Forbidden Fruit (1921).

Review #1880: Forbidden Fruit.

Cast: 

Agnes Ayres (Mary Maddock), Clarence Burton (Steve Maddock), Theodore Roberts (James Harrington Mallory), Kathlyn Williams (Mrs. Mallory), Forrest Stanley (Nelson Rogers), Theodore Kosloff (Pietro Giuseppe), Shannon Day (Nadia Craig), and Bertram Johns (John Craig) Directed by Cecil B. DeMille (#1245 - The Squaw Man (1914), #1371 - Unconquered, #1697 - Why Change Your Wife?)

Review: 

Sometimes I think I haven't been quite fair with Cecil B. DeMille. Imagine being only the 119th director to have at least four films covered on Movie Night, you might. The man made seventy movies and had a reputation for scale and showmanship, yet here we are with something from his most proficient era, the silent times (the religious films are ones I can kick the can on for a couple more years). This was actually a remake of a film he had directed in 1915 called The Golden Chance, which he co-wrote with Jeanie Macpherson. She had collaborated with DeMille on countless movies in the era when she had approached him at Lasky Studios over she could act in his features (apparently, she also served as one of his mistresses). At any rate, the director made dramas, comedies, Westerns, morality plays, you get the idea; it only makes sense to go back to familiar material that worked out before, since it wasn't like people could just go back and watch the earlier movie. Yes, this is basically a riff on the Cinderella story, what with it being about a (married) seamstress being turned into a pretty woman in gorgeous gowns to serve as an escort to a man at a dinner party that sees them both fall for each other. You know who really liked the movie? Alfred Hitchcock, who cited it as one of his favorites in 1939 (he also stated Saturday Night (1922), also done by DeMille, as his favorite).  

So okay, it is a bit of a melodrama romance. Did I mention there is also a conniving butler who plans to rob them? Or that he joins up with the drunken husband of the leading lady? That, plus the extortion attempt is what makes up a very curious experience for a film. I can't say that it is great by any measure, because it certainly has moments to uh, make light of (try reading the title cards about husbands and wives out loud and you see what I mean), but it is still pretty solid for what ends up on screen for 87 minutes. It isn't as offbeat in mindset like Why Change Your Wife? (1920), but it has all of the DeMille touches in imagination with its views on love, complete with dream sequences imitating Cinderella and birds being killed by shoes being thrown. These antics are more interesting than a good chunk of the actors in the movie, who are just fine. Ayres shows a few of the demands required in basic emotions of love and pain that comes and goes. Burton makes a quality lout, one fitting the bill for what is needed in ways that you can see the decayed essence of a person with someone to play off of (hell, there's a scene where dollar bills are imposed on his eyes). Roberts and Williams do well in basically playing discount fairy godparents (again, this Cinderella story is their doing, but only because getting oil deals is important), complete with guiding our lead to the right fork to use in dinner that is pretty funny. Stanley kind of gets lost in the shuffle with minimal describing factors. Look, it is the kind of movie that hones plenty of things that would seem familiar to soap opera enjoyers, which can make for an interesting experience if one has the patience for it. DeMille knows what he likes when it comes to certain viewpoints about the ideals of love and how to show it visually. Sure, one knows where the road is going to lead when it comes to these kinds of movies, but it sure makes for a worthwhile ride to go on. Thankfully, with the public domain, one can see for themselves just what happens when you play a bit of Cinderella on the melodrama, so if it seems up your speed, perhaps take a ride with DeMille if it seems like something to view from a name in classic cinema.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Okay, there is a sort of theme I am planning with the month of September, albeit on a "Stuff to do" basis, covering movies from directors that haven't had as much coverage on Movie Night as others have had...that and one other movie I've been looking forward to. Enjoy the ride...

The Son of the Sheik.

Review #1726: The Son of the Sheik.

Cast: 

Rudolph Valentino (Ahmed / The Sheik), Vilma Bánky (Yasmin), George Fawcett (Andre), Montagu Love (Ghabah), Karl Dane (Ramadan), Bull Montana (Ali the Mountebank), Bynunsky Hyman (Pincher the Mountebank), and Agnes Ayres (Diana, The Sheik's Wife) Directed by George Fitzmaurice.

Review:  

“Women are not in love with me but with the picture of me on the screen. I am merely the canvas on which women paint their dreams.”

It is interesting to consider the lasting legacy that comes from a film like this, one with numerous aspects to consider. For one thing, it is one of the earliest examples of something that seems quite common now: the sequel. Believe it or not, folks did not exactly yearn for franchises and endless adventures with the same folks back in the silent era. Of course, this isn't to say that sequels were entirely void in that time, since there were quite a few novel sequels to various works (Tarzan, the Oz series, you get the idea); by the time of the mid 1920s, the movie industry had a glut of demand for features from audiences that producers were at a task to re-produce with formulas to keep the folks entertained (one producer once compared turning out films to being like a frozen custard machine). One must consider how this relates to Valentino, of course. All knowledgeable folks of film know Valentino came to prominence from the shadows of menial jobs (like dancing) and bit parts with The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921), and the release of The Sheik (based on the novel of the same name by E. M. Hull) that same year cemented his lover image into the eyes of many viewers. Fame, as one might expect, does not mean long lasting success, obviously. Valentino soon developed a hatred of the sheik image (one that women loved but men hated, go figure), and he found himself unhappy in his own love life (which included a bigamy charge) that crashed right with having troubles with Famous Players-Lasky that included a strike and lingering debts (which meant that he did not do a film in 1923). At any rate, Valentino may have hated the image that made him the "Latin lover" icon, but he needed to work. What better way to do a comeback for United Artists than to make a film that touched upon his earlier success? After falling out with Lasky, he landed with UA and starred in The Eagle (1925), which was a fair hit. Besides, Hull had already written a second Sheik book (The Sons of the Sheik, written in 1925), so UA had to just task Frances Marion (one of the most prominent female screenwriters of the 20th century) and Frédérique De Grésac (a French librettist, playwright and screenwriter) with adapting it to a film, while George Marion Jr was tasked with titles (Paul Gerard Smith was left un-credited). At the helm as director was Frenchman George Fitzmaurice, who went from being a set designer to director by the time of 1914, and he would direct dozens of features until his death in 1940. 

Of course, the other thing to talk about is the fact that this was the last film to star Valentino. The film was ready for showing in the big cities by July of 1926, and he soon went on a tour across the country to promote the film. On August 15, however, he collapsed in his hotel room; eight days later, having had surgery for a perforated ulcer that led to peritonitis after surgery, he died, at the age of 31). When the film was finally released nationwide, it became a huge hit, riding on the outpouring of grief shown by saddened followers of Valentino (which ranged from riots to hysterics to a fake honor guard for his funeral). Sudden deaths of stars isn't exactly uncommon, but there certainly weren't many that inspired this kind of reaction from folks. It was filmed in Hollywood and Arizona with sweltering heat and production design from William Cameron Menzies. With this, one can at least say that Valentino went out with a film worthy of his lasting image of being the dashing man to dazzle curiosity that was more than the sum of the parts that inhibited his prior Sheik effort. It is no better or worse than what had happened five years prior, mostly because the one difference really is the fact that he plays dual roles. He liked the art of movie-making and he even provided a few costumes to use along with doing his own stunts with this feature, one that certainly doesn't play on as many stereotypes as the original had (namely because the original work was already controversial with its depiction of rape) while being shorter to sit through at 68 minutes. The only other actor to return for this film was Ayres (who by this point had been cutting down on film roles in favor of stock holdings and married life), who has a few brief moments to share with Valentino (looking fairly well with the aged makeup, at least) while he gets to be paired with Banky (whom he had starred with in his previous effort with UA). He might not have liked the role, but he certainly fit well with what was needed for the sensibility of the time with drawing romance without having to do too much (or speak) to get it. He draws one in with plenty of glare and energy required to keep interest for a movie that isn't particularly interested in anything other than a cursory romance/adventure. Sure, him and Banky do seem to have a fair rapport with each other, but this is a case of fair returns of getting what you expect rather than anything more than "diverting" - it may seem goofy, it may seem a bit off-kilter, but it ticks all the boxes of serviceability without fuss or any embarrassment. It is a romp, pure and simple, but it is a likeable one that moves on each plot point with a fair beat and no dull lulls (which includes fair work from Menzies, who made an involving set with desert that doesn't seem entirely phoned in) that works with what Valentino did best in allure. It isn't his greatest feature, but it is certainly one that served as a worthy capstone for a man made for the time and place of the silent era.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Sheik (1921).

Review #1318: The Sheik.

Cast: 
Rudolph Valentino (Sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan), Agnes Ayres (Lady Diana Mayo), Ruth Miller (Zilah), George Waggner (Yousaef), Frank Butler (Sir Aubrey Mayo), Charles Brinley (Mustapha Ali), Lucien Littlefield (Gaston), Adolphe Menjou (Raoul de Saint Hubert), and Walter Long (Omair) Directed by George Melford.

Review: 
It is interesting to see where a career can go when it comes to a person's legacy. What does one think when they see the name of Rudolph Valentino? They see a matinee idol, a person who became a romantic symbol for Hollywood whose star rose like a comet and vanished just as quickly, with a leading career that lasted less than a decade. He had gotten his start in films as an extra after emigrating to the United States from Italy in 1913, with his debut allegedly being in a lost film named My Official Wife (1914). His major break was the film The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921), which occurred after June Mathis had discovered him during one of his extra appearances. In any case, the film proved to be a major success, making him into a star overnight. He appeared in four further films in that same year, but this is the one that would help seal his reputation and image as a "Latin lover" for the rest of his brief career. This was an adaptation of the 1919 romance novel of the same name by Edith Maude Hull and was adapted for the screen by Monte M. Katterjohn. It should be noted that James Kirkwood, Sr was the original choice for the title role before he declined due to salary concerns. Valentino had jumped studios to do this film (done at Paramount), feeling less than satisfied with Metro Pictures (who you may recognize from their 1924 merger with Goldwyn Pictures and Louis B. Mayer Pictures to make Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer).

In any case, one wonders how this desert romance holds up when looked at through the lens of a near century since its release. The immediate thought that went through my head before viewing it was "Stockholm syndrome" (involving someone developing a psychological alliance with captors during captivity). If one views it as a period piece, perhaps one can find a bit of surreal enjoyment, particularly for a film that even uses one of its final title-cards to say that its title character is actually European (English/Spanish, actually, but whose counting?). Look, the film is a bit weird. However, it cannot be denied that there is still a bit of fiery staying power for this film, having a hypnotically passionate Valentino that rises above being billed second to Ayres (whose career also started with small roles in 1914) to make something that keeps the eyeballs focused on something that teeters on corniness while trying to fit into escapism. Ayres does fine, although one might think the romantic angle was more of a tease than anything (the novel was far more controversial with its duo involving rape and plenty of stereotypes, so imagine the studio trying to be careful with the censor boards). The others are okay, in the same way that they certainly look like they want to be there making gestures and seem useful to something that seems mildly ready to inspire passion for 80 minutes. The film is fairly diverting enough to overcome its rickety foundations, where one can look at its main stars without it seeming completely off-putting or ridiculous. There were two more films involving the Sheik, with The Son of the Sheik (1926) starring both Valentino (in a double role that proved to be his last before his death that same year) and Ayres. A comedic role reversal named She's a Sheik with Bebe Daniels was released the following year. This is one of those unlikely films that finds a place in movie history. One wonders how it would've endured if was made in any other time other than the early 1920s, such as if it was made seven years earlier or later, but there is something mystical about it attracts attention even after nearly a century. Valentino may have lived as an idol for only five years, but his mark still comes through today as someone to look at on the screen.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.