Liliom (1930).

Review #1941: Liliom (1930).

Cast: 

Charles Farrell (Liliom), Rose Hobart (Julie), Estelle Taylor (Madame Muscat), H. B. Warner (Chief Magistrate), Lee Tracy (The Buzzard), Walter Abel (Carpenter), Mildred Van Dorn (Marie), Guinn "Big Boy" Williams (Hollinger), Lillian Elliott (Aunt Hulda), Anne Shirley (Louise), and Bert Roach (Wolf) Directed by Frank Borzage (#1611 - A Farewell to Arms and #1863 - History Is Made at Night)

Review: 

The movie is an adaptation of the 1909 play of the same name by Ferenc Molnár. The original play actually didn't become a success until the English translation happened on Broadway in 1921, which was followed by a number of a revivals before a musical adaptation was created by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II with Carousel in 1945, which also had its own film adaptation released in 1956. The original play is the one with the sadder ending, let's just get that out of the way. S. N. Behrman and Sonya Levien served as the screenwriters for the movie adaptation, which was the second released adaptation, with the first being A Trip to Paradise (1921). The next adaptation was not too far off, being released in 1934 as a French production by Fritz Lang. Both the 1930 and 1934 versions were distributed by Fox Film Corporation. Since this was a movie released before the Film Code, you get to see the lead characters have a child out of wedlock. At the helm was Frank Borzage, who had joined the sound revolution in features such as Song o' My Heart (1930) that made him quite a prolific presence in romances with distinct visual sense at his peak. Like the original play, it is set in Budapest.

It is an odd little movie, packed with odd imagery within its artificiality, complete with shadows and a romance between two people who can't articulate their emotional feelings for each other beyond a spiritual connection. A grouping of two insecure people probably didn't seem like the kind of film to be an audience hit (and not with anyone who has opinions to say about how the film handles the afterlife, particularly in those days), and it was the kind of movie that for years wasn't even on DVD. But one can now experience a film with a climax that delves a bit into fairytale expressionism before having a few "interesting" words to say about hitting people and the nature of love. It does this despite being more of a film for Hobart and her wonderous eyes that you see shot by Chester A. Lyons. This was one of the first sound movies for Farrell, who you might recognize for his starring roles in silent romances such as 7th Heaven (1927) or City Girl (1930). The high pitch voice was apparently a surprise to some when it came to release, but I'm alright with the withering confidence meant to come out in this odd role that could have been just pathetic for a lesser presence. Hobart was making her feature movie debut, having come in from the theater to the shock of probably no one. The two actors enunciate their lines the way you would expect from a film made in the first few years of sound movies, which means one is watching a pretty stagy movie. Their romance is shaky, but you at least get why they would find themselves in this situation without trying to leave the other in the gutter, complete with their last scene together. It all rests on how the material sits with you once it reaches the train (via rear projection, which was quite new at the time, used by Fox in this and Just Imagine) bringing someone to talk about why they need one more moment among the living. If you can get through that, then it falls down to the climax to hold it all together for one fateful decision that will either strike one as somehow fitting the material well or off-putting. The two characters have about as much chance at moving forward without each other as a carousel has a chance of rotating in a non-circular path, and I guess it means that one really does have to put enough into love when the other partner isn't quite up to putting all the work to match them. As a whole, it definitely isn't the best effort for Borzage when it comes to his prior work, but it is at least a dour curiosity worth a watch for those who want to see a deliberately paced romance go through with a few visual interests for 94 minutes. It makes a suitable bittersweet tale. Laborious for some, but curious for others who choose to seek it out is probably the best way to describe the whole affair.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

City Girl (1930).

Review #1885: City Girl.

Cast: 

Charles Farrell (Lem Tustine), Mary Duncan (Kate), David Torrence (Mr Tustine), Edith Yorke (Mrs Tustine), Anne Shirley (Marie Tustine), Tom McGuire (Matey), Richard Alexander (Mac), and Roscoe Ates (Reaper) Directed by F. W. Murnau (#256 - Nosferatu, #499 - Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, #1335 - Tabu: A Story of the South Seas)

Review: 

Admittedly, covering certain directors takes a bit of leeway when it comes to the realm of the silent era, particularly with F. W. Murnau. Of the 21 feature films made by the German director, only twelve of them survive in its entirety, with this being one of the lucky ones while being the last of the three Fox Film productions he did. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) is obviously the most famous as a statement in visual interest (it had a synchronized musical score and sound effects soundtrack. His next feature, 4 Devils (1928), is now considered lost. At any rate, Murnau shot the movie in Athena and Pendleton, Oregon, and it probably makes considerable sense to someone who actually did once purchase a farm of his own. The working title of the feature was "Our Daily Bread", which ended up being used for select distribution in European countries (besides, in 1934, King Vidor would use the title for his own film). The movie is an adaptation of Elliott Lester's play The Mud Turtle, which had run for a number of performances in 1925 (as such it was adapted to the screen in scenario by Marion Orth and Berthold Viertel while H.H. Caldwell and Katherine Hilliker did the titles). There were two versions of the film: a part-sound version that had music and re-shot parts when Murnau refused to cater to Fox's demands and the silent version. The sound version is lost, but the silent version has been restored from its initial re-discovery in the 1970s (as a survivor of the vaults unlike a number of Fox Film features, which includes Sunrise's original 35mm negative). Incidentally, this film would serve as an inspiration for Terence Malick's Days of Heaven (1978).

It may not be as memorable in its striking visual power as say, Sunrise, but it still makes for quite a feature to enjoy. In a way, it is a distinct telling of that film when it comes to the clash of people from the small towns and someone from the city that could lead to consequences. Now, instead of the lakeside, one reaches the wheatfields of Minnesota. It is like a companion film without becoming a shell. The lesson one does learn within a romance filled with sweet people like this is that you can leave the city but still find weird things in the countryside. Idyllic life isn't something you just find on a farm or the city because it happens to look like it can be, as people of all personalities can be found wherever you lurk, where one hopes to find honest people for meaningful understanding. There is more to life than making movement and relying on habits and prejudices, you might say. The character may seem simple and easily defined, but one just has to find the little layers within that makes useful ambiguity. One never knows what would have happened if Murnau had not died in 1931 when it comes to filmmaking, but I can imagine that he clearly valued the art of silent filmmaking more than just doing a film with sound for the sake of it. You can show a city diner without needing the sound to make it seem alive when it comes to showing how Farrell and Duncan make a quick quality pair. As pawns in the game of life that isn't easy or fair for singles or couples, they grow on you pretty well. It's not a movie built for cute moments of course, since Torrence serves as the grumpy counter to idealism while Alexander makes a quality cad. 

Inevitably, the ending isn't quite what you would hope would occur from a film like this. It seems just a bit too sudden and convenient for what has to be seen and not see in the resolution of the triangle conflict. Of course, who really knows if the final shot of two people crossing the threshold of being again in the farms will work the way you think: understanding people is one thing, living with them day after day is another. Murnau is hopeful but not preachy about what he thinks to say about the illusions that come with rural and city life. As an 89-minute feature, it is paced with delicate efficiency that arrived perhaps a bit too late to make the mark it should have deserved among the silents. At any rate, Murnau's penultimate feature is a pretty good one that can be watched among his other surviving works with general interest. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.