"The HTF 100 Great Films of the 1930's Challenge" - Page 7

Angels with Dirty Faces

I also caught this on TCM, albeit a day late on tape. This is where having seen few 30s films is an advantage. This is the first film of this type I think I've seen and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The acting is very good. My only other Cagney film is Yankee DD and he hams it up so much there that I was really impressed with is acting in this film.

The ending does change the tone a little but it didn’t bother me. I’ve seen other Code-era films that have a moral ending that bothered me more. Actually, I didn’t give it a second though until I read your post. I guess I’ve seen too many Hollywood films of today where the star has to be redeemed or allowed to live at the end of the film.

I just rewatched Rules of the Game which I saw many years ago.

I was hoping that I'd like it better this time. I didn't, but I'm having a hard time putting into words my feelings about the film.

I feel that if I were French, and especially if I were French circa 1939, that I might like this film a lot. Unlike many other films, this one does not strike me as trying to be deep, but failing. Rather, I think there might be something there, and even humor, but I'm not getting it. It's a wordy film, and reading fast subtitles, which may suffer from translation problems, as well as cultural knowledge I'm lacking from French society of that time, makes me give the film the benefit of the doubt as a work of art, even though it's on my 'not to watch again' list personally.

I saw this on TCM and the host talked about how this related (somehow) to the Nazis and how France dealt with Germany, but again, I just didn't see it.

I think more highly of this film than Grand Illusion, which I think does suffer a bit from the 'trying to be deep' syndrome, but I can't say I really like it, or feel any need to rewatch it again.

You are in for a real treat Chris. Cagney is not talked about much today, but he is a fine, fine actor.

I have also not seen this for many years. As soon as I’m able I’ll re-watch and perhaps engage in a little friendly dialogue. But I need for this to be fairly fresh in my mind in order to discuss with any certitude.

Dinner at Eight -

Kitty Packard: I was reading a book the other day.
Carlotta Vance: ohh?
Kitty: Yeah, and it was about civilzation or something. And you know, this guy he said that ALL the professions in the world would one day be replaced by machines.
Carlotta: Well, I'm sure YOU won't have to worry about that.

This was an interesting film, quite funny, but very brutal and dark at the same time. I laughed at many of the coincidences (not happy coincidences) and then felt bad, because things certainly are not on the way up for these people. There was beautiful interaction among the cast from that magical first seen between Oliver and Carlotta, to the final scenes before everyone arrives at Dinner, such the fight between the Packards and the breakdown of Larry Renault were beautfully done with near flawless performances. This film seems very real, with great characters, terrific writing, "if there's one thing I know it's men. And I should, it's been my life's work.," and some very beautiful direction Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I found this to be a simply wonderful film, and I'm anxious to see the other George Cukor films on the list, since both of his I've seen are in the top five films I've seen since starting this.

Adam

Saw The Black Cat. Better than The Mummy which I saw last week, but not in the same league as Dracula or Frankenstein.

I guess people were scared by this stuff back then but it still seems pretty hokey.

19 to go.

Rob

in my opinion most horror/dread films are all pretty hokey/cheesy. Dracula was pretty much like this, I felt, with over the top acting and a haphazard storyline and characters. However, never discount what seeing a film like this may have been like in a movie palace (although I doubt B pictures rarely played in such venues). With movies like Dracula, the Mummy or others from a genre that depends massively on atmosphere, the importance of seeing a film like this on a massive screen--IN FILM--in a dark auditorium full of people anxious to be entertained cannot mentioned enough. Movies like Dracula cry out to be seen in a group experience on the big screen. I'd say with these sorts of films, more than just about any other genre I can think of, NEED to be seen on the big screen with an audience to be fully appreciated.

Adam

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience, & Observation of David Copperfield the Younger --

I was alternately bored stiff and delighted by this version of David Copperfield. I've read an abridged version when I was nine or so, but haven't been familiar with the story at all since, other than I remembered it all turned out very happily. Ultimately I found the film unsatisfying and haphazard, not nearly as good as Cukor's other two films I've seen. Cukor does an excellent job of placing his distinctive mark on this film, since it is a much darker melodrama than Little Women the cinematography is appropriately much darker, more reminescent of Dinner For Eight, in all the fantastic uses of Lighting was probably the highlight of the film for me, especially just before David's mother dies, the way only his eyes are lit is spectacular, Cukor certainly made excellent use of the black and white canvas in all his films I've seen. However I'm troubled by the strict adherance to the text of the novel in the film. All the more worrisome since I'm unfamiliar with the novel in question, but I could repeatedly tell they were keeping very strictly to the source material, reluctant to leave any significant character out, in the hopes that things will colalesce into a nice movie. So after the initial thirty minutes until his mother dies, we're treated to 100 minutes more of 5-10 minute vignettes, the pace rarely dwadles at any segment, swiftly rushing us along to see the next major significant part of David's life. It's a whirlwind mishmash, an extremely well made film that unfortunately never attempts to take such a naturally episodic story and streamline it into a filmic form. What Lean managed so masterfully to do with Great Expectations and Oliver Twist, Cukor fails to even attempt, creating something akin to the first Harry Potter film which could have benefited from a little more directoral imagination at making the screen vision at least somewhat unique.

That said the performances by the adults in the film were magnificent! WC Fields was incomparable, I found it extrodinarily unfortunate that he had about five-ten minutes of screen time in the short vignette/chapter "David experiences London" of the movie. Aunt Betsy is utterly spectacular, possibly my single favorite moment of the film is her scenes with the step father and his sister. The step father was deliciously evil, and all the sea folk were appropriately charming. Peggitty was a fantastic anchor for the young David throughout the film. The only times I really had a problem with the boys acting was in the excessively maudlin and melodramatic scenes with his mother, in almost all his other scenes he does an outstanding job, especially for the period. He's no Roddy McDowall or Haley Joel Osment, but he turns in a better than average performance. Cukor, I think, did the very smart move of pairing the child with excellent adult actors who strengthen his performance by playing to him.

I found the film to be somewhat enjoyable, though nothing I really want to see again, it absolutely does not come close to David Lean's work on any level (though performance occasionally comes close), and ultimately as a film it fails because it failed to properly adapt the novel.

Why can’t you tell the truth for a change?

I watched

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

for the first time in many years and was more impressed than in my memory. I had remembered this, as nothing but a flag-waving turn on Capra’s little man against all odds movie, (and so it is), but it is so finally realized.

The story of an innocent, sincere man, who is named as a senator from his state after the death of the incumbent, and who almost immediately runs into rampant cynicism, corruption and indifference, but who overcomes all odds and prevails against the tide.

Both Stewart and Jean Arthur (as the seen-everything assistant) are at the top of their form and Capra has assembled a fine supporting cast. Those playing the reporters are in particular a treat as they find time from filing stories from bars to go from making front page fun on Mr. Smith, to outright support.

For those who can suspend their disbelief for a couple of hours, this film has rich rewards.

Dad used to say that the only causes worth fighting for were lost causes.

Indeed.

Holiday - - revised to 3stars on 03/01

I really enjoyed this movie, it was a refreshing change from the dismal David Copperfield and the dark Dinner at Eight. I was initially thinking that it was only a three star movie, but I've decided since I like this film as well as I liked Little Women I might as well give it what it deserves. I was caught up in the film and coudln't tell you a thing about the technical qualities. Cary Grant was simply marvelous, and Katherine Hepburn was a complete dream. I found myself agreeing completely with the philosophy of Case, money isn't important at all, especially if you become obsessed with it. I love the gradual way that we're let down with Julie. The film opens making us very pleased with her and Case being together, and gradually we discover, alongside Case, that the whirlwind romance had left a lot of major blanks in what they knew of each others characters, and it became more and more clear throughout the film that they shouldn't stay together. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

A thorougly enjoyable film, and In my opinion, a Perfect romance.

Adam

No, I’m not a bad man. I’m a very good man. I’m just a very bad wizard.


I re-watched

The Wizard of Oz as it hit my Netflix queue and this film just gets better every time I see it. Not really much to say that has not been said many, many times.


Ding dong, the witch is dead;
Which old witch?
The wicked witch;
Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead!

Trouble in Paradise

Now that's what I'm talking about!!

Since I had already seen most of the movies in this challenge before I got into it, I was concerned that I might not discover any new gems, but Trouble in Paradise made it all worth while.

Great pre-Code dialog traded by a sterling cast. Not just the stars (Kay Francis, Miriam Hopkins, Herbert Marshall) but a terrific supporting cast as well (Charlie Ruggles, E.E. Horton, C. Aubrey Smith). A pre-cursor to the screwball comedies that were about to break onto the scene. What fun!!

18 to go.

Rob

…Only a stranger lost in a storm would have dared to knock on the door of Wuthering Heights.

The voice over begins the opening of the film by the same name.

I don’t believe in ghosts

Ah, do you not? And what gothic tale would be complete without one?

At this point it is pretty clear: you can either suspend your disbelief and go along with Heathcliff and, Cathy for the ride, or scoff throughout and have no fun at all. While I chose the former course and enjoyed the film, it is one of these productions of the era, that, for me fails to strike the right chord.

Wyler does a fair job of catching the right mood, but overall (especially the writing), the film is not nearly so dark, nor the characters so driven as in the novel. By this, I don’t mean that every scene needs to be included in the film, nor that certain things cannot be changed altogether, but the film fails in being able to recreate the core elements of the novel.

So, while taken on its own, it can be enjoyed for the moment, it is, in the end, not a very good adaptation of the novel.

After having made some statements (in polls) about the tight editing of

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

I decided that I ought to quickly see it again, as I might need to make the odd correction.

No need, as what is accomplished in less than 90 minutes is nothing short of amazing. This film is groundbreaking in so many ways, that it hardly bears repeating. If you have not seen this in a while, the new DVD is quite good and has some interesting extras, although they are a bit repetitive and geared (as they should be) towards children. (Best of all there is a lot of mention of Walt slashing out scenes that did not either further develop the characters or advance the plot—something that I’d like to see more of in a great many movies made today.)

The Women -

I've been a woman for fiftyfive years. I know my sex.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, quite saucy and at the same time touching. I was thoroughly relieved that Mary didn't go running back to Steven from the divorce ranch, but that she enjoyed herself for a couple years than took back what was hers when the oppurtunity finally arose. I suppose it would be fairly easy to criticize the film because of characters like Peggy bursting out, "And this time, I'm going to do whatever he says!" when she decides to quit the divorce and go running back to him. I suppose you could make the argument that the film is saying that women should submit to their husbands wishes and quietly go about things the way they were in the 1880's, just ignoring them and making a good go at it anyway. However, I think instead that the film is suggesting what Mary believes, that husband and wife are equals. That a woman, or a man, should not have to put up with infidelity for the sake of saving face, and a man should not be excused his behavior just because every man does it. It also seems to suggest that women can be happily independent, but that love is very powerful, the character of the Countess prove that at the very least, and that sometimes people make mistakes about relationships and declare ultimatums instead of working things out, compromising with each other, or trying to forgive one another. The other view I would imagine this film often gets seems very visible to me, but it also seems to smell of rose scented oil to throw off the code hounddogs and let Cukor make a truly interesting film about marraige with only a minimum of idiotic interference. Reading underneath the code placatements I found the film to be satisfying and touching, with some truly outstanding performances.

That finishes off the Cukor on the list for me, his work along with The Thin Man films was an extrodinary satisfying experience, by and large the films he makes resonate immensely with me, I definitely prefer his precode work to the stuff that came after, and since I think every film on the list is an adaptation of a play or novel (except maybe Holiday, not sure on that one, though it could very easily be a play), I'm definitely interested in what films he made with an original script are like. Regardless of whether or not I liked the film (and four of them I liked) He always got outstanding performances, even out of his children actors, though these performances are somewhat stereotypical of kid actors at the time, they are better than others I've seen, although they don't hold a candle to the realistic and textured acting Roddy McDowell later gave, or the kids that worked for David Lean's Dickens Adaptations. Like John Ford his use of style is very restrained, highly effective when he lets it loose (SPOILER: like the suicide in Dinner at Eight), but for the most part he relies on the story to tell itself and makes his camera technique (which I found very good) to always defer to the situation so that it was supported and not dominated.

Adam

Maybe I am sentimental. What if I am?

A comment made by Longfellow Deeds to some of the literati, as he has become aware that he is being made the butt of jokes, and a position one could say that Capra takes in making a good many of his films. In

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,

Gary Cooper plays the innocent abroad and Jean Arthur is cast as the big city newspaperwoman whose cold heart is melted by Coop’s small town sincerity and honesty.

This is standard Capra fare: a well made romantic comedy with a message. And, as usual there is nothing too subtle in the message. At least Capra lets you know what he is doing, and does it with skill and style.

I watched

The Black Cat

thanks to a TCM time-shift and must say that I can’t figure out the fuss. There is some stylish cinematography and Karloff has a better chance than normal to demonstrate his acting ability.

But no matter, one cliché following another does not for a fine movie make.

And outside of Karloff, the acting ranges from average (Legosi) to mediocre.

Nothing Sacred

is nothing special. An OK comedy/romance that does have a good enough script (Ben Hecht) but everything seems pretty routine and formulistic. The interplay between the reporter and his boss is pretty funny, but the acting (Lombard excepted) is otherwise heavy-handed. It’s not that this is a bad movie, it’s just that there is nothing that memorable.

Well, I got to see Red Dust and Grand Hotel. I have previously seen Mogambo because I have this incredible crush (lasting over 20 years now) on Grace Kelly. I must admit Red Dust is better. I don't think they would get away with the stereotyping that they did back then and it was interesting to see with what they were able to get away with sexually before there was a "code" for such things in movies.

Grand Hotel is a an enjoyable picture but I think it may be a little overrated. It is essentially a 1930's style soap opera but an enjoyable drama nonetheless. Great performances by Garbo and Barrymore.

Although Lombard is priceless in this film (as is Charles Winninger, IMO), I agree to an extent that Nothing Sacred generally falls short of the excellence of its script. The problem as I see it is the frustratingly lifeless direction by William Wellman. It might have been that Wellman felt hampered at the mercy of the meddlesome Technicolor technicians, robbing the production of the mobility required to bring the zany material to life. One gets the impression that had Howard Hawks been at the helm, and the picture been shot in b&w, this could have been one of the greatest screwball comedies of the 30's.

I think we’re pretty much in agreement, Agee. I forgot to mention the good Doctor. Priceless

I think you are correct in your assessment of the use of color. I kept thinking throughout that it should have been in B&W. I just had that feel. I’d not gone so far as to consider that it was a contributor the film not being all it could have been.

I watched

Rembrandt

courtesy of Netflix. A sort of a life of the famous painter picture. A nice period depiction of 17th Century Holland and a fine performance by Charles Laughton in the title role. I have no idea how accurate the portrait, but the film begins with the finish of The Night Watch and it is true that the company who commissioned the portrait were displeased.

The film tries to depict Rembrandt as a force of nature and while Laughton is successful in his depiction, overall the film lacks that which it is trying to bring to the screen. The pace seems too slow and at odds with Laughton’s characterization. I think that this would have benefited from a little tighter editing.

I’ve managed to get to the midpoint of this challenge. My rankings for the second 25 films watched, based on a four point scale, where even two stars is a film worth seeing.

42nd Street
After the Thin Man
Alexander Nevsky
Angels With Dirty Faces
Animal Crackers
Black Cat, The
Blood of a Poet
Blue Angel, The
Freaks
Grand Hotel
Grand Illusion
I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang
Little Caesar
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
My Man Godfrey
Ninotchka
Nothing Scared
Red Dust
Rembrandt
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
The Women
Thin Man, The
Wizard of Oz, The
Wuthering Heights

What frustrates me about Korda's Rembrandt is the impression that it seems to be trying to duplicate the formula from The Private Life of Henry VIII, which earned Laughton (and the British film industry) his first Academy Award and international recognition. Hence, despite the fact that this biopic is ostensibly about a painter, most of Laughton's performance comprises of lengthy, Oscar-friendly soliloquys (albeit beautifully delivered by Laughton). Moreover--infuriatingly--the film allows us to view a mere two specimens of the painter's great art over the entire running time!

Alas, Korda's design did not work, as the film met with indifference overseas, and at the Academy. What we are left with is a decent, beautiful-looking, but frustratingly obtuse biopic about one of history's most fascinating figures.

I've just gotten to the ¼ point of the challenge myself, having no seen 25 films from the nineteen thirties, or 16 new films so far. For a while I thought I might pace Lew in this thing, but it looks like I'll be doing good to get three in a week (probably thursday saturday and sunday). My sig links back to my original post where I'm keeping track of all those I've seen, but to reiterate that here since I"ve reached 25, they are:

List of films seen:

1. City Lights -
2. Grand Illusion -
3. King Kong -
4. Little Caesar - 1/2
5. M -
6. Modern Times -
7. Scarface - 1/2
8. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 1/2
9. Wizard of Oz, The
10. I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang - (12/29/2002)
11. Stagecoach - 1/2 (12/31/2002)
12. 42nd St. - 1/2 (01/03/2003)
13. The Public Enemy - (01/05/2003)
14. The Thin Man - (01/07/2003)
15. Gone With the Wind - 1/2 (01/08/2003)
16. After the Thin Man - (01/08/2003)
17. Little Women - (01/09/2003)
18. Another Thin Man - (01/12/2003)
19. Dracula - 1/2 (01/13/2003)
20. Freaks - 1/2 (01/15/2003)
21. L'Âge d'Or - (01/22/2003)
22. Dinner at Eight - (01/24/2003)
23. The Personal History, Adventures, Experience, & Observation of David Copperfield the Younger - (01/26/2002)
24. Holiday - (01/27/2002)
25. The Women - (02/02/2003)

Adam

I'm going on the road next week and will be so busy that I'll not have time to do anything. You'll be on the rise. Plus we will all get to the point of trying to see Age of Gold, which I think is not even available on VHS. I've only seen excerpts myself (although pretty lengthy ones).

And having written that, I note that you managed Age of Gold. Well done! If I may ask, how did you manage that?

I’m hoping for a screening locally (Dallas) or perhaps one of the movie channels.

I managed to see Age of Gold because I go to USC and we have a cinema library here with some 1600 lasers, 4-5000 vhs, and approaching 1000 dvds , Age of Gold they had, on VHS, but it wasn't in a normal vhs case, but a black rental snap case with no title or anything, I'd have to look to see if the tape itself was from any particular company, but I think that it was legitimate. It was english subtitled btw.

And wouldn't you know that they're showing several films from the list in 35mm this semester, unfortunately most of them are on one of the two nights a week I have work study and can't get away! All of the following thirties films are playing this semester in 35mm for various classes, not sure which ones aren't on the list so I'll just list them all:
AMerican film Comedy course (most of these are double or triple features, it's a 4.5 hour block with 1-2 hrs of lecture each week and then films, unfortunately I'm not taking it and can't get to the screenings except maybe one ):
The Music Box
Horse Feathers
You're Telling Me
The Greeks had a word for them
Employee's entrance
ninotchka
You can't take it with out

I am a Fugitive from a chain gang (I can't wait to rewatch this in 35mm)

Dodsworth
Alice Adams


Adam

Of course Ed won’t want to come to dinner. He doesn’t want to do anything except go to the movies. I’m a Greta Garbo widow.

So begins the planning for

Dinner At Eight

which I caught via a TCM time-shift. This film was an attempt by MGM to recreate the success they had with Grand Hotel and although it is not so well known, is quite the better of the two films, the difference being in George Cukor’s direction, which raises a somewhat mean-spirited story to become a charming romantic comedy.

In fact most of the characters are pretty deficient human beings: the kindly, but ineffectual father who is failing in business, the wife too caught up in her trivial plans to pay attention to either her distressed husband or clueless daughter, that 19-year old daughter who has become smitten with an aging, alcoholic, failing actor, the actor whose false pride will not allow him to take a bit part in a play, the only part available to him, a cheating wife, a cheating husband and on and on.

Cukor gives us enough of a humorous beginning to allow us not to get too deeply into the mire of the second act. The wrap-up at the end is a bit too tidy and leaves a loose end or two, but it happens so fast and ends with such a delightful line that we don’t care.

[Blonde semi-floozy]: This book I was reading the other day by a nutty guy said that one day machinery will take the place of every profession.

[Older, woman who has seen it all, surveying the blonde’s physical attributes and dress]: My dear, that’s something you need never worry about

I agree with that Agee. I suppose that you can’t go to the well too many times.

And I also found it odd that we never got to see the paintings. Other than The Night Watch—I don’t even remember the second one. Or was it one of the self-portraits?