New Orleans.

Review #1047: New Orleans.

Cast: 
Arturo de Córdova (Nick Duquesne), Dorothy Patrick (Miralee Smith), Marjorie Lord (Grace Voiselle), Irene Rich (Mrs. Rutledge Smith), John Alexander (Col. McArdle), Billie Holiday (Endie), Louis Armstrong (Himself), Richard Hageman (Henry Ferber), Jack Lambert (Biff Lewis), Bert Conway (Tommy Lake), Joan Blair (Constance Vigil), with Woody Herman and His Orchestra, Zutty Singleton (Drums), Barney Bigard (Clarinet), Kid Ory (Trombone), Bud Scott (Guitar), Red Callender (Bass), Charlie Beal (Piano), Meade Lux Lewis (Piano), and Mutt Carey (Trumpet) Directed by Arthur Lubin.

Review: 
A film with Louis Armstrong and Billie Holliday? Admittedly, that is a pretty good way to attract interest in a film, particularly one that titles itself after the city that help create jazz. However, if you are looking for a good musical showcase, you may find yourself a bit disappointed. The film is a love story - between a high society girl and a casino owner, while being a fictionalized version of the rise of blues. The biggest problem with the movie is that it falls prey to relying on its conventional story parts more than its musical talents. It's not so much that the main two leads (de Cordova and Patrick) are awful or anything, it's just that they aren't particularly inspiring people for the energy that the movie looks like it should have. Holiday (in her only film role) and Armstrong (who had appeared in numerous films prior to this one) prove to be more entertaining than the duo in part because they aren't bound down to the plot-line so heavily.

I'm reminded of Stormy Weather (1943, #841), which also featured African American performers. In that film, the plot wasn't anything too particularly inspiring, but it also never managed to find itself in the way of showing the musical talents. One could also cite other musicals that featured numerous talents with plots that weren't as flimsy as what New Orleans does. It could've been a love letter to jazz, but it instead feels like a half-hearted note. For a film that is as mediocre as it gets, the musical parts with Armstrong and Holiday are top-notch, being quite beautiful and engaging. The film runs at 90 minutes, which isn't a bad length. Would I recommend it? I suppose that if one can recommend watching awful movies in order to see it to believe it, I guess that recommending this for its musical bits and not much else is okay. It won't garner a positive review, but it will merit a honorable mention at least.

Happy Mardi Gras folks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Bardelys the Magnificent.

Review #1015: Bardelys the Magnificent.

Cast: 
John Gilbert (Bardelys), Eleanor Boardman (Roxalanne de Lavedan), Roy D'Arcy (Châtellerault), Lionel Belmore (Vicomte de Lavedan), Emily Fitzroy (Vicomtesse de Lavedan), George K. Arthur (Sainte-Eustache), Arthur Lubin (King Louis XIII), Theodore von Eltz (Lesperon), and Karl Dane (Rodenard) Directed by King Vidor (#987 - Show People)

Review: 
Based on the same novel of the same name by Rafael Sabatini, this is a light-hearted romantic movie that manages to be fairly riveting entertainment. It isn't a great grand classic kind of silent film, but it is at the very least fairly memorable, with some of that credit going to main actor John Gilbert. He comes off as fairly charming along with appealing to watch on screen, having an appeal that keeps the movie on its heels because of how he is, particularly with the climax. Boardman is fairly decent and appealing to watch, with the sequence between the two on a boat ride being particularly noteworthy. D'Arcy is an effective villain, having the smarmy and tricky expressions needed for the role, being a capable villain in his own right. The rest of the cast is also fairly acceptable. For those wanting to know more about the sequence, Vidor stated in his autobiography that the camera was mounted in the bow of the rowboat, with gliding along a corridor of willow branches that passed over the camera lens across the two actors. The inter-titles by Dorothy Farnum are also pretty effective, having some wit along with fitting the movie pretty well.

If you like silent films, this one is a fairly acceptable one to watch, with this one only recently becoming more known. After the movie had been made, the rights to the novel belonged to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) for ten years. After the rights had expired, they destroyed the negative along with any known prints of the film, and it was believed to have been lost, with only the trailer and a brief part that had been shown in Show People (1928) surviving. In 2006, a print of the movie was found in France, with all but one reel surviving. A restoration was done using stills from the production and footage from the trailer as stand-ins for the missing parts, with a release onto the markets following two years later. Ultimately, this is a movie with a fine amount of production value along with a fine pace (with a run-time of 90 minutes) that surely makes it a useful watch for audiences looking for something usefully interesting.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.