Christopher Strong.

Review #2187: Christopher Strong.

Cast: 

Katharine Hepburn (Lady Cynthia Darrington), Colin Clive (Sir Christopher Strong), Billie Burke (Lady Elaine Strong), Helen Chandler (Monica Strong), Ralph Forbes (Harry Rawlinson), Irene Browne (Carrie Valentine), Jack La Rue (Carlo), and Desmond Roberts (Bryce Mercer) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party)

Review: 

Technically, the focus should be on Arzner, because she was the one key regular female director in the sound era (there were others too such as Dorothy Davenport, but I think you know what I mean). But 1933 was also the year of Katharine Hepburn, so why not a few words here. She had early ideas of being an actress, but it was not until she graduated Bryn Mawr College in 1928 that had her on the road to professional acting, which started in the theater. She appeared in a handful of roles that ranged from understudy to being let go, but her performance in 1932's The Warrior's Husband got her notice in Hollywood from a scout. George Cukor vouched for her in casting for what became A Bill of Divorcement, released in the fall of 1932. 1933 saw her star in three films: Christopher Strong, Morning Glory, and Little Women (it was for the middle film that saw her win her first Academy Award). Hepburn came into the picture after Ann Harding had contractual problems, with this being a production under David O. Selznick at RKO. Strong was based off the 1932 novel of the same name, as written by Gilbert Frankau (it only seems apt that he wrote a novel about a Member of Parliament, Frankau apparently had a desire to serve in politics but a conservative man with his history in divorces did not test well for the times). The screenplay was written by Zoe Akins (who had written for Arzner's Sarah and Son), a future Pulitzer Prize winner as a playwright; the profession was changed from the book, which was about a woman racecar driver. Tommy Atkins apparently served as an assistant director. Hepburn reflected on the film in her autobiography and said that she enjoyed her time making the film (along with noting that each wore pants). It was Arzner who apparently modeled Hepburn's character off Amy Johnson, the first woman pilot (well, the word is "aviatrix") to fly solo from England to Australia (there was a mix of newsreel footage for parades and flights included as well). 

It wasn't a huge success at the time, but it certainly stands as a curious film that happened to be made just a year before the enforcement of the Production Code. Of course, the film isn't really about the one in the title as it is about, well, the woman experiencing her first love affair and how it affects her when it comes to the clashes of caution and danger-seekers. Courage, death, love, well, it all comes together in a crash of emotion that really could only come in that Pre-Code era. Hepburn just has that straight-to-the-point personality that exudes confidence with a knowing aura that moves leaps and bounds over anyone she interacts with, which is curious when wrapped with the idea of being in love for the first time - to a stuffy one, no less. Clive is put in the interesting position of being the stodgiest person in a film where he is playing the title character that at one point gets to look upon a woman wearing an outfit that reminds one of a moth. It is a clammy tightrope to walk in terms of "dignity" (he's playing a character that did enough to be called "Sir", remember) when it comes to trying to maintain the idea of normalcy when facing someone with similar features in single-minded goals. All the while, one sees Burke and Chandler from time to time in that engagement of trying to cope with the predicament that comes in love for one with an "occupied" status. Apparently, Arzner paid significant attention to getting something out of Burke when it came to performance along with stating that her interest really fell to Clive's character, which she described as "a man on the cross". Interpret that any way you wish, but each of them do fairly well anyway. As a whole, the film rests on how much one will go with that ending, which, well, rather than face the prospect of an illegitimate child (as one reads between the lines) and wreak havoc on the lives of people she cares about, a decision is made to fly high into the sky with a plan to never see them again. At 78 minutes, it is a decent experience for the curiosity alone.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mad Love (1935).

Review #1907: Mad Love.

Cast: 

Peter Lorre (Dr. Gogol), Frances Drake (Yvonne Orlac), Colin Clive (Stephen Orlac), Ted Healy (Reagan), Sara Haden (Marie), Edward Brophy (Rollo the Knife Thrower), Henry Kolker (Prefect Rosset), Keye Luke (Dr. Wong), and May Beatty (Françoise) Directed by Karl Freund (#622 - The Mummy)

Review: 

There is something that appeals well to my being for films that got a bit of a bad rap in contemporary times, especially with a useful actor or director at the helm. You may remember that there was already an adaptation of the novel Les Mains d'Orlac (as written by Maurice Renard) with The Hands of Orlac in 1924. This was not only the first American film appearance for Peter Lorre but also the last film directed by Karl Freund. Freund was born in Bohemia (modern-day Czech Republic), and his interest in film began as an apprentice projectionist in the early 20th century. He would work as a newsreel cameraman before he became a cinematographer, which he would do for many films in Germany, most notably with films such as The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920) and Metropolis (1927); the unchained camera, one that involved a camera without a tripod, was his invention. He moved to the United States in 1929 and continued his work on the camera, even winning an Academy Award for The Good Earth (1937). He had directed one film with The Sensational Trial (1923) in Germany before his move, but the majority of his ten features as director came in America, with The Mummy (1932) and Mad Love (1935) being the most known. With Lorre, he was born in Austria-Hungary to Jewish parents, and he had begun acting in stage since the 1920s in Vienna before moving onto Germany for films. M (1931) made him a noted face with audiences, as it was his first major role as an actor. Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) only made him more noted. He left Germany for America when Hitler came to power, and this was his first American production. Over the next couple of years, he would do a handful of features as either the menacing heavy or in B-movie fare before his death in 1964. The film was released by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (as part of a deal with Columbia Pictures that had him do the film there in exchange for him getting to do Crime and Punishment), which apparently did not want the film to show a trainwreck of any scenes of...handsy play with statues.

Florence Crewe-Jones was behind a translation of the Renard story while also doing an adaptation with Guy Endore. John L. Balderston and P.J. Wolfson did the screenplay while there were a handful of contributions done by other writers such as Gladys von Ettinghausen, Leon Gordon, Leon Wolfson, and Edgar Allan Woolf. The film was not a considerable success, making less than $400,000 with audiences. Oddly, it became a strange point of contention with a film essay involving Citizen Kane decades later. See, Mad Love and Citizen Kane had the same cinematographer in Karl Freund (brought in to do additional filming after Chester A. Lyons had been the sole cinematographer) and film critic Pauline Kael accused the director as copying the visual style of the earlier film for his feature. In short, let us close out this diversion by calling the essay a sloppy and incorrect piece of junk and move on. The movie, unlike the previous Austrian production, focuses more on the doctor character rather than the character with transplanted hands. Of course, it is hard to top Conrad Veidt in terms of lead dominating performance, so going with Lorre in a different way does make things seem a bit fresher. This results in a curious movie that only runs at 68 minutes that rewards viewers who like Lorre and his endearing presence of creeps more than anybody else in the film. For one, his character is a tragic one, a guy who happens to like weird horror plays in the time not spent curing sick kids...well, that, and the obsession with an actress to the point where he buys a wax figure of her. It is the descent of the doctor rather than the descent of someone with new hands that is the focus here, going from savior to mastermind. He proves quite creepy when it comes to be a master manipulator, one who oozes on an efficient scale that makes the movie entirely his to control in disturbing obsession. You know who liked him in this? Charlie Chaplin, because he called him "The Greatest Living Actor" when he saw this film. Well, it doesn't mean the other actors are bad, it just means they get a bit overshadowed by such fun, most of being on Clive, who makes for quite a mild breakdown, although Drake (known mostly for her work as a terrified heroine on numerous works in the 1930s) does make a quality presence that Lorre can match up with in offbeat mannerisms, which is certainly odd when it goes up against the relief done by Healy, Beatty, and Brophy. At any rate, it is a movie about the outsider in a time where people wanted something a little more escapist that has certainly aged well despite its limitations. The pacing hasn't improved from the last one, and it certainly makes a shaky leap to get to its ultimate end goal, but as a whole it makes for a solid deranged cult classic that probably ranks a bit higher than The Hands of Orlac in the long run when it comes to efficient and off-putting horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

History Is Made at Night.

Review #1863: History Is Made at Night.

Cast: 

Charles Boyer (Paul Dumond), Jean Arthur (Irene Vail), Leo Carrillo (Cesare), Colin Clive (Bruce Vail), Ivan Lebedeff (Michael, Vail's Chauffeur), George Meeker (Mr. Norton), Lucien Prival (Private Detective), George Davis (Maestro), and Pierre Watkin (Commodore Eldridge) Directed by Frank Borzage (#1611 - A Farewell to Arms)

Review: 

Admittedly, some genre-bender movies work a bit differently from others. Particularly if they are romance movies that also happen to have a climax that echoes the Titanic disaster to go along with the towering power of love (or something like that). Who else but Walter Wanger to bring such an enterprising production to the screen? Wanger, who started his producing career with The Sheik (1921), certainly liked to bring both message movies and romantic melodramas to the big screen over an extensive career that saw him work both on his own and with studios, with this being distributed by United Artists. He presented the title and a bare script to Borzage (known already with 7th Heaven (1927) and Bad Girl (1931) for romance triumphs) to pitch him the film, which apparently got him on board. The eventual movie was written by C. Graham Baker while the screenplay was done by Gene Towne, Vincent Lawrence & David Hertz. This wasn't exactly a new idea to have a melodrama infused with a natural disaster, as evidenced by films such as Cavalcade (1933) and San Francisco (1936).

It's a pretty good melodrama, all things considered, if only because it actually has a little fun playing screwball humor to go with its eventual turn of suspense to encapsulate a 95-minute experience that mostly gets it done in the ways that matter. The classic melodrama of the time may have had its contrived moments, but one can always find something energetic or dazzling when it comes to the right hands at director or in the chemistry of its stars. It results in a tender experience wrapped with plenty of warmth that carries itself well without becoming wrapped in all of the contrivances possible. Sometimes one requires a bit of sacrifice and struggle when it comes to romance...one that makes us fall for these two folks in how they are together, right down to each of them getting to engage the other with a hastily created hand puppet. Boyer makes for a charming rogue, one who glides through the film with charisma to spare in a down-to-earth sort of way that we gravitate to pretty quickly in ways slightly different from what he wound up doing in countless other movies. Arthur had been acting on-and-off since 1923 with fleeting notice, but The Whole Town's Talking (1935) and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) put her on the radar, and she certainly excels at making a sort of every-woman kind of role. It is the foibles that each one shows (mostly in Arthur) that we grow to appreciate, where her vulnerabilities are our vulnerabilities, and her dancing in a vacant restaurant (while fiddling with her heels) certainly makes for one of the more interesting sequences of their fluorescent whirlwind together. This was the penultimate role for Clive (who had gone from the stage in 1925 to both stage and film by the 1930s), who died from complications of tuberculosis a couple of months after the release of this film at the age of 37. He makes for a conniving third lead, one perverted in obsession that believes in how righteous they are all the way to the bitter end, which makes a suitable cold ham performance. Carrillo dazzles well in support by acting as the partner for Boyer for sequences involving high-strung people making the best of interesting scenarios, such as exploring the differences for waiters in France compared to America or a cook finding an old friend on a boat. It's a warm and crispy kind of movie, one where all the parts move with resourceful zip and energy to the proceedings. By the time it maneuvers to the ship for its climax, I was having a pretty breezy time enjoying the surroundings that around these folks that is engaging without being overbearing. Sure, one might know where the end road goes, but the path to get there is the enjoyable part and seeing them have to deal with impending ship doom is still a fine way to handle entertainment. As a whole, it is a nice experience lifted by Borzage and company for a solid gem of smiles all the way around that would be ripe for curious filmgoers everywhere.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Bride of Frankenstein.

Review #394: Bride of Frankenstein.

Cast
Boris Karloff (The Monster), Colin Clive (Henry Frankenstein), Ernest Thesiger (Doctor Pretorius), Valerie Hobson (Elizabeth Lavenza), Elsa Lanchester (The Monster's Bride and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley), Una O'Connor (Minnie), E.E. Clive (Burgomaster), O.P. Heggie (The Hermit), Douglas Walton (Percy Bysshe Shelley), and Lucien Prival (The Butler), Directed by James Whale (#069 - The Invisible Man, #072 - Frankenstein)

Review
This is a film I've wanted to review ever since I reviewed the first film 567 days ago. I wanted to review this because this sounded really intriguing, with Whale directing once again, and Karloff back in the role that made him famous. After watching this, there's doubt about it, this is a good film. Better than the first? Possibly. Karloff is given more to do with the character, The Monster gets to have a new level of depth to him, which adds to the film. Clive does well, even if his role is considerably downsized, which is understandable. Ernest Thesiger does a memorable job as Doctor Pretorius, having a level of morbid charm, especially when he dines in a cemetery, and he's a good villain. There are too many memorable scenes to count, but one that I find to be brilliant is the scene involving Karloff and O.P. Heggie, which both develops Karloff's character and is a well made and entertaining scene, with a bit of irony included, as the only person who doesn't scream at the sight of the Monster is the only who can't physically see him. The Bride pops up about...10 minutes before the film ends, played by Elsa Lanchester, who also plays Mary Shelley in the opening scene, which is a somewhat ludicrous scene. The Bride looks memorable, thanks to the effects by Jack Pierce, but honestly I think more time was spent on making the character than the time the character has on screen, which is a bit odd given the film is called Bride of Frankenstein. The supporting cast is alright, even if Una O'Connor is a bit annoying. Not as much as in The Invisible Man, but just a bit. But nevertheless, the film has good moments combined with brilliant directing, which work really well to make a film that arguably could be up to the level of the first film. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Frankenstein (1931)

Review #072: Frankenstein.

Cast
Colin Clive (Henry Frankenstein), Mae Clarke (Elizabeth Lavenza), John Boles (Victor Moritz), Boris Karloff (Frankenstein's monster), Edward Van Sloan (Dr. Waldman), Frederick Kerr (Baron Frankenstein), Dwight Frye (Fritz), and Lionel Belmore (Herr Vogel, the Burgomaster) Directed by James Whale (#069 - The Invisible Man)

Review
This film is the first (feature length) adaption of the Mary Shelley book, Frankenstein. It was released in November 1931, the same year as Dracula, so these films are essentially a double feature (separated by months, but still connected nonetheless) Anyway, this film is great. It has good atmosphere, especially the lab and the opening sequence. This film would have many adaptations from many places, from Hammer (Which would make many sequels to it) to Kenneth Branagh's version. The acting is great, especially from Colin Clive. I of course will mention the Monster's design by Jack Pearce. It looks terrifying and menacing, especially with Karloff in the role. A good film that spawned a franchise...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.