The Prisoner of Zenda (1937).

Review #2013: The Prisoner of Zenda.

Cast: 

Ronald Colman (Major Rassendyll / King Rudolf V), Madeleine Carroll (Princess Flavia), Douglas Fairbanks Jr (Rupert of Hentzau), C. Aubrey Smith (Colonel Zapt), Raymond Massey (Duke Michael), Mary Astor (Antoinette de Mauban), and David Niven (Captain Fritz von Tarlenheim) Directed by John Cromwell (#1008 - The Racket, #1341 - Of Human Bondage, and #1348 - Algiers) 

Review:  

In 1894, a novel was published in the United Kingdom that was written by Anthony Hope, which was titled The Prisoner of Zenda. As one might expect, it has been adapted several times in the realm of stage, film, and radio, with the first adaptation being a play (as adapted by Edward Rose) that opened exactly one year after the novel was published. The silent era saw a handful of films (1913, 1915, 1922), with the most noted one being done by Rex Ingram. Evidently, there were plans to make a musical by MGM with Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy as star. However, it eventually fell into the hands of David O. Selznick and his studio, and he took notice of the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936 when it came to marketing. There were several writers credited with the writing: John L. Balderston wrote the screenplay while Wells Root wrote the adaptation, Donald Ogden Stewart provided additional dialogue, and un-credited work was done by Ben Hecht and Sidney Howard. John Cromwell, already in his forties when he went from stage performances as actor and Broadway directing to films in the late 1920s, was chosen by Selznick to direct (Cromwell had directed with various studios from Paramount to RKO to United Artists). However, W. S. Van Dyke was brought in to help with reshoots in fencing while George Cukor was recruited to shoot the renunciation scene because he apparently was felt to be good with directing women. Did you know that Hope wrote a follow-up novel to Zenda? Rupert of Hentzau was written the year after Zenda's publication but not seen until 1897 (there have been a few adaptations, but not nearly as many as Zenda, probably because that book ends with the death of the lead, albeit with fitting irony). Evidently, there were plans announced in 1947 to make a film adaptation by Selznick after the success of this film with Joseph Cotten set to star, but it did not come to pass (coincidentally, Selznick's father Lewis was the producer of the 1923 version of Rupert of Hentzau). A shot-for-shot remake of Prisoner of Zenda was done in 1952, with the next (and last) high-profile remake being a 1979 film with Peter Sellars as star. 

When it comes to classics, this one is a pretty easy one to spot. It has all of the pieces you would expect from a swashbuckler: a nifty setup, a few costuming choices, a villain almost as dashing as the hero, and various other methods of adventure. Colman gets to employ the use of tables and chairs to go along with swordplay when it comes to playing with fire in the adventure sense, which reflects well when playing a double role that has him also play a weakened would-be king. It is no surprise that Selznick waited until he secured Colman to get the ball rolling on the film, because he is the dashing presence required in such a film that would seem lacking with perhaps anybody else but him when it comes to glamour without having a sense of being aloof to the fray. Of course, this is also a romance, so the time spent with Carroll is crafted quite well, mostly because her newfound sense of affection for the face standing in front of her is compelling to view in elegance, which makes what occurs in the resolution all the more poignant. Fairbanks Jr, the son of that famed swashbuckler with whom he shared his name, was told by his father to take the part of Rupert when he was offered it over the double role because (in his words), it was "probably one of the best villains ever written". Fairbanks clearly had good advice for his son, because it is a compelling role. He gets to snidely whiplash his way through the action with clear enthusiasm for the material when it comes to being the real threat behind the throne (as opposed to Massey, who actually is pretty decent himself), and the fact that he glides through the final action sequence to parts unknown certainly makes it a memorable adversary to see all the way through. Smith (the lead actor in the London production of the play decades earlier) and Niven (cast right before his turn as a star) provide support to Colman in very mild relief. As a whole, you can see the professionalism displayed by Cromwell and company to make entertaining adventure roll off the pages that generally utilizes its 101-minute runtime for suitable pacing that makes most of the right moves to set a place among the classics to watch in eight-decade cinema of a fantasy that all can enjoy within kingdoms and the duality and duplicity of people.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Little Caesar.

Review #1701: Little Caesar.

Cast: 

Edward G. Robinson (Caesar Enrico "Rico" Bandello), Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (Joe Massara), Glenda Farrell (Olga Stassoff), William Collier Jr. (Tony Passa), Sidney Blackmer (Big Boy), Ralph Ince (Pete Montana), Thomas E. Jackson (Sergeant Flaherty), Stanley Fields (Sam Vettori), Maurice Black (Little Arnie Lorch), and George E. Stone (Otero) Directed by Mervyn LeRoy (#596 - Random Harvest)

Review: 

There is an interesting curiosity one can find from movies made in the pre-Code era of Hollywood filmmaking. Sure, there were boards of censorship all across the country since the silent era, but one generally finds more interest in looking at the era of filmmaking when sound become prevalent in feature films. In other words, one sees things differently in film when you can hear the action to go along with it, regardless of the fact that public pressure would soon mount a Motion Picture Production Code that would soon oversee features for three decades. But that was in 1934, so let us jump back to 1931. This was the same year that saw the release of The Public Enemy (featuring James Cagney in the role that also made him a star) which came out three months after this feature, with each being based on written experiences in Chicago near gangster types, with this film being based off the book of the same name by W. R. Burnett (a novelist and screenwriter for decades who had resided in the city as a hotel desk clerk), with a screenplay written by Francis Edward Faragoh and Robert N. Lee (each nominated for an Academy Award for their work here, which they lost to the writers for Cimarron), with un-credited work by Robert Lord and Darryl F. Zanuck. Incidentally, Robinson and Cagney would star together in a feature together in Smart Money (1931), a crime drama that was the first and only time they starred together. For all the speculation about inspirations within the gangster Al Capone for either The Public Enemy or this feature (which drew not so much entirely on Capone but also criminals such as Salvatore "Sam" Cardinella), this was also the same year that he was charged and convicted of tax evasion that saw him put in jail. At any rate, those aforementioned films also made stars of their lead actors; Robinson had emigrated to the States from Romania as a child, but his first interest was in law before acting. Years spent in the theatre served him well when he started to make regular appearances in film with The Hole in the Wall (1929), which would be one of a handful of films he appeared in that ranged from second to supporting role (primarily in the crime drama genre). Of course, the gangster film did not entirely start with this film either, since one could argue that Underworld (1927) as the proto-gangster movie, and Lights of New York (1928), the first all-talking feature (which alongside Public Enemy and Little Caesar was released by the studio) also had elements of the crime drama in it. At any rate, Burnett was also one of the writers behind Scarface (1932), which also has stood as one of the lasting key pieces of the gangster film, particularly in the pre-Code era. 

At the helm for this feature is LeRoy, who had graduated from a brief stint in acting to writing comedies to directing his own features in the 1920s. Little Caesar is one of over thirty features that he would direct in the 1930s for a decade with plenty of audience appetite for films. As a whole, it might not be as devastating in raw entertainment as The Public Enemy, but its lead performance by Robinson essentially carries it enough to the point where it does not matter too much because one is having too much fun with the gripping interest generated in 79 minutes. LeRoy was one of the hardest working directors of his time, and it certainly shows in both his successes and missteps presented here, one that has some fairly well captured shots from cinematographer Tony Gaudio to accommodate some static moments (as is the case with early sound films, and this even has a few intertitles) without seeming too constrained or too apart while serving as a blunt instrument of efficient filmmaking. There would be a variety of gangster films over the next few years, but Little Caesar managed to stay its welcome with its reasonable edge for the subject that didn't go straight for easy tricks such as indulging in violence or confusing its message in simplified or complicated gobbledygook - it helped to build the clichés to gaze upon in the gangster film for years to come, if you think about it. You get a tale of someone rising the ladder in organized crime that doesn't pull punches, and Robinson is at the forefront of making this role his with no complication. He would find himself typecast in a variety of tough guy roles over the next few years (even taking a role in Larceny, Inc (1942) to offset his image with a comedy, which I fondly remember enjoying), and it isn't too hard to see why, owing to his voice and mannerisms that make him undeniably interesting to view through the film, whether spent trying to strong-arm Fairbanks Jr or strong-arm himself into the next big thing; everybody needs a good death scene in a gangster film (no matter how prepared/un-prepared one is for it), and he makes that final line stick with the right sense of doom and folly required. Fairbanks Jr and Farrell are meant to match him in sensibility, which generally works out fine in useful engagement without detracting from the general experience. The supporting cast prove worthy enough in setting the seedy atmosphere required in terms of grimy strength (ones that could be thought of as faceless brutes). Jackson plays the authority with coarse charm that doesn't serve to make this a straight moral tale. As a whole, its portrayal of the rise and fall of a crime lord proves quite interesting in cultivating a worthy atmosphere and tension within a great lead performance and fair support from others in a proven feature that has endured well for itself after eight decades since its release, a fitting marker for a star and director that had plenty of time to follow up their successes in their field.

On the board for the Count to Ten Project, updated.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Woman of Affairs.

Review #423: A Woman of Affairs.

Cast
Greta Garbo (Diana Merrick Furness), John Gilbert (Neville Holderness), Lewis Stone (Dr. Hugh Trevelyan), Johnny Mack Brown (David Furness), Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (Jeffry Merrick), Hobart Bosworth (Morton Holderness), and Dorothy Sebastian (Constance) Directed by Clarence Brown.

Review
In the six (#256, #261, #330, #349, #400, #415) previous 1920s films I've reviewed here, all of them have been silent films (either involving clowns, vampires, Caligari, a thief, Americans, or pilots), and they seem to run together somehow, a recurring theme. This film breaks that trend, this being a romantic drama, with newcomers for Movie Night, such as Greta Garbo (notable for doing 28 films before retiring at 35), John Gilbert (a notable silent film star who did have star in talkie films briefly), and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr, who was a film star much like his father, this being a fine opportunity to have reviewed father and son, which I can only remember one other time doing, with Michael and Kirk Douglas. Anyway, this film is enjoyable enough, and it flows well, not running too long or too short, and the actors do convey emotion pretty well, not failing in their attempts to convey the story rather than having the title cards do it for them. It's a noteworthy film that I do recommend to anyone who wants a good time regardless of the year it was made, which I suppose is enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.