and Mayan mysticism, led by a ‘padre’ who first arrived in 1907 and is worshipped like a saint. And yet to cover all the bases, the Indians also practice the centuries old paganism of their Mayan ancestors. Like a mini Conrad novel.
out of 4
Rain or Shine (1930) Dir: Frank Capra
Production: Columbia Pictures
Joe “One Man Vaudeville” Cook and his cronies Dave Chasen and Tom Howard reprise their roles from the smash Broadway musical of the same name (although it was decided to drop the songs since musicals were box office poison at the time, one of the notable exceptions, ‘Happy Days Are Here Again’ is retained as background music in the film). To give you an idea of how well the film went over, no one ever heard from Joe “One Man Vaudeville” Cook and his crew again. Well, not quite but you get the picture. Nothing against Cook, he has a promising quick-talking, wise guy persona. With better material (or smaller doses, like bits in the multi-act musicals of the 30’s) he could have had a nice run as a film comedian. But the film relies on the gag-a-second formula with the hope that something hits. And the ratio of hits to misses here is disastrously low.
The story, such as it is, revolves around the travails of the John T. Rainey Circus and its personnel; owner Mary Rainey (Joan Peers), who inherited the show from her deceased father; manager ‘Smiley’ Johnson (Cook), who keeps the circus going despite the mounting debt (perhaps because of his unrequited love of Mary); and new employee Bud Conway (William Collier, Jr.), whose romance with Mary has ‘Smiley’ looking to fire him (also along for the ride is the second-billed Louise Fazenda who has literally 20 seconds of screen time). This triangle plays out among the struggling circus’ drama as it moves into the next town. Just as things are starting to look up, two disgruntled employees scheme to get ownership of the circus away from Mary. All these points are incidental, however. The film is mostly an excuse to thinly string together routines for Cook to do his shtick with Howard as the straight man (he’s playing a wealthy mark who the circus owes money to), and Chasen adding the antics of his Curly-ish ‘boob’ character. The film is technically impressive, with direction, photography, editing and even the sound recording all relatively advanced. The picture opens and closes, more or less, on two very well done set pieces--the first shows the circus moving out in a rainy, nighttime scene (with a particular challenge posed by the Fat Woman), and near the end is an effective full scale riot that culminates with the circus burning to the ground. Ultimately though, the lack of laughs works your patience over and takes the fun out of the film.
out of 4
John Nesbitt’s Passing Parade No. 2: New Roadways (1939) (short) Dir: Basil Wrangell
Production: MGM
Early ‘Passing Parade’ entry, and if you’re familiar with the series you can appreciate the somewhat gestational phase it’s in with this particular short (I find they tend to be better focusing on a single subject). The new roadways in question are those scientific breakthroughs that often go unnoticed, never likely to grab front page headlines, but are often far more important. A quick look at some advancements, like pliable glass, beach farming, and experiments in harnessing the power of the sun. Then a look at the unheralded star of the scientific community, the white mouse, and some of the learning experiments done on them. The short takes an extremely bizarre turn with the subject of plastic surgery. It touts its application, besides the mere cosmetic purposes for rich old women, as a way to heal horrible disfigurements (not only in war, but we see a gruesome example of a young girl who has an oven explode in her face!). Fine, so far. Then we are introduced to two brothers; one handsome and happily employed at the counter of a store, talking to customers, the other ‘ugly’ one stuck in the stockroom, angry, frustrated, who naturally embarks on a life of crime. In prison, Mr. Ugly, in a remarkable bit of social engineering, is presented with the option of state-funded plastic surgery to make him handsome and thus a productive, engaged member of society. Upon his release, he immediately draws the admiring glances of a pretty woman. Shocked at first, he then continues on to his new life with a jauntiness in his step that only the handsome among us recognize and have. Jokes on him though, imagine the look on his face when he finds out the state threw in a complimentary sterilization while they were at it! I was on board until the hilarious Dr. Mengele-approved part.
out of 4
Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies (2001) Dir: Hugh Munro Neely
Production: Timeline Films & UCLA Film and Television Archive/TCM
Decent survey of the career of actress Marion Davies, if not especially hard-hitting. Seems to exist mostly as a corrective to the ‘Davies as Susan Alexander Kane’ belief (although I think many people now know of the other publisher, the name escapes me, who actually built an opera house for his mistress as in KANE). And in that regard, Davies relationship with William Randolph Hearst is given a rather superficial treatment--‘W.R.’ is portrayed as her kind-hearted protector, whose flaw is that he loves too much, rather than an out-of-touch (he was insisting Marion play serious roles in costumers as if the comedies she excelled in were unbecoming), ultra-controlling bully that she never stood up to. Yeah, Hearst loved Davies so much he kept her on the side (although they lived together) for 30 years, while he was married. Say what you want about Davies, and this film mostly cheers (she’s smart, funny, warm, generous, talented, probably all true), but she was ultimately content to accept Hearst’s ‘patronage’. It also suggests that theirs was a great love affair and of that I’m less convinced. Something turned Davies into a drunk (this is where the link to KANE is seen as a particularly low blow), although that is never really explored. Was it because she loved Hearst so much and he wouldn’t divorce his wife? It’s more than suggested that she had enough affairs of her own, which casts doubt on that theory. Was it because she was conflicted about being a ‘kept’ woman? Well, that’s not explored either. From Davies’ standpoint it was more likely genuine affection of a sort (she called him ‘Pops’) that morphed into a sense of obligation when Hearst got older and sick (she once wrote him a check for $1 million when his legendary profligacy had the creditors at his door). And for all that, any mention of her in relation to Hearst was written out of existence by his estate after his death.
Davies’ films are given cursory reviews. More interestingly a case is made for Davies as the first screwball comedienne. We hear from historians like Kevin Brownlow, Jeanine Basinger, Charles Champlin, and those that knew Davies, like George Sidney and Ruth Warrick. There is also a recording of Davies later in life speaking about Hearst and, among other things, the notorious death of Thomas Ince (his death is often said to have been brought about by Hearst, who, in a jealous rage one night on his boat, supposedly tried to shoot Charlie Chaplin for an alleged affair with Davies, and accidentally shot Ince--covered by Peter Bogdanovich in THE CAT'S MEOW which was recently reviewed here, positively, by Mr. Elliott, I believe). Curiously, her comment meant to dispel the Ince rumor is somewhat unconvincing, to the effect that “if something like that had happened, we would all be in jail, wouldn’t we?” Well, no, not if a man as powerful as William Randolph Hearst was behind it (although honestly, for nothing to have ever come out in nearly a century since seems unlikely). The film is narrated in an uninspired, flatline delivery by Charlize Theron. Virginia Madsen, who appears as one of the talking heads eagerly sharing thoughts on her own personal discovery of Davies, should’ve just narrated the whole thing herself.
out of 4
A Crime Does Not Pay Subject No. 10: It May Happen to You (1937) (short) Dir: Harold S. Bucquet
Production: MGM
One of the grittier entries in the series, with a story and script by John C. Higgins (T-MEN, RAW DEAL). Unusually high body count includes a classic gangland style execution (how many times do I have to say it, when you go for a ride, never sit in the front seat!). Story concerns a racket, and its leader, Moxie (a menacing J. Carrol Naish), that specializes in hijacking shipping trucks. Moxie plans a beef heist of all things, and he sweet talks a low-level meat packing plant worker named Eddie into helping with the promise of a big return for little work. When the gang starts peddling its foul purloined sirloin all over town and people start dying, bringing down the cops and putting the hoods in self-preservation mode, Eddie’s decision no longer seems so easy. Well done.
out of 4
James A FitzPatrick’s Traveltalks: Red Men on Parade (1941) (short)
Production: MGM
A look at the inter-tribal Indian gathering in Gallup, New Mexico, where over thirty tribes are represented. The un-P.C. title aside, there is an actual parade down the street of Gallup, complete with that old American Indian staple, the marching band. Fitz tells us that there are more Indians today in North America than when Columbus arrived. We see a Navajo rug weaver in action (the rugs are made with no pattern to follow and no two are alike) and pottery by the Hopi. The highlight of the gathering is a ceremony with the many different tribal dances on display, although thankfully, no one got served. Somewhat telling is that most Indians who enter white society and are educated in universities go back and live among their own people and customs.
out of 4
Edge of Doom (1950) Dir: Mark Robson
Production: Samuel Goldwyn Productions/RKO Radio Pictures
Relentlessly, oppressively grim--and curiously flat--crime melodrama about Los Angeles slum kid who snaps following the death of his mother, stars Farley Granger and Dana Andrews. Martin Lynn (Farley Granger) lives with his tubercular mother in a dirty, run-down apartment on skid row. He makes $30 a week at a florist and has a girl, Julie (Mala Powers), who wants to marry him, but Marty can’t until he gets his mother to a healthier climate. Martin is frustrated and humiliated, he doesn’t have the money to help his mother and his boss won’t give him the raise he thinks he deserves. His hatred with the local parish dates back to several years earlier when they were unable, due to church doctrine, to bury his father in consecrated ground following the man's suicide. When his mother dies, Martin makes it his mission to give her a “fine funeral”, but his discovery that people either don’t care or won’t help him, from a short-tempered priest to his cold boss, sends him over the edge.
The real star of this film is the location work in the actual Skid Row neighborhood of downtown Los Angeles, adding authenticity and visual interest (Harry Stradling shot the picture). Thematically, the film is ambitious; religion and capitalism are well in its cross hairs, although the execution leaves something to be desired (as a bonus, another institution, the police, is totally incompetent). “Why do you feel angry towards the church”, a priest asks Martin. “Because all you do is take, you give nothing!” he spits out. Not much of a defense in the church’s favor is offered. When Martin seeks a little leeway from his boss for flowers and from the mortuary on the service, he is fired and given the brush off. “This is a business, Mr. Lynn”, the mortuary receptionist tells him. This is partly where the film goes wrong. We’re clearly supposed to sympathize with Martin and his plight, but he’s delusional, he sees persecution in every contact. But he’s the one in the wrong and grieving isn’t an excuse. The reality is that Martin’s boss fires him because he gets physical and loud in front of customers. The mortician does point out that Martin can’t pay for what he wants, but he also tries to reassure him that he will be given every consideration and tells him that they've worked well with the church in the past, which only further angers Martin.
While Granger is decent if somewhat self-consciously 'disturbed', the two priests are poorly characterized; Harold Vermilyea plays Father Kirkman, the parish’s veteran priest--he’s weirdly combative and agitated by Martin. Why? There is an utterly pointless subplot involving Kirkman’s niece (Joan Evans). The actress might as well be invisible for the impact she makes. Dana Andrews plays the good guy priest, but he exists merely to reflect goodness upon Martin and insure that his conscience will eventually come around. A prologue, epilogue and omniscient narration by Andrews were added by Goldwyn (director Robson and writer Philip Yordan were fired and replaced by Charles Vidor and Ben Hecht for these sequences) to “lighten the depressing atmosphere”. More than anything, they subvert the power of the story and serve to make Andrews’ character even more of an empty vessel. Mala Powers as Martin’s girl, Julie, is dewy-eyed and sympathetic--and totally unremarkable. Paul Stewart and Adele Jergens are residents in Martin’s apartment building, and involved in another half-assed plotline. There’s an inordinate amount of annoying buzzing in the picture, so help me. Three or four scenes depict somebody leaning on a doorbell, ignoring a doorbell, or ignoring elevator buzzers, etc. Not ideally what should pop into one’s head when considering a rating. And ultimately, not as good as it could have been.
out of 4
John Nesbitt’s Passing Parade No. 46: This is Tomorrow (1943) (short)
Production: MGM
Off-beat entry in the series recycles footage from THE CITY, a 1939 short made for the World’s Fair, with Nesbitt’s narration making it relevant for the WWII-era audience (and a cheap way to put something together in the wartime economy). The original film was created to hype a sort of new approach to city planning, the city of the future, that sort of thing. It compared colonial life with the nightmare that city life had become (slums, pollution, etc.) and promised how all that would change under this new approach. Nesbitt’s spin is that this is what we are fighting for, this future pregnant with possibilities and an improved standard of living. While the message is ‘pie in the sky’ silliness (likely designed to sell something for some large multi-national), the footage is interesting and used well.
out of 4
) . I have seen this movie twice. I actually liked the film the first time but after the second watching I vowed to throw away my VHS. Somehow I could not do it. It's a terrible movie (and I'm pretty sure that I will never watch it again) but I just admire Larry Cohen too much for his independent and offbeat way of making pictures. His pictures are full of offbeat ideas, characters, observations and watching them is just fun. If you have listened to any of his commentaries they reveal such enthusiasm for his way of making movies. I think that combination of enthusiasm and intelligence is missing from low-budget film-making these days.
