Anybody's Woman.

Review #2362: Anybody's Woman.

Cast: 

Ruth Chatterton (Pansy Gray), Clive Brook (Neil Dunlap), Paul Lukas (Gustave Saxon), Huntley Gordon (Grant Crosby), Virginia Hammond (Katherine Malcolm), Tom Patricola (Eddie Calcio), Juliette Compton (Ellen), and Cecil Cunningham (Dot) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party, #2187 - Christopher Strong)

Review: 

Well, there are quite a few movies about drunken marriages, so it isn't too surprising to see it here with Dorothy Arzner's 7th credited feature film as a director. The movie is based on the short story "The Better Wife" that had been written by Gouverneur Morris (evidently, the movie was going to be released under that title but went with the other title instead); Zoe Akins and Doris Anderson wrote the screenplay adaptation. Admittedly, Chatterton probably has slipped under the radar as an actress. But hey, she had a busy life beyond the acting life, which apparently began when her friends challenged her to become a stage actress when she criticized the acting when seeing a play in Washington. After a decade-and-a-half of stage work (including Broadway), she scored a contract with Paramount in 1928. Her work in Madame X (1929) and Sarah and Son (1930, as directed by Arzner) got her Academy Award nominations. She stopped acting in films by 1938 at the age of 45, although she would appear from time to time in stage and later in television. She even wrote a handful of novels in the 1950s and did I mention the part where she was an aviator that flew solo across the States a few times? While this movie isn't particularly noted among audiences of the time, one can at least be satisfied with its restoration in recent times by the UCLA Film & Television Archive. This was the third film Arzner had released in 1930, having been involved (alongside ten other directors) in the all-star revue Paramount on Parade (1930), which was released in April of 1930 (the aforementioned Sarah film had come out first in March), with this movie coming out in August; Colbert (who also had been featured in the Parade film) returned to star in the next Arzner movie alongside Fredric March with Honor Among Lovers (1931).

To say that the film is fine is not a particularly hard thing to say. Its 80-minute runtime is pretty routine when it comes to, well a 95-year-old movie that comes and goes in the scenario and executing it. Some of that is more successful than other times, particularly since this is the kind of movie where it wraps up in a "tidy bow" in the last few minutes that you either will accept or just sigh down the road as you wonder what sounds best to watch next.* For Arzner, it is about as competent and involving as one already has seen in her earlier films in trying to depict the general challenge that comes with being a woman where everybody has some sort of opinion of "who they are to somebody". Sure, the outsider view is taken with the eventual realization that one does in fact need someone, particularly someone who at least looks like they understand who they are on the outside beyond just being a clinging post in the dark of night. In that sense, Chatterton does relatively fine in maneuvering the waters of perception and actual action that is snappy enough to elicit enough charm to at least give the movie the fighting chance it needs. Sure, Brook is not given too much to really do besides being the soused up one of the "odd couple", but he plays it with dogged interest to at least seem like he isn't totally on autopilot. Lukas was the dependable supporting presence that you could find for a variety of movies (big or small) in his time, so he plays the "man with foreign-sounding name" with serviceable commitment to at least make a capable triangle seem plausible. As a whole, the movie presents a capable woman trying to make the best of things of a life that has to adjust the upheaval in routines that is more than just being an anybody but instead being a somebody, one who can live within places rather than apart from it all. It might not be a great "Pre-Code" movie, but it might just prove worthwhile enough for those interested in a decent time with Arzner at the helm.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Sorry for the delay. On occasion, I find inspiration for a review is split over the course of several days because I somehow get distracted in the most absurd of ways, which either involves rest or searching up old sports stuff. I recently managed to score a free trial of a newspaper archive and on a lark looked up box-scores of the 1968 ABA Playoffs for fun. You would be surprised what gets covered and doesn't find its way into telling a sports story.

Carib Gold.

Review #1799: Carib Gold.

Cast:  

Ethel Waters (Mom), Coley Wallace (Ryan), Peter Dawson (Neely), Cecil Cunningham (Barb), William T. Hill (Cap), George Renna (Bartender), Cicely Tyson (Dottie), Diana Sands (Bar Girl), Richard Ward (Lechock), Ruth Sawyer (Baby), Henry Hayward (Willie), and Geoffrey Holder (Voo Doo Dancer) Directed by Harold Young (#511 - The Three Caballeros)

Review: 

Admittedly, this film might have slipped through the cracks in any other time of day, partly because it is quite obscure. In fact, it was believed to have been lost for decades, since it was a B-movie that had a limited release (playing to segregated audiences in Key West, Florida). The screenplay and story were done by Charles Gossett and D. Lyle Kretsinger, their first and only screenplay; it was the last film directed by Harold Young, a system director if there ever was one (of course, he did direct the live-action sequences of The Three Caballeros, but still). It was shot independently by the Splendora Corporation. But there is something to discover in the curiosity of an integrated cast that features the film debut of four actors: Diana Sands, Cicely Tyson, Diana Sands, Richard Ward and Geoffrey Holder (the latter two had previous experience in television). Ethel Waters is likely the most notable name among the experienced cast, if only because she was a notable presence among Broadway and concerts for jazz and swing to go with acting roles for numerous decades. Of course, Tyson would have a lengthy career of seven decades in film and television, while the detective-turned-actor in Ward had two decades of film/TV roles with his distinct voice, and Holder was just as distinct. Wallace was more known for his amateur boxing career than as an actor, as this was his second of six overall roles (half of them had him play Joe Louis).

Well, there isn't exactly much to grapple with this movie, to be honest. It barely makes the best of its hour, since the story could really be told in probably less than half the time, one mostly shot at the Miami Seaquarium (recently built in 1955, one of the oldest oceanariums still running) and Key West, Florida. All that happens in the film is a mild expedition for gold, a title song done by Waters, one "action scene", a brief chase, voodoo, and a brief confrontation. At least one can't say the film is exploitative, if only because there is barely anything to really exploit in a film that seems lacking in suspense. Even the title song seems more like an obligation than anything. You would think a movie about sunken treasure and greed would be something else, but it is telegraphed very, very, very easily, with one-note folks everywhere you go. Tyson is the character with a mysterious disease, while Ward has an obvious chip on the shoulder, while others are just "there" (Dawson in particular). Heck, the voodoo part seems unnecessary, since it really seems like the chase segment comes to a close by sheer coincidence of the fact that town seems really small to begin with. I suppose the message of the film is something about greed...or fate? Hell, I love that there is a brief scene after the one fight sequence where two characters debate if one should stay inside (having beaten up the villain)...right before an off-screen arrest. Depth is one thing the film has exactly zero of, unless one counts sea action, but it amuses me that you can sometimes see fish swim right by the camera. Honestly, if the film hadn't languished in obscurity to the point of being thought to be lost, it might have just slipped by the radar with nary an objection, because it is really, really average. If you need an hour to kill with a few curious young presences, one could probably do better or worse, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Learning Tree.