Why Change Your Wife?

Review #1697: Why Change Your Wife?

Cast: 

Gloria Swanson (Beth Gordon), Thomas Meighan (Robert Gordon), Bebe Daniels (Sally Clark), Theodore Kosloff (Radinioff), Sylvia Ashton (Aunt Kate), Clarence Geldart (The Doctor), Mayme Kelso (Harriette), Lucien Littlefield (Butler), and Edna Mae Cooper (Maid) Directed by Cecil B. DeMille (#1245 - The Squaw Man (1914) and #1371 - Unconquered)

Review: 

“I love to take some vitally interesting theme and work it out according to life. That is what I am doing with Why Change Your Wife? These themes I am toiling on do a damn lot of good.”

Cecil B. DeMille made seventy feature films over the course of a four decade career, but one would probably be surprised to know that 52 of them were silent films. Sure, the sound features would play a key part in defining him as a crowd-pleasing director with scale and showmanship, but one can't get there without doing a few other kind of films in between for the Massachusetts native. This was the fourth film featuring Swanson directed by DeMille, which started with Don't Change Your Husband (1919) and ended with The Affairs of Anatol (1921). It happens to be part of a string of films that DeMille made involving marriage, although reading a description of the former film (prosaic husband, romantic wife) might make this seem a bit clearer. Of course, this film had a story done by William C. deMille (Cecil's older brother, who unlike his brother did not alter his name) while Sada Cowan and Olga Printzlau wrote the scenario. You may or may not be surprised that this is generally labeled as both a comedy and a drama. Consider the premise: a couple gets tired of each other and divorce each other before eventually falling in love again even with one of them being re-married. Of course, there are a few things that make this a bit interesting, starting with the character played by Swanson, described as someone whose "virtues are her only vices". By the sixth minute, a intertitle is shown that has her character gripe about her husband spending money on wine when one could be thinking about the starving millions in Europe. Her attempts at being a real goody goody extend to music choices, having a dog/not having a dog in the house, clothing, even sleeping next to each other in little separate halved beds. Amusingly, she is inspired to dress better not because of her divorced husband or because of a friend advising her to (we don't see anybody who looks like a friend to either of these folks, so one could just assume these people either don't have friends or they don't get involved in said stuff), but instead because she hears gossipers mocking her looking like her aunt. A myriad of weird events lead to a conclusion that I'm sure you already know, since this actually seems more like a DeMille instructional manual, but I suppose each lead learns a lesson about being a better spouse...well, I guess Swanson learns more than Meighan, but whatever.

So here we are with Swanson, Meighan, and Daniels. Really when you think about it, they seem to have an energy that could be seen as prescient to the screwball comedy that would come across a few years later, or even movies like Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941, although that divorce movie involved a love triangle with two guys). Swanson gets to play a bit of a double act in terms of balancing "goodliness" with daring charm, which just means that one gets a few chuckles, such as when she is sitting at the pool turning suitors away or when she does the old dangerous substance-in-the-eye wash trick. Meighan pulls enough in the mild bewildered act of dopey straight man to make it work without too many hitches, making sure that one does not grow annoyed at the potential annoyed amusement at someone striking out twice in marriage. This was the third feature role for Daniels, who had moved on from doing short subjects to doing contract work for DeMille. She plays the contrast to Swanson fairly well, peppy in her own way with flaws just as the other two that are interesting when paired with Meighan for (somewhat obvious) moments; each share a scene where one is trying to shave but is foiled by interruptions (because hey, that one bathroom is big enough for the two of us), and it is a bit amusing on the second run). Basically, you get to see how romance can go when piety and superficiality loom over it; either one is a "think of the children!" type or a loose woman...with this film, the latter seems more interesting, but I'm probably more familiar with pious hypocrites than either stereotype here - this is 1920, so consider that along with it.

DeMille made plenty of movies considered to be crowd-pleasers, and this fits that description to a T, although one's mileage may vary depending on how much curiosity they have on the subject of folks learning a lesson about marriage. Honestly, it is the intertitles that might generate more chuckles, if only because of how strange their details get with describing things (one ends with "optically a pippin", really). that either range from being one sentence too long or other various words. I especially admire this one card in minute eight, talking about the "husband's eternal problem" that uses the "-" three times while going on about what he's going to do and the "bad luck of a married man" he has in picking the shop; consider minute 39 with the idea of a mysterious force that gets people together who think of one another that they say "fools call it coincidence"...yeah, I think the writer is messing with the viewer. I especially like the times during the dialogue where certain words are underlined, but the nail on the coffin is near the end when the main two are on a train, where one intertitle talks about if this was fiction, there would be a train wreck or a terrible car accident (!), but in real life ("if it isn't a woman", right), something like a banana peel will change a guy's destiny. Either one is thinking the writers have decided to act out some gripes with themselves or others (some sort of weird therapy or perhaps a predecessor to further personal movies years later), or they are in the mindset of details, details, details (of course, maybe slipping on a banana peel didn't seem quite familiar in 1920). In the end, it is a 90 minute tale that will either entertain your curiosity for what DeMille and company accomplished in its blend of amusement and romance, or one simply will let it pass them by. For me, it is an okay movie, a strangely entertaining movie for some of the right reasons that makes for a very curious affair, one that passes a bit better in the second half while the intertitles manage to befuddle the audience. At any rate, this is in the public domain, so one can see for themselves if they want to encounter this film and its director for a century-old time.

Well, this is technically part of a new project. In coverage of Movie Night from 1921 to 1949, there exists eighteen years in which there are not at least ten reviews for said year (i.e. with this review, 1920 now has ten reviews one can look at). As such, I will commit a small part of my time to picking films from that era to increase the year output over the next few months; for example, 1929 has just five films that were reviewed by me. This "Count to Ten Project" will run as long as I see fit (incidentally, the 1910s will have their own certain project at some point this year).

On the board for the Count to Ten Project:

1921: 5, 1922-23: 8 each, 1924: 9, 1926: 7, 1929: 5

1930: 6, 1931: 9, 1934: 4, 1935: 5, 1936-37: 6, 1938: 5

1940-41: 8 each, 1944: 7, 1948-49: 8 each

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

42nd Street.

Review #1340: 42nd Street.

Cast: 
Warner Baxter (Julian Marsh), Bebe Daniels (Dorothy Brock), George Brent (Pat Denning), Ruby Keeler (Peggy Sawyer), Guy Kibbee (Abner Dillon), Una Merkel (Lorraine Fleming), Ginger Rogers (Ann Lowell), Ned Sparks (Barry), Dick Powell (Billy Lawler), Allen Jenkins (Mac Elroy, the stage manager), and Edward J. Nugent (Terry) Directed by Lloyd Bacon (#562 - It Happens Every Spring and #898 - Larceny, Inc)

Review: 
"Sawyer, you're going out a youngster, but you've got to come back a star!"

For the 1930s, the musical had numerous phases of development. Film had gone a long way from musical short films in the earlier half of the 1920s to The Jazz Singer (1927) to The Broadway Melody (1929) and so on, with ones even done in color. However, the craze of doing musicals had stalled quickly in 1931, owing to over-saturation in the market. Of course this small lull would not last long, it just needed some evolution. One key figure in contributing the remedy was Busby Berkeley. By the time of the 1920s, he had already been a field artillery lieutenant in World War I before becoming a dance director and choreographer on Broadway musicals such as A Connecticut Yankee, which were known for their complex choreography. His film choreography career started with Whoopee! (1930), and he would soon be known for his distinct arrangements, which were usually large and/or geometric, complete with a "parade of faces" (kind close-ups of chorus girls distinctly). Berkeley spent 1933 on several films (including his directorial debut with She Had to Say Yes), with Footlight Parade (also directed by Bacon), Gold Diggers of 1933, and this film all turning out to be major successes for Warner Bros, each of which ranking in the top ten in the box office for 1933. His career would continue for the rest of the decade, serving as both choreographer and director on several films, with his last credit being Billy Rose's Jumbo (1962). Who better to do a film like this than Lloyd Bacon, who had previous experience in musical films such as The Singing Fool (1928). The film, as you might expect, is adapted from a novel of the same name by Bradford Ropes, with the screenplay from Rian James, James Seymour, and Whitney Bolton, while Harry Warren and Al Dubin contributed the music and lyrics, respectively. This material would later turn into a hit musical for Broadway in 1980, which ran for nine years.

All of this background material goes to show what you can say about an interesting film when your curiosity is stimulated. This is an entertaining backstage musical, full of rough ambitious energy with a game ensemble cast (a mix of established actors and newcomers) and a reasonable pace at 89 minutes that finds time for some fairly charming songs and a bit of plot to go with it. Simply put, it is a prime musical for its era, lively without seeming too stagey that had plagued other musicals before. Baxter carries the ship with careful control, a man filled with desperate energy that is burning to the last flicker of a waning flame, a familiar type if you've ever seen someone trying to manage people to some form of success. Daniels does reasonably well with her role, doing a fair bit of dancing and having fair chemistry with Brent, who pulls the thin romance off just fine for what is needed. Keeler shows enough spunk for a film debut (her first film appearance had been a cameo in Show Girl in Hollywood three years prior) to make you interested in her path and see her sing her way through. Kibbee certainly works fine with bluster for the brief time one sees him speak. Merkel and Rogers deliver a chuckle or two before doing their part on the stage with singing. In any case, the real spectacle of the show is Berkeley's choreography, most notably with a tracking shot done between the legs of the dancers until it reveals Powell and an un-credited Toby Wing. Other highlights include the "Shuffle Off to Buffalo" sequence, a catchy tune that soon shows a train compartment opening up to reveal plenty more cast mates behind it while showing a shot of the orchestra and audience viewing it (or at least that's what the camera wants you to see). The black backgrounds help when showing the geometric part of the dance numbers, which are quite a treat when seeing this sleek execution work out magnificently. The film certainly tries to capture the grind of its decade when relating to hard struggle of exhausting work and commitment to a craft that one hopes comes to fruition with adulation and not crushing failure, which is made clear with its carefully crafted last scene, with a drained director quietly listening some of the patrons opinions by himself. Sure, he overcame tough odds, but all the opinions are about how he "supposedly" will take credit for the show and discovering the new star, since "some guys get all the breaks". In the end, the film is one that resonates just as well back then as it does now in its basic tenants: that one can make it with enough talent, luck and flat out hard work for the chance at some success to be proud of. It works with Depression-era crowds and it can still work with those curious at heart now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Maltese Falcon (1931).

Review #395: The Maltese Falcon.

Cast
Bebe Daniels (Ruth Wonderly), Ricardo Cortez (Sam Spade), Dudley Digges (Casper Gutman), Una Merkel (Effie Perine), Robert Elliott (Dundy), Thelma Todd (Iva Archer), Otto Matieson (Joel Cairo), Walter Long (Miles Archer), and Dwight Frye (Wilmer Cook) Directed by Roy Del Ruth.

Review
As it turns out, the 1941 film version of the Dashiell Hammett novel was not the first adaptation, as this 1931 film was made first, though it would soon languish into obscurity, even being called Dangerous Female after the 1941 film was released. But my question before watching was would it be any good. And...it's not exactly good, but it has some sort of merit. Trying to compare this and the 1941 film is liking trying to compare a work of art by Picasso to a painting by a beginner, it's just not fair to compare because as I said in my review of the 1941 film, "The film has a style to it that helps the film makes its case for a good film, if not already from the acting. The story's good, making you interested in it for the entirety of the film." From what I've heard, the two films are pretty close to the novel, different in some ways, and this version feels like the 1941 version, but not too much. Maybe it's just me, but when I was watching I thought I heard a crackly noise that kept going in the background for the rest of the film, but that could just be me. The actors are alright, and the sets do look well. The film shows its age at points, and while this isn't a great film in most sense, this at least should watched once, either before or after the 1941 film. Take this for it's worth, no matter the consequences. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.