Hard, Fast and Beautiful.

Review #2189: Hard, Fast and Beautiful.

Cast: 

Claire Trevor (Millie Farley), Sally Forrest (Florence Farley), Carleton G. Young (Fletcher Locke), Robert Clarke (Gordon McKay), Kenneth Patterson (Will Farley), Marcella Cisney (Miss Martin), and Joseph Kearns (J.R. Carpenter) Directed by Ida Lupino (#799 - The Hitch-Hiker, #1651 - Never Fear, #1811 - Not Wanted, #1991 - Outrage)

Review: 

"“I’m mad, they say. I am temperamental and dizzy and disagreeable. Well, let them talk. Only one person can hurt me. Her name is Ida Lupino."

You have to understand that Ida Lupino had to work hard to get her films made with as little as trouble as possible as one could do when doing films that were done in production with Collier Young and the distribution that came with this film in RKO. The movie was based on a novel by John R. Tunis (often considered a pioneer in the modern version of the sports story). Some sources have said the source material was his novel American Girl, a 1930 novel. Tunis apparently cited Helen Wills when it came to his fictionalization for a story considering unflattering in what happened to be the only novel that he wrote to be published for adults, as most of his works were quite popular in the kid's market (this idea of it being based on Wills seems curious, as she was described as quite focused on the court at large, which resulted in eight wins at Wimbledon, among other things). However, other sources contend that the story "Mother of a Champion" was an inspiration for the film. The screenplay was written by Martha Wilkerson, who actually was better known as a disc jockey (named "GI Jill") on GI Jive, a radio program that was aired during World War II. This was her only film screenplay, although she did write for a handful of television programs. Eleanor Tennant, cited often as the first female player to turn professional (until 1968, it was more of a thing for people to stay as amateurs because that is where the titles such as Wimbledon were played with), was cited as a technical advisor for the film.

As her fourth film as a director, it certainly has its own edge in looking upon the clash of sincerity and ambition that strikes a bit different from her previous movies about an unwed mother, polio, and rape victim. There are elements here that make one think they are watching a noir that her previous films have done in their own interesting ways when it comes to talking about her intent to do movies with "poor bewildered people" because of what we people are. In this case, we have a bewildered mother that tries to live vicariously through their daughter to get a life better than the one she felt was denied to her. It's the general story one can see in other people's lives when it comes to domineering parents among impressionable youths. Trevor (an Academy Award winning actress for Key Largo [1948], remember) is the ideal presence in domineering obsession that we can wince at with such truthful edge. Her craven pursuits are a human one that isn't just a goofy villain, particularly when sharing scenes with Patterson and his calm patience for such brazen ambition. Forrest appeared in a Lupino film for the third and final time (having appeared in Not Wanted and Never Fear), which also happened to be just before she transitioned to also doing TV roles. She does pretty well here in needing to find one's path beyond obedience to their elders and finding someone (or something) to spend time for themselves. It goes okay in that pairing of Forrest and Clarke is the kind of stuff that is vanilla but totally ideal in being a threat to someone like Trevor when it comes to being the key sphere in one's life. The tennis action is cut pretty well to what one would think would need to be present that is a pretty neat capsule for how it looked in some way for the time made. The ending is, well, take one guess in what happens with a dilemma involving a growing woman having to make her own decision. I do like the closing sequence where a woman sits alone in a vacant stadium, left to ponder the hollowness of the choices made to get to where they are sitting now. As a whole, it is a decent film that belongs squarely with the kind of human interest that Lupino liked to do in her films that will work for its 78 minutes for those who know what they are getting into with her as a filmmaker and as a curiosity as a tennis film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Reefer Madness.

Review #1760: Reefer Madness.

Cast: 
Dorothy Short (Mary Lane), Kenneth Craig (Bill Harper), Lillian Miles (Blanche), Dave O'Brien (Ralph Wiley), Thelma White (Mae Coleman), Carleton Young (Jack Perry), Warren McCollum (Jimmy Lane), Pat Royale (Agnes), Josef Forte (Dr. Alfred Carroll), and Harry Harvey Jr. (Junior Harper) Directed by Louis J. Gasnier.

Review: 
Sure, it doesn't take much to say that a person who has or hasn't used certain substances will have nearly the same view on a film like this. But it helps to know exactly what one is getting into before dozing in on a film like this, which has been colorized and even turned into a stage musical. The film was done apparently as church effort in the mid-1930s with the help of producer George Hirliman. Of course, Dwain Esper soon took over after it had been shot and added "certain" shots to add for the exploitation circuit, which is where the various titles come from that range from "The Burning Question" to "Doped Youth" (the title card will also say it was formely known as "Tell Your Children", so there's that). At any rate, the director for the film wasn't exactly a novice - Louis J. Gasnier (a collaborator on various poverty row films with Hirliman). The Frenchman started work in the film industry at the turn of the 20th century, directing various shorts until he moved to the States in 1910. He is best known for finding the comedian Max Linder along with directing The Perils of Pauline (1914), a popular film serial of its day (along with being one of his few silent films that survive). He was near the end of his directing career (nearing the age of 65, although he did dabble in acting to keep with the bills until his death). The film was written by Arthur Hoerl, who might have been inspired by an actual mass murder spree that was construed as being done by someone under the influence of marijuana (rather than the actual cause, which involved mental illness). 

Of course, the film did not find a second wind of cult popularity until 1972 (helps when there is no copyright notice), since activists like Keith Stroup and a movie distributor (Robert Shaye) found it something worth showing on college campuses...for a laugh. The problem with looking back to the past is that sometimes you get some really boring experiences when it comes to stuff of their time. I'm sure you've seen at least one "morality tale", and I would hope that they actually told you something meaningful, unlike with this film. Hell, if you pay attention to the film, one of the folks who actually "takes the stuff" gets away with a crime. Besides, you don't need me to tell you that taking substances doesn't work the way you see it on the screen, because you can learn that by asking a friend (of course in the absence of that, figure it out). The exploitation folks wanted to make, well, exploitation, so they did it under the guise of "education". The hyperbole isn't hard to see, even if one was drunk on their own supply. Seeing "swell" folks turn into madcap nutters in paranoia, albeit with a few little scenes of stock footage (i.e. newsreel). Honestly, the only interesting presence might be from O'Brien, in the whole "going nuts" thing, although Forte and his droning sequences about the dangers of drugs with "or yours...or yours!" could probably be funnier if one pretends he in fact was on drugs himself. But hey, you'll see "education" at hand with folks running over pedestrians while high, frantic piano playing, and various mild things. As a whole, an hour is a terrible thing to waste unless you are in the mood for it, particularly for a public domain feature that should be spent with actual curiosities, not movies with bland flavor that just happens to have an absurd idea or two trying to poke around the surface. Laugh at it, sure, but taking an actual substance might actually prove more rewarding than utilizing time on a turkey like this.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Turkey Week Two begins. Like I said, the old-fashioned turkeys are sometimes the best ones to start with before getting to the modern stuff...but the next one involves a familiar face. 

Next Time: Jail Bait (1954).