The Cat and the Canary (1927)

Review #1914: The Cat and the Canary.

Cast: 

Laura La Plante (Annabelle West), Creighton Hale (Paul Jones), Forrest Stanley (Charles Wilder), Tully Marshall (Roger Crosby), Gertrude Astor (Cecily), Flora Finch (Susan), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Harry), Martha Mattox (Mammy Pleasant, housekeeper), George Siegmann (the Guard), and Lucien Littlefield (Dr. Ira Lazar) Directed by Paul Leni (#863 - Waxworks and #999 - The Man Who Laughs)

Review: 

When it comes to the haunted house movie, you can't go wrong with The Cat and the Canary, even if it wasn't the first to really come out. There were quite a few films with a killer going around a house, such as Cecil B. Demille & Oscar Apfel's The Ghost Breaker (1914), its 1922 remake by Alfred E. Green, D. W. Griffith's One Exciting Night (1922), along with Roland West's The Monster (1925) and The Bat (1926), for example. It would continue in further years, with West remaking his film in 1930 as The Bat Whispers, and James Whale directed The Old Dark House (1932). But some films last longer in the public consciousness than others, as is the case with a film like this. The movie was adapted from the 1922 play of the same name that had been written by John Willard to noted success on Broadway. The screenplay was written by Alfred A. Cohn and Walter Anthony, while the story was done by Alfred A. Cohn and Robert F. Hill. This was the first of five adaptations: Universal did both an English and Spanish version in 1930 (The Cat Creeps and La Voluntad del muerto, respectively), which are both lost. A 1939 film was done with more comedy involving Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard, while the next (and last) adaptation was done in 1979 for British audiences. It was the first of four American films directed by German director Paul Leni, the German Expressionist director that went from avant-garde painting to set designer to work in film by the 1910s. He moved to America at the invitation of Carl Laemmle at Universal Studios, as part of a wave of people from Europe coming to America for films (like Fritz Lang, for example). The Last Warning (1928), his final film, was presented as a companion film to The Cat and the Canary, as it also stars La Plante (it was released in both part-sound and silent, but the latter survives), albeit more as a mystery than comedy-horror. Leni would not live long to direct many films in America, dying of a sepsis from a tooth infection in 1929 at the age of 44.

So yes, we have a story about a creepy house filled with folks hearing about a will from a man 20 years dead. The only thing standing in the way of riches for one is to just not be declared insane but sliding panels and a fiend called "The Cat" threaten the whole affair. So yes, the suspense is balanced with comic relief, because this was the time for that kind of movie where horror can't be given to you full throttle, and the final twist is about what you might expect. However, it is the presentation that matters most, and that is where Leni shines. He utilized all of the tricks one would hope for in terms of establishing quality atmosphere, whether that involves shadows, superimpositions, gliding camera shots, or its lively title cards. The scene with a person walking in the hallway with a candle in hard while curtains blow is certainly a highlight when it comes to striking effect, alongside the opening sequence when it comes to saying "a man is trapped like a canary". So yes, the movie is a causal ride of spooky terror that fits far better than a movie without as much subtlety, because, well, things in 1927 can still play well in 2022. La Plante was a key presence for a number of Universal Pictures in the pre-sound era, and she does pretty well for not having too much to really do besides having things happen to them rather than with them. So yes, it's not too hard to be on her side when it comes the towering threat of spooked either by weirdo eccentrics or visitors. The other castmates are mostly there for relief without pandering to bad jokes, which works in favor for Hale in goofy charm that compliments La Plante pretty well or with the familiar face in Marshall. The others bumble in all the right ways without leaving an obvious clue to what could happen next. Yes, you have a good idea where things could go in its 82-minute runtime by about the halfway point, but it still is weird and engaging enough regardless of that fact. As a whole, it is a solidly dignified bit of horror worth a look for its era, being unsettling while having a solid atmosphere that makes everything work out just right.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have had a quality month of horror. But you know the turn to November means it ain't over yet. As with the case with 2019, 2020, and 2021...it is time for Halloween: The Week After 4.0. That is correct, a number of horror reviews from November 1 to November 7, basically comprised of movies that deserved to be covered in October but are now present in November for all to enjoy. This time, I will be generous and tell you what is coming next because I like you very much.

Next film up is Exorcist II: The Heretic. Shit.

Forbidden Fruit (1921).

Review #1880: Forbidden Fruit.

Cast: 

Agnes Ayres (Mary Maddock), Clarence Burton (Steve Maddock), Theodore Roberts (James Harrington Mallory), Kathlyn Williams (Mrs. Mallory), Forrest Stanley (Nelson Rogers), Theodore Kosloff (Pietro Giuseppe), Shannon Day (Nadia Craig), and Bertram Johns (John Craig) Directed by Cecil B. DeMille (#1245 - The Squaw Man (1914), #1371 - Unconquered, #1697 - Why Change Your Wife?)

Review: 

Sometimes I think I haven't been quite fair with Cecil B. DeMille. Imagine being only the 119th director to have at least four films covered on Movie Night, you might. The man made seventy movies and had a reputation for scale and showmanship, yet here we are with something from his most proficient era, the silent times (the religious films are ones I can kick the can on for a couple more years). This was actually a remake of a film he had directed in 1915 called The Golden Chance, which he co-wrote with Jeanie Macpherson. She had collaborated with DeMille on countless movies in the era when she had approached him at Lasky Studios over she could act in his features (apparently, she also served as one of his mistresses). At any rate, the director made dramas, comedies, Westerns, morality plays, you get the idea; it only makes sense to go back to familiar material that worked out before, since it wasn't like people could just go back and watch the earlier movie. Yes, this is basically a riff on the Cinderella story, what with it being about a (married) seamstress being turned into a pretty woman in gorgeous gowns to serve as an escort to a man at a dinner party that sees them both fall for each other. You know who really liked the movie? Alfred Hitchcock, who cited it as one of his favorites in 1939 (he also stated Saturday Night (1922), also done by DeMille, as his favorite).  

So okay, it is a bit of a melodrama romance. Did I mention there is also a conniving butler who plans to rob them? Or that he joins up with the drunken husband of the leading lady? That, plus the extortion attempt is what makes up a very curious experience for a film. I can't say that it is great by any measure, because it certainly has moments to uh, make light of (try reading the title cards about husbands and wives out loud and you see what I mean), but it is still pretty solid for what ends up on screen for 87 minutes. It isn't as offbeat in mindset like Why Change Your Wife? (1920), but it has all of the DeMille touches in imagination with its views on love, complete with dream sequences imitating Cinderella and birds being killed by shoes being thrown. These antics are more interesting than a good chunk of the actors in the movie, who are just fine. Ayres shows a few of the demands required in basic emotions of love and pain that comes and goes. Burton makes a quality lout, one fitting the bill for what is needed in ways that you can see the decayed essence of a person with someone to play off of (hell, there's a scene where dollar bills are imposed on his eyes). Roberts and Williams do well in basically playing discount fairy godparents (again, this Cinderella story is their doing, but only because getting oil deals is important), complete with guiding our lead to the right fork to use in dinner that is pretty funny. Stanley kind of gets lost in the shuffle with minimal describing factors. Look, it is the kind of movie that hones plenty of things that would seem familiar to soap opera enjoyers, which can make for an interesting experience if one has the patience for it. DeMille knows what he likes when it comes to certain viewpoints about the ideals of love and how to show it visually. Sure, one knows where the road is going to lead when it comes to these kinds of movies, but it sure makes for a worthwhile ride to go on. Thankfully, with the public domain, one can see for themselves just what happens when you play a bit of Cinderella on the melodrama, so if it seems up your speed, perhaps take a ride with DeMille if it seems like something to view from a name in classic cinema.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Okay, there is a sort of theme I am planning with the month of September, albeit on a "Stuff to do" basis, covering movies from directors that haven't had as much coverage on Movie Night as others have had...that and one other movie I've been looking forward to. Enjoy the ride...