"The HTF 100 Great Films of the 1930's Challenge" - Page 6

I have a question for the makers and participants of this thread. Are we planning on ordering these films as they did for the AFI challenge, I for one would be fascinated at discovering what are considered the finest films of the thirties after all of us have seen 100 from that era. I say this for purely selfish reasons. I got so much enjoyment out of the AFI revote thread that I'd like to do the same thing here, only be a full fledged participant this time.

I got out my Criterion copy of

Grand Illusion

and was as impressed as ever. No matter how many times I see this movie, it retains its essential humanity and impact. A good many critics consider Rules of the Game to be Renoir’s best, but I’ve always been partial to this one. Perhaps I’ll change my mind when I watch ‘Rules’. If so, I’ll comment.

I’d be open to a discussion and ranking when we finish this off. That may take a while, however.

Lew, Grand Illusion is my second favorite film of all time, there is so much that is beautiful and amazing about that film that it is simply staggering.

Gone With the Wind - 1/2
"You need to be kissed, and often, by someone who knows how" (anyone else wish they'd thought of that first to say to their girl--heck I"ll prolly say it anyway since its true

I've never been partial to female melodrama as a genre, but I can certainly admire this ultimate achievment of that genre. I give the cinematography four stars (incredible lusciuos colors!) and the acting three stars, Vivien Leigh is exceptional, but she succeeded it merely making me extraordinarily angry at Scarlet OHara rather than sympathize with her (although by the end I did, and nearly cried when Mellie died), however this is probably more the reaction of an astonished man at the pure sadistic evil of her little love games (I swear it took all of three and half hours to get me to begin to sympathize with her character after that opening barbeque scene). Personally I don't think that Scarlet was ever in love with Ashley, but with the idea of him, and pure physical attraction. And I get absolute chills at the way Rhett treats Bonnie, I get a glimpse as to why Scarlet turned out the way she did if she was treated just as horrifyingly as a child (how could such a character not grow up into a spoiled stubborn tantrem throwing nearly subhuman thing (from lack of any emotional relationship with someone outside of the spoiling parents). Scarlet is viciuos conniving and selfish with no care whatsoever (it often seems) than for anyone but herself. The only time I think I really see true emotion from her is around Millie who brings out the best (or in Scarlett's case the only tiny shreads of goodness or humanity) in everyone. When Scarlett begins to actually become human after Millie's death, I only feel sorry that she has been cut off from people for so long, not that she still isn't getting what she now wants, that to me is the best part of the whole movie is that she doesn't get her way (Rhett) in the end. I feel much more sorry for Rhett, Ashley, Kennedy, her sisters, and Millie than I ever do for Scarlett, if only because they have to put up with Scarlett doing her damndest to destroy their lives. Any warmth I might have nourished for Scarlett abruptly vanished when she stole her sisters husband, for God's sake it's her future brother in law, and this is the south, ask for the damned money, it's family, the family won't talk, and no one will think a thing of family helping out family, this is not a southern pride delimma but a personal pride delimma. In fact it's scarlett's selfishness again, she sees something she wants (money) and instead of asking for it she just rips it away--takes it--no matter how much pain and destruction she may cause in the process, she gets her way on her terms.

On second thought Vivien leigh did a really great performance to make me loath the character so much.
And Rhett Butler with all the magnificent classic lines, certainly did an absolutely exceptional performance. I'm not going to deny that the movie is great, it clearly is, but it's not my cup of tea, and I"m glad those four hours are over. At this point the only thing that could convince me to watch it again would be the oppurtunity of viewing an IB tech Dye transfer 35mm technicolor print, for that I would sit through that again.

On another note I was surprised at how much happened before the intermission. I had been under the impression that the Atlanta attack happened at the end of the film. So seeing that in the first half surprised me. as did the amount of interpersonal sheer melodrama of the second half. I must say though, that of all the characters I think Mammie gave the best performance!

The one thing that really irritated me was the villification of Sherman (in the rolling text), and the historical innacuraccies. Best groan inducing line of the whole movie is that Sherman swept swath across the south "60 miles wide" please, after Atlanta he cut himself loose and bounced blindly around Georgia for many months before actually getting to the shore, at the time he successfully executed guerilla tactics (mainly because he took the Thomas trained crack troops and engineering squads).

Interesting that it's this film that provokes the most comments of me so far
Adam

Just watched Tabu by Murnau the other night; this seems like one that should have made the list. Equally as good as Sunrise, IMHO. Nice DVD too, with lots of good extras.

After the Thin Man -

This is actually better than a two star movie, but in my opinion doesn't live up to the promise of the first. Certain parts of the movie feel tired, recycled gags, an adherance to the formula of the the original and moment created simply to either give Asta something to do or just let the run time play a little longer. The fight with Asta for the note was particularly annoying--amusing at first but it quickly lost interest when it was so lengthy for them to get it back, almost farcical chase (which may have been the point). I love that Jimmy Stewart was in the film but feel he was underused. I dislike the near blind adherance to the original's formula that makes Disney musicals look creative. Right down to the eccentric family, reluctant detective, surprise murderer (revealed of course at a climatic gathering of all the suspects). There were occasional differences, that it was Nick's and Nora's own family could make it interesting, but nothing actually came of that relationship, it was simply a way to get them involved with the case. Also the pushy and stupid police detective was a nice change from the ingratiating New York dectective in the original--however they almost went to far to the point where I was suspecting the dectective because it would make things more interesting (oh I was still perplexed by the whodunit, but I knew this time that things would unravel neatly, as they did). The wit wasn't as fresh nor the jokes quite as funny, best part of the movie had to have been the New Years Eve party at the Leechee restaurant, unfortunately (and unlike the original) much of the rest of the film felt like a formula dectective film, lacking the vibrancy that made the original film shine. I still laughed quite a bit and enjoyed the movie, enjoyed it more than Gone With the Wind, but I was also disapointed. However I"m still interested in seeing Another Thin Man, I'm hoping that the distance in years will mean that the film will be more original, at least in its murder, than the second film.

Adam

Little Women -

"CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS!"

Now THIS is a melodrama! Wow, I was totally and thoroughly completely enjoying myself throughout this incredible and marvelous film! I'm sorta familiar with the Little Women story as my mom is a fan, I knew there were four daughters and that the important one is Jo, but not much else. I admit that it took me forty minutes to really get fully sucked into the film, up until the party at Lorry's I was only so so to the film, but for some reason when Lorry and Jo danced out of the parlor and into the hallway my whole disposition changed towards the film, andmost of the rest was magical and emotional for me. Katherine Hepburn is simply magnetic, a truly incredible screen presence and some truly brilliant acting on her part. She made Joe into a loud, obnoxious, somewhat bumbling tomboy, but who is deeply emotional and tender underneath her fierce exterior. At times it seemed to me that Lucille Ball was parodying Jo March when she was playing her iconic I love Lucy title role. There are some absolutely great moments here, and some utterly beautiful black and white cinematography, not the greatest mind you, but it was very well done, and had it's moments (for instance the very high hallway shot looking down at Amy and Beth looking down and Lolly and Jo dancing; or the shot of all the girls in white, surrounding and framing their mother--all in black-- as she prepares to head to Washington to care for their father). I'll certainly be watching this film again, and I think on repeat viewings that it will easily become one of my favorite melodramas or romances. If I had one fault with the film it is at the very beginning, when Mother reads the girls father's christmas letter: she reads and everyone is still while the camera holds the shot for an extra second or two, THEN it cuts to a close up of Amy telling what she'll do, then Jo, then Meg, then Beth (saying nothing), then back to the master shot. Now I wouldn't have a problem with this except that there's that extra second or two before they begin cutting to the girls, it felt like they were going to fade to the next scene, but then abruptly went into a close up and it suddenly seems like they're talking at the camera--it just pulled me completely out of the film.

Very, very enjoyable, an excellent movie!

Adam

Another Thin Man -

An outstanding film, I enjoyed it much more than After the Thin Man. This film cracks with original wit and a more inventive set up (and murder scenarios) than the other films. I'm a little disapointed about how the final reveal of how the murder was accomplished Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) but everything else about the movie was more than stasifying. Asta was perfectly used this time, and not overused as in After the Thin Man; the same can be said for Nick's fondness of Alcohol (there seemed to be twice as many alcohol jokes in the second film than in the first). The jokes and wit weren't quite as good as the initial film, but were still excellent, I think that the detective work in this one was the best of all three, After the Thin Man was more of a coincidence that Nick and Nora got some of the clues they did get; but with this one you clearly knew Nick's progression from step to step he took in his investigations.

Highly entertaining, I enjoyed myself quite a lot, though not as good as the original.

This film marks the point where I have already doubled the amount of films from the 30's I'd seen (from the list) already the tournement has been more than worth it, and I hope I make many more discoveries like Thin Man or Little Women in the remaining films.

Adam

Adam,

It's all a matter of personal taste, but I think my favorite Thin Man (after the original) is the Thin Man Goes Home. It's not from the 30s, but you should check it out.

I definitely plan on watching the other three Thin Man movies sometime soon, perhaps putting off the challenge for a bit just to enjoy myself (I'm enjoying myself as it anyway though!). I would like to have all three of the Thin Man's that I've seen on DVD, they're so enjoyable that I would definitely watch them all mulitple times, unfortunately it looks as though only Thin Man is on DVD. The VHS I saw of Another Thin Man earlier today was so noisy that I thought I was watching an SLP taped off tv version--which just makes me approve DVD and LD all the more.

Could someone perhaps provide transalations of some of the foreign titles? I of course prefer knowing the original title, but I do like to have some idea what the title itself is.

Adam

L’Age d’or: Age of Gold (French—literal trnaslation)

Alexander Nevsky is a direct translation from the Russian.

L’Atalante does not really have a translation from French to English, because the title is taken from the name of the barge on which a young couple honeymoon. Since it’s a proper noun (just like Alexander Nevesky) there is not really a translation. In English the name of the barge would be ‘The Atalante’. If that helps. There is an alternate version of the film titled Le Chaland Qui Passe, which means ‘The Passing Barge’ in English. IMO, it is best to avoid this version.

Le Sang d’un: Blood of a Poet, which is listed by Brian in its English title, rather than in French. Probably because that’s how Criterion has it on their title.

Drácula: Dracula, I include the title in Español for the sake of completeness.

Le Grande Illusion: Grand Illusion which is again in the list in English, probably because the French title appears to be so close to English.

M is sometimes seen in German as M—Mörder unter uns (which means Murder(s) are among us).

Olympia 1. Teil—Fest der Völker: Olympia 1: Festival of the Nations is the full title of Olympia 1. (German)

Olympia 2. Tiel—Fest der Schönheit: Olympia 2: Festival of Beauty

La Règle du jeu: Rules of the Game, which Brian has listed, using the English translation of the French title.

Triumph des Willens: Triumph of the Will is the German title of the listing in English.

Umarete was mita keredo: I was born but …, is the English title of this Japanese film. I don’t think that this is a literal translation, but that is a guess. The film deals with a family relocating to Tokyo, the problems with the sons fitting in and dealing with the way their father is forced to behave and more. Very touch and funny at the same time. Sort of a Japanese coming of age story.

Thanks Lew, glad to know what L'Atalante, L'Age d'or, and Umarete was mita keredo are in English. The others I was familiar with, or as you said, were already in English. I hadn't realized there were two Draculas, I guess I should have seen the short note on the main page, but that doesn't really bother me, just another (hopefully) great film to discover. Up next for me will be the two Tod Browning Films, Dracula, then Freaks, I believe.

Adam

Dracula - 1/2

I enjoyed this film but was not riveted to the screen. I wish I had the oppurtunity to see this in a dark theater with a large crowd on the big screen, because this movie is overflowing with atmospheric lighting. THe magnificent sets were the high point for me. The enormous castle in Translyvania, and the underground lair in England were simply beautiful to behold. Dracula was extrodinarily creepy and breathtaking. His slow and deliberate movements are mesmorizing, which makes his snake quick reaction to the cigar box mirror all the more frightening. Bela Lugasi is a perfect predator, he's menacing and laconic, frightening and refined; in fact Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lector comes to mind as a similar character--which gives you an idea of how impressed I was by Lagosi's performance.
My second favorite film is how they kept all the horror scenes essentially a silent movie. Most of the music falls on or around the dialouge scenes with the humans, but I can't remember any music when Dracula is moving in on Helen or another girl--in fact there is no sound at all, which is perfect, it forces the audience to fill in the details and become more involved with the film, building the tension. The romantic involvement between Dracula and Helen was outstanding--breathtaking and chilling. My one complaint is that Dracula's wives disapeared halfway through the film, just a loose end that was not tied up. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

A fine film, I enjoyed it a great deal - like Little Women this was a story I knew the basic set up for, but really had no idea going in what actually happens, so the whole thing for me was a fun experience.

Adam

I find the ending of the Spanish version to be much more satisfactory. But both are true classics.

Saw The Mummy. Yawn....

20 to go.

Rob

Well, I saw Wuthering Heights on TCM this past week. I would give it (out of 5) as I found Kathy to be shallow and very into herself. It's always very disturbing to me Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) To me the book had me liking Cathy a lot more than this film did. I guess I was generous because of the performance by Olivier and also I thought that Flora Robson was superb.

Freaks - 1/2

I didn't really enjoy much of this film, I admired the production values, and think that the subject matter is pretty daring for 1932, but that these characters aren't actors is pretty clear. The thing I liked best was that Hansel and Frida were so disturbingly childish, frightening that they were made up by the circus to look so much like children, that alone lends an enormous air of creepiness to the film. Cleopatra and Hercules (ha!) ham it up as two EVILLL characters, and the most wrenching scene of the film is when she destroys the wedding ceremony. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) .

And it's so heartbreaking to look at those poor girls and think of what they went through, they made the film truly hard to watch.

On the negative side, the film just didn't really have a compelling story, the villians are contrived and cliche, and everyone in the story that's good is not too bright. Plus the film was half made (I wouldn't be surprised) as a chance for people to ogle at some freaks. It's nice to see that a compassionate viewing of them, but that is horribly taken away by the implication in the opening crawl and the films finale that they are dangerous animals that will retaliate viciuosly at those who harm them.

It's interesting to see the similarities between Tod Brownings two films (both horror) on this list (Dracula was the other). Both films strongest points are the production values, the cinematography and atmosphere the filmmakers created, often with the use of shadow and gorgeous, moody shadows and light. I would say Freaks was the more scary film, if only because of the ending scene in the rain, however Dracula had much finer control over the dread and tension in every scene, his manipulation of the audiences anticipation is impeccable. On this note, I didn't find Freaks to be as strong a film as Dracula, the story didn't lend itself to the same sorts of tension as the classic tale of dread Dracula does, in fact the horror elements almost seem tacked on, inappropriate--especially since the rest of the movie chiefly dealt with the Freaks perpetual struggle for some sort of acceptance, I suppose if you went into freaks expecting the freaks to burst into a killing frenzy at the slightest provocation the film could keep you on edge, but it never gives off that sort of vibe. Still Browning is a strong enough director in this genre for me to eventually seek out his other work, or attempt to sit down and watch it if it comes my way; i'd like to see what else he can accomplish.

Adam

Adam

Good analysis and I know what you mean about this film, Adam. I go back and forth, myself. Right now I have it rated three stars (on a four point scale—a must see).

But I can completely understand differing opinions.

I can also see your perspective Lew (and I completely understand the comment about the going back and forth on the film). Freaks has many strong points, but I also feel that this doesn't really need the horror elements, its much more a human interest story (or at least thats how I see it). However I also have the feeling that this would be a terrific film to see on the big screen, but I doubt I'll get that oppurtunity. So far this has been my lowest ranked film I've seen, but is also the film that made the most uncomfortable (it's hard to watch, we naturally 'stare' at films and this makes me very uncomfortable with myself for staring), perhaps if I were to see it again I might put it higher. I do think this is a lesser film than Dracula (about one star lesser), which I felt was a much finer crafted film and also had Bela Lugosi anchoring the title role, both marked improvements over Freaks (and that Freaks came chronologically after Dracula) whose weakest element was the acting in my opinion.

Captains Courageous - This was a decent movie with this fairly basic plot (Spoiled boy turns good by being forced to work). I've read many reviews that stated this was Spencer Tracy's best film and I couldn't have a more opposite opinion. His acting may have been okay, but the annoying fake accent pretty much ruined the movie for me. I was also a little upset that the box listed Mickey Rooney as co-star, but if he had more than 5 minutes total screen time, I would be amazed.

Goodbye Mr. Chips - I don't know what to say about this film other than it just didn't work for me on any level. This was hands down the worst film that I've seen off of this list and I really was expecting to like it. The only thing worthwhile was the performance by Robert Donat. I found the direction to be quite clumsy and thus I was never able to get emmotionaly involved. There was a key point at which I finally thought I was going to get caught-up in the emmotions and suddenly the movie cut to 20 years later and left me in a lurch. I almost couldn't finish this movie.

Although it's been awhile since I've seen Freaks or Dracula, I'll add my two cents. I much prefer Freaks as it doesn't seem so stagy. Dracula seems to be a terribly slow moving movie considering it's length, while Freaks seems to clip right along. I read Tod Browning's biography about 6 years ago and it was quite a fascinating read and according to him, he did not make Freaks for the purpose of parading the Freaks. He felt that performance was the only way for many of these people to make a living and that he was helping them out. Many reviewers at the time, found the movie disgusting due to the freaks, but in reality they are the only compassionate & caring people in the movie and this was the way Browning intended it to be seen. He considered himself an outsider and often hung around with these people after shooting & between movies. If you look at his filmography, disabled & disfugured characters show up again & again. Unfortunately Freaks ruined his career and he made only a few modest pictures after it before retiring.

The Life of Emile Zola
It has been awhile since I had seen this so I wanted to count this as re-see this. I remember liking it the first time and was not disappointed in the re-watch. This is one of the fogotten Oscar winners and that is a shame. I really like the acting and story. It reminds me of the "talky" British films of the 60s & 70s, like Becket, that I seem to like more than most people.

Red Dust
I enjoyed watching every minute of this film, yet, as someone else mentioned, it reminded me of other films I like better. It is great to watch Jean Harlow in a very pre-code film.

Seen five since the last update, bringing my count down to 16.

Hound of the Baskervilles - I'd originally thought I'd seen it already and that this would be a revisit. The B&W immediately informed me I was mistaken (I later found out that the color version I'd seen long ago was the Hammer version with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee). Nevertheless, the plot was (obviously) similar and I found myself recalling much of the story details. Basil Rathbone was excellent as Holmes and it was a nice change of pace from all his Errol Flynn/Charles Dickensian villainy. Here he gets to flex some mental muscle solving a seemingly supernatural curse afflicting the family Baskerville (a ghostly hound that hunts them down). Occasionally it felt a little stagey, but the pseudo-exterior scenes were nicely atmospheric and the film on the whole enjoyable. Not an instant favorite, perhaps, but worth seeing.

Goodbye, Mr. Chips - I certainly didn't hate it as much as Eric did, but I do admit that there's a serious plot twist which undermines a wonderful first 2/3 and made the final scenes hard to watch. Donat is very sympathetic and effective as the soft-spoken Mr. Chipping(s?), and it's a treat to see him eventually win over his rowdy students and gain a sterling reputation. A fellow teacher convinces "Chips" to try a tour of Europe, and there's a magical scene where Chips stumbles upon Greer Garson on fog-shrouded mountain top and they share a lunch. Their quiet, genuine romance reminded me a lot of Marty (and to some extents Rocky), where you're just so happy that these two have found their soulmate. There's a superb sequence where the new Mrs. Chipping is introduced around the school and the faculty and students, convinced any wife of Chips is bound to be hard on the eyes, are repeatedly stunned by her beauty and demeanor. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Holiday - A secondary Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn screwball comedy/romance film; better than The Philadelphia Story (but we shan't go there--chalk it up as my classic film lover's Mulligan), but nothing compared to Bringing Up Baby, or the Hepburn-less The Awful Truth or His Girl Friday. Everyone's fine, of course, with a special nod to All Quiet on the Western Front's Lew Ayres, as the perpetually-drunk brother, but the film has the feeling of one too many times to the well (especially having seen the finer productions which come later), and the change of heart of Grant's first love comes just a might too easy for my taste. Nevertheless, I'll give it the "worth seeing stamp," but be advised there's nearly as much romance-drama in this as there is comedy.

Dodsworth - A great film. I believe the word I often see associated with it is "mature" and I couldn't agree more. This is a '30s film that deals convincingly with marital infidelity and the process aging plays upon it. My only prior extended contact with Walter Huston was his crotchety old man role in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (incidentally, one of my Top Ten films of all-time), so his turn as a clean-cut retired industrialist was quite a change--were it not for the voice, I'd have hardly believed it was the same man. This is a difficult role, to be sure, and he's more than up to the task. Dodsworth may be rich, but he's also a plain-talking dreamer who's ideas of happiness clash with his younger wife's more "snobbish" notions of their proper place in life. She blatantly makes a cuckold of him, but his generous demeanor allows for him to be surprisingly tolerant of this cheating. Yet as the film continues, it becomes clear that this can only go on for so long. Very well-worth seeking out. BTW, this was directed by William Wyler, so you know it's well-made in addition to well-written and well-acted.

Little Women - Never read the book, and never expected to like the movie very much, but this proved yet another reason to break out the well-word adage that you should never judge a book by its cover (or title, for that matter). Enchanting from the get-go, and the over-earnest "niceness" of the characters never became a problem due the performers, who made sure to make these real characters and not walking cliches. Not much more to add, just that this is a charming film which is quite adept at making its inherent melodrama not only bearable, but enjoyable. Very highly recommended.

Evan

Evan,

You nailed the exact polnt that bothered me so much. I was worried that I was the only one that thinks it's a major problem with the film. It's a big enough problem in my mind that I find it hard to believe this film is so cherished by so many people. Even though I'm a guy and I'm not supposed to cry at movies:b - I love a good cry and when I am denied it, it upsets me even more.

Stand still, Godfrey. It’ll all be over in a minute, is the final line of

My Man Godgrey,

delivered by Irene just before her inevitable marriage to Godfrey. Set in the depression, the plot is beyond belief, but as with all screwball comedies, that is not the point. The dialogue, the character and their interactions are the point. And, as with a good many films of the 30s, there is a bit of social commentary in the film as well.

I got out my Criterion of this and had a great deal of fun watching this again. This time, I paid special attention to Eugene Pallette, the long suffering father, who played many similar roles, including an especially memorable one in The Lady Eve. A very funny actor indeed in a very funny film.

L'Âge d'Or -

Ummm, wow?

This is the first Buñúel film I've seen, and I'm now intrigued to see others, very slowly however. I have no desire to plow through this man's entire filmography quickly, if L'Âge d'Or is a good example of his work then it will take years to fully appreciate such a canon. Right now my only solid reaction to the film is that I want to see it again. I'm sure some will find it boring or overly bizarre, but I found it mostly riveting, some of the extensive 'party' sequences were somewhat boring, but they didn't stay that way for long. There are some very shocking moments in the film from the beginning Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) . All of this is connected, but I'm only beginning to piece things together, I'm fairly sure that the beginning sequence with people and the final sequence are supposed to be the same people, but seen through the perspective of others at the beginning (brutal starving animals) and their own perspective at the end (as high cultured priests). and the deliberate Christ imagry was very disturbing. You can definitly sense that this was made with Salvador Dali, the surrealism is intense, and like his paintings I think will require some bit of reflection to fully appreciate.

What I liked best about the film though was probably the beautiful melding of silent cinema technique (which was a glorious art that has been all but replaced with a more realist style) and dialouge when appropriate. I find it tragic that films did not really continue on the silent traditions of acting; it's not pantomine, a film such as this shows it to be much, much more--a highly evocative art form, and an acting style I often find more effective than traditional stage style or as effective as a good method actor. The cinematography was truly spectacular, I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for the possibility that this might screen in LA, as I would love to see a 35mm print of this, even a beat up, near disasterous print would look far, far superior to one of the most noisy video transfers I've ever seen (watched a VHS tape).

The cow/ox was probably the highlight of the movie though!

Adam

Always glad to see another come into the Buñuel fold. I don’t think that this film is necessarily representative. Certainly his later films were much more accessible. But they retained to the last certain surrealistic elements. For example in That Obscure Object of Desire, he casts two actresses in the same part, who don’t really bear any particular physical resemblance to each other. He uses them in different scenes throughout the movie, but with no discernable reason as to why one is used instead of another in any particular situtation.

And the claim is made in the Criterion DVD extras that there is no reason.

He made a number of films in Mexico, that are generally not available and are not supposed to be of the first order.

I’ve only seen excerpts of a couple and would definitely like to see one or two complete ones.

You’ve been reading a lot of stuff about crime don’t pay. Don’t be a sucker. That’s for small-timers. Not for people like us.

James Cagney’s advice to Ann Sheridan in

Angels With Dirty Faces,

which was on TCM last night. And at time that did not require my usual time-shift. A real treat to see Cagney in his prime, teamed with Bogart as a crooked lawyer and Pat O’Brien (did he make a career of playing priests?), The film is weakened by its ending and meanders a bit, but the acting and the streets of New York are pure gold.

Another 30s film with a social agenda. But an entertaining agenda.

How is the film weakened by its ending?

I thought that Cagney’s character was not consistent when he turned into the ‘yellow rat’ at the end. It seemed to me that even though he had plenty of moments of humanity, his essential character, with the pride and ego he displayed would not have allowed him to ‘weaken’ (in his eyes).

I could by that the priest would make the effort, just not that Cagney would change his mind or that (even if he did) that it would do any good.

Also, in some places towards the end, I felt that the tone of the movie changed to make its social commentary way too obvious. Much better (imo) to let the ‘facts’ speak for themselves.