"The HTF 100 Great Films of the 1930's Challenge" - Page 14

I've seen four films since my last update:

A Night at the Opera A-
Topper B-
Monkey Business A-
'G' Men B+

It’s been a while since I posted here, watched:

Olympia 1 & 2 – Some wonderful photography. After the artistic openings of both films they both become a dry box score account of the individual events. The first one more so since it only covers track and field. The English narration was quite humorous when the competitors failed or got eliminated. Not something I can watch too many times but a landmark for historic value.

Rembrandt – Not my favorite biopic from this period. It’s an average film that I really couldn’t get into. Charles Laughton does give a wonderful performance.

Captain Blood –
Topper –
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde –
After looking at it these three films evoke about the same thought with each. I enjoyed all of them greatly and would probably watch all or part if I came across them on TCM. While each of them have wonderful individual parts they are all overshadowed by better, classic adventure films, comedy films, or horror films that are also on this list.

Little Women – I was actually watching this when I refreshed Yahoo and read that Katharine Hepburn died. I was surprised to find this film very entertaining and enjoyed it to the end. Very fine acting throughout.

Modern Times, Chaplin’s not-so-silent, silent discourse on man’s post-industrial revolution alienation. The assembly line sequence never fails to impress, especially the little tramp’s continued twitching after the line stops. And no further comment is needed when the buxom woman with the two buttons walks down the street.

Saw a few more:

-39 Steps B+
-Angels With Dirty Faces A-
-Grand Illusion C+

For Grand Illusion, does anyone know of a good reading (preferably on-line) so I can understand why this is supposed to be such a great film?

The extras on the Criterion DVD are quite good, especially the commentary by Peter Cowie. If you have not listened to this commentary, you might get some insight. If you have already listened to that, reading likely won’t make you a convert as to why this film is on most ‘best’ lists, although it might well convince you of its importance in cinema history.

The best book on Renior’s films I know (and I admit that my knowledge is pretty limited) is Jean Renoir, a collection of essays and crtiticisms edited by François Truffaut and André Bazin. I’m pretty sure that it is in print and I’d expect that most reasonable libraries would have a copy.

I’m not sure of the Grand Illusion or Jean Renior entries in The Film Encyclopedia, by Ephraim Katz, but based on past experience you should find some good information in that source as well.

Aside from the technical mastery exhibited by Renior in this film and its influence on later films, I (and I don’t pretend that this is original insight) find Renior’s humanity is what makes this film great and sets it apart. He deals with several themes: obviously the replacement of the aristocracy by the common man, how much similar people across cultures have in common with one another and how those with dissimilar backgrounds learn to adjust to one another and work together.

I could write a whole lot about this film and why I think that it is a masterpiece, but I do acknowledge that there are many who do not share this view.

posted in wrong thread

The Invisible Man - better than some in the genre, but still too over the top for me.

Saw The Lady Vanishes and realized I probably saw it before but had forgotten it. As much as I admire Hitchcock, this is probably not one of his best, but still pretty good.

15 to go.

Rob

Topper -

A solid comedy that was quite enjoyable to watch, but nothing especially great about it. Lots of fun gags, but the humor at times made me uncomfortable, and I suppose I just don't see what is a good deed about pretty much destroying a good man's life so that he is looser and more hip. Then again Topper didn't really like his life, but I felt that the Kirbys had all the wrong reasons and simply got lucky that things turned out okay for Topper. Ludicrous and cartoonish and I'm taking it much to seriously; especially since I DID enjoy it quite a lot.

Adam

G Men

Not much to say. Pretty standard and unremarkable film, except for the odd opening (taking place in the future), and the portrayal of the FBI really as a bunch of poorly disciplined individuals more than anything else. I mean c'mon, the gang has threatened to break the bad guy out on his way to jail, so the lead FBI guy gets pissed, tells them exactly when he's going and what route, and insists on going by himself, and another FBI guy decides to secretly tail him without telling his boss, to provide backup? As much as I hate J. Edgar Hoover, I don't think he ever let his agents be that stupid.

Everything you wrote George.

It's a Gift - ½

This is the sort of comedy that I suppose really needs to be seen with a rollicking crowd to enjoy. I thought this was somewhat funny, but I felt sorry for WC Fields more than feeling like laughing at him, that and several of the jokes seemed to just be stretched waaaaaay to far, especially when you're not already laughing. I can appreciate, that these would just build and build were you laughing, but I wasn't, I was alone, and the slapstick just didn't appeal to me at all. Then again, I've never been one for laughing at other's pain or idocy, I've always found it painful to sit through because I have a tendancy to completely empathize with the main character (and then get upset when they put themselves in dumb situations).

Island of Lost Souls -

Charles Laughton is a God.

!

He positively scared and creeped me out. In the scene just before he gets slugged by Edward, he does this little thing with his eyes, the way he does this little glance, as he says: how long were you planning to stay. Just phenomenal, sold the entire villian in that one look. He alone is more scary than any of the other horror films, and its because he doesn't ham it up but plays it dead straight, which makes it all the better.

There were some other people in here, but they didn't matter so much, standard 30s horror cast and acting style.

Then there is Charles Laughton. I'd like to see this film more than any other 30s horror (I've seen so far) on the big screen as well as own the dvd (if there is one out)

Adam

Finally... FINALLY saw Gone with the Wind. It was excellent and I can't believe it took me all these years to finally watch it: A

Bride of Frankenstein - ½

Probably the best monster movie from the thirties I've seen so far. Truly a sequel that out performs the original. Gorgeous photography, a very nice script and more real motivations for many characters. Much more poigant than the first. Very nicely done, extremely engaging.

Adam

No question that Bride of Frankenstein is the best of the Universal horror films. And one of the best of all time. Just the right amount of ‘archness’.

Monkey Business -

Better than Horse Feathers, but not as sharp as Duck Soup. My third Marx Brothers film, I'm beginning to really get em, and what to expect. So this didn't seem as random because I expected the randomness. However it also seemed to go on for much longer than their other two films, I'm astonished it was a mere 77 minutes, it felt like a good 100.

Leave it to me to question what there's no question of. I think Bride is great, but I do think the original Frankenstein is the best of the Universal horror films.

Still I think we're mostly in agreement about these films Lew.

So do I George. With films like this, it is a matter of degree one way or another. I probably give ’Bride’ an extra point or too for its humor and score, while others might value a bit more the more straighty presented original.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -

The photography was good. I really disliked the way Hyde was realized, okay but not in the least bit affecting. I've never read the original btw. Isn't it supposed to pronounced Jeck-ill, not Jeek-el? Jekyll's final speech dropped this a good half star. The horrid editing in of closeups and extreme closeups of the most lifeless eyes imaginable only serve to underline the non-acting in this film, dropping this another good half star. And with the fun opening tracking shots I was willing to give this film quite a lot of leeway, but it ultimately never takes itself or it's very interesting concept seriously.

Mutiny on the Bounty -

Just after the film completed I sat wondering why this was on the lists. Then it gradually dawned on me of just how perfect and effortless the film was at completely sweeping me away. So much so that I didn't notice the acting, characterization, or script--just excellent even storytelling with no artistic element nudging it's nose in just to show off and distract from the narrative.

That said, upon reflection, this is one hell of an excellently made film. One I would love to see on the big screen. And one I think will grow on me. This is not a flashy or showy great film, there is no fancy camera work or revolutionary editing, or a performance (ala Meryl Streep) that drips with affection so that you never forget this is an ach-tor working. When it comes to unabashed, solid, classical filmmaking, I think that this film is a paragon of an era that is no more. It's representative of a filmmaking style that were it accomplished today it would be derided by the critics as mindless, talentless direction; a film lacking any amount of artistry because there is no auteur to take all the credit and fill the story with meaningless 'artistic' touch that tell the critic there is artistry involved (okay so that's excessive hyperbole, but I do believe that the auteur theory has done quite a bit of harm, especially in modern criticism).

Very enjoyable. Charles Laughton is indeed a God, and the more I see of Clark Gable the more I like him.

Adam

A Night at the Opera -

I enjoyed this Marx Bros film more than any of the others. Perhaps its because I now know what sort of humor to expect, or maybe its because the lyric interludes of Harpo and Chico's playing seem to be better integrated (and they're having a lot of fun doing it) and a little less random. Then again it could be just because about 85% of the gags worked for me. I think this film has more polished humor and never really forces itself to attack the opera. Instead, it uses the locale as a tool to enhance their humor instead of limiting the humor's focus to simply attacking the opera with anarchy (ala Horse Feathers and college). Sharper and funnier than the other Marx films and now that I know what I'm in for, I really should rewatch Duck Soup.

Adam

Ninotchka -

You want to approach me?

Darling, you know I do!

Then do it through my lawyer.

I've noticed I'm a sucker for the Lubitsh touch, and the Wilder touch, and the Hepburn touch (both of them) and so on for any sort of touch one coudl attribute to classic film. Sure Ninotchka is predictable, but it doesn't matter that you know how the end will turn out--it's the journey and the characters that matter most.

And such a passle of wonderful characters, full of a vivid vitality in even the supporting characters that is missing from too many other films. The sheer perfection of the three Russian comrades, or the Grand Duchess, or even the proprieter of the 'workers' restaurant. All wonderfully accomplished, all the while using an invisible hand that crafts everything to maximize your enjoyment and investment in the story. Garbo is simply stunning, absolutely magnificent. The script is perfect. I can't think of a single bad thing to say about this film, and that's saying something!

Adam

Raise the banners…


begins the Horst Wessel song—the singing of which ends Triumph of Will, the propaganda film made by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934, documenting the 1934 Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg. There are some who claim that the cinematography (which remains impressive today) redeems the film and some who feel that the propaganda is so overwhelming that nothing will put this film right.

In the end, it is a bit overlong and repetitive to be effective, but it is well worth studying in order to easily see the effective use of the camera. Plus, it is a must for fans of Star Wars who want to see a direct influence on Lucas.

The Public Enemy has been called James Cagney’s breakthrough film. And to be sure He gives a great performance. But overall the editing of the film is quite clunky as is the plot. Worth seeing, but barely.

Topper

Not a top tier comedy from this time frame, but still a good enough film to be one of the top 100 films of the 30s for me, though not one of the top 100 comedies of all time.

And that would be my take as well George, IIRC—I’ve got this on my Netflix list wo I’ll see soon.

L’Âge d’or the brilliant result of a collaboration between Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí hardly seems controversial viewed today, but I think this is a result of if being difficult to appreciate the depth of criticism that this film leveled at the church, the state, the upper class and the bourgeois—at a time when the appellation was still in common use by the intelligentsia.

But when we actually think about the content of the film (for example Jesus being depicted as one of the corrupt debauchers found in the Marquis de Sade’s work) the film retains it power.

There are many who believe that Swing Time is the best of the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers films, and some of the dancing is fantastic--especially a solo number by Astaire and his three shadows.

But for me, this musical misses the top mark because there is not enough music--although what there is, is first rate. I also think that there is not enough believable interaction among the supporting characters to pull off the plot (and I am one who is not plot critical in films of this nature).

I'll take my chance against the law. You'll take yours against the sea.


The final words from Fletcher Christian to Captain Bligh in Mutiny on the Bounty. Perhaps a bit overdone, but this film is a must-see for Charles Laughton’s masterful performance as the Captain.

The other actors acquit themselves well enough, but it is Laughton’s show.