The Baron of Arizona.

Review #2400: The Baron of Arizona.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (James Reavis), Ellen Drew (Sofia; Karen Kester as child Sofia), Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepito), Beulah Bondi (Loma), Reed Hadley (Griff), Robert Barrat (Judge), Robin Short (Lansing), Tina Pine (Rita), Margia Dean (the Marquesa), Jonathan Hale (the Governor), Edward Keane (Miller), and Barbara Woodell (Mrs. Lansing) Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row, #2234 - The Steel Helmet)

Review: 

"The cameraman is master of his own kingdom. I feel the same about the rest of my crew: sound technicians, makeup people, hairdressers, costume designers. We'd discuss the kind of picture I wanted to make. Then I'd give them ample freedom to get the job done. They always did, no matter the budget or time constraints. I was always lucky with my production crews...The Baron from Arizona wasn't a big success. At least it was fun to make." - Samuel Fuller

Once ago, the West was a weird place. There once was a man named James Reavis that claimed to be a Baron of Arizona. The Missouri native apparently first learned he was good at forging signatures when enlisted in the traitorous Confederate Army as a teenager. He soon decided to surrender to the Union and served briefly there before doing a variety of jobs, one of which was real estate. It was only in 1880 that Reavis visited the then-Arizona Territory. He soon honed his plan that would see him file papers involving grants, deeds, and a claim that would've effectively nullified all existing land titles within the grant. Complications arose in the grant that saw him go to a second plan: an heiress to the grant that he could marry. Finally, in the year of 1889, the ball was rolling for nailing down the lack of validity of the claim, most notably with surveyor general Royal Johnson that noted the irregularities such as using a steel-nibbed pen rather than a quill for 18th century documents. Reavis did sue the United States government that went down the toilet in 1895. He was tried for forgery and found guilty in 1896, where he served prison time until 1898. He died in a pauper's grave in 1914. Incidentally, the tale of Reavis loosely inspired the 1939 film The Night Riders. According to Samuel Fuller's autobiography, he came across the Arizona story in the 1930s when drinking in New Mexico, as one does when on the writing beat. At any rate, years later Robert Lippert, satisfied with I Shot Jesse James (1949), was ready to produce another of Fuller's films and liked the pitch Fuller (who aspired to not leave Lippert after having one good time with him) gave to him. To beef up the curiosity, the movie states a source with a 1949 article in The American Weekly by Homer Croy, which had apparently also had material from Sam White that had been published earlier in True magazine. By Fuller's own admission, he wrote a script that he believed was more interesting than the actual Reavis story, particularly in the planning and with the love story.  Fuller even had the benefit of James Wong Howe as cinematographer because Howe, a friend of his, didn't care about the money for shooting a film and just wanted to do it. 

Admittedly, even though the movie is fine at best with the overall experience, you can clearly see the development present in a growing talent. The movie does take a bit of time to really get going with its setup (with narration present in setting certain things up, as they say), but the 97-minute runtime is generally watchable to make things worth it. Obviously first choices don't come to most movies, as Fuller had Fredric March in mind first for the lead role, but Lippert couldn't afford him. Instead, Fuller went with a gentleman that he saw on Broadway with a worthwhile voice and movements: Vincent Price. Fuller wrote a lead character that is arrogant and a conniving swindler to nearly everyone he meets and he has the absolute right guy for the film to work when you consider that Price was more than just a guy in horror movies (which happened later in the decade, as we all know), he could even do comedy in films such as Champagne for Caesar (1950). Simply put, Price makes me smile anytime I see him in a film because the mannerisms and voice just fit right from the word go even when playing a swindler. You love to see him in how the cogs turn in his head about where to jump to next in zest that in some way we all wish we had. The rest of the cast by comparison is okay, as if somehow looking at the film behind them (because Howe's cinematography is nice to experience, for one) is more interesting, but nobody detracts from the experience. You can at least believe Drew's character really does have affection for Price even with all that comes with someone who constricts an entire narrative about being descended from great things. The ending is the old fashioned "leave 'em happy going home", but it is definitely the result of a director that wanted to show that even con men can make schemes they didn't see coming work in their favor (besides, the part beforehand involving revealing ink is charming). As a whole, Fuller's second effort as a filmmaker is relatively fine, telling a worthy enough yarn of a conman and the spirit that it takes to carry things as long as it takes to get what they desire most in the game of life. For those who want a curious type of Western that plays fast and loose with history in the most curious of ways with an icon (for me, at least) in his young years, The Baron of Arizona is practically right up your alley.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

If I Were King.

Review #2018: If I Were King.

Cast: 

Ronald Colman (François Villon), Basil Rathbone (King Louis XI), Frances Dee (Katherine DeVaucelles), Ellen Drew (Huguette), C. V. France (Father Villon), Henry Wilcoxon (Captain of the Watch), Heather Thatcher (the Queen), Stanley Ridges (Rene de Montigny), Bruce Lester (Noel de Jolys), Alma Lloyd (Colette), Walter Kingsford (Tristan l'Hermite), and Sidney Toler (Robin Turgis) Produced and Directed by Frank Lloyd (#099 - Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), #1321 - The Sea Hawk, and #1339 - Cavalcade)

Review: 

Based on the early 20th century play and novel of the same name Justin Huntly McCarthy that involved the noted French poet François Villon, it probably doesn't surprise you to see this film among the list of ones done in the 1930s when it comes to literary inspirations. It wasn't the first adaptation, as Fox Film did one in 1920 with William Farnum as Villon. John Barrymore took his crack at it in 1927 with The Beloved Rogue. A 1925 operetta adaptation was turned into a 1930 musical operetta film with Dennis King. Two further adaptations have followed since this film, with François Villon (a French 1945 film) and The Vagabond King (1956). Who better to do a historical drama than Frank Lloyd? Sure, he may not be the most noted name among famed folks with multiple Academy Awards, but Lloyd specialized himself as a reliable director in both the silent and sound era. He had been born in Glasgow, but he only became an actor after seeing his travels in Canada as a would-be rancher and telephone company worker turn to Los Angeles in 1913. Needless to say, he made a variety of films, with Berkeley Square (1933) being his favorite. If I Were King was actually made in the latter stage of Lloyd's career, as he would retire for the first time in 1946 before a brief comeback with Republic Pictures in the 1950s. A studio man in the most complimentary of senses, he did films for studios from Fox Film to Paramount to Warner Bros. Oh, and this is a film that saw a script written by Preston Sturges. Sturges had made his way to Hollywood as a contributor to dialogue and script work in the 1930s (having first served as a playwright on Broadway) with films such as The Big Pond (1930) and The Power and the Glory (1933). Two years after the release of this film, he would become a director by selling his script The Great McGinty for "ten dollars" and the rest is history. 

It probably isn't surprising to see that even the reign of King Louis XI can lend itself to interesting biodrama with a bit of action and light touch of comedy. Well, having Ronald Colman as the lead actor is a pretty big help, because he brings a great presence of dignity that you would expect from a man of his talents. This time around, playing a poet with elements of the scoundrel that makes a mostly interesting film about the nature of what it really means to say one could do things on the level of a king (defender of the faith, don't forget), especially when playing a loose interpretation of an author that no one knows the fate of after his banishment in 1463 (incidentally, Louis IX became king in 1461 and reigned until 1483). Rathbone provides the support required in an eccentric that plays along in the charade (it is a romanticization after all) in a way that generates some amusement while never forgetting his place on the throne and the ways that he maneuvers people like pawns on a chess board. The little game that the two play of seeing how one would do "if I were King" is really more than just a series of little royal hijinks, instead serving as a trial of pride, one where the King can play both observer and executor. Of course, the romance between Colman and Dee is meant to be the real game of guesswork, and they do make a fine pairing for what is needed beyond the illusions that arise from the film (one built on it because of the very nature of Villon's fate). The rest of the cast do just fine in support, all serving as pawns in this weird little game of "who's playing who" that range from winded father figures in France or friends of the once-low man in Drew or Toler. The 101-minute runtime goes without many hitches, setting up its key conceit within the first 40 minutes without dawdling, and the climax is apt enough to patch things out handily enough. So yes, it is a ham-handed telling of poet and king in who is really setting who up, but it is an enthusiastic film with a useful script, a servicable director and worthy lead performances in Colman and Rathbone to carry things over the finish line with plenty to recommend in the long run, as one would hope from a film of its ilk.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.