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.

Working Girls.

Review #1810: Working Girls.

Cast: 

Judith Wood (June Thorpe), Dorothy Hall (Mae Thorpe), Charles "Buddy" Rogers (Boyd Wheeler), Paul Lukas (Dr. Joseph Von Schrader), Stuart Erwin (Pat Kelly), Frances Dee (Louise Adams), Mary Forbes (Mrs. Johnstone), Claire Dodd (Jane), Dorothy Stickney (Loretta), Alberta Vaughn (Violet), and Claude King (Mr. Adams) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son)

Review: 

Working Girls was the ninth feature effort from Dorothy Arzner (with two uncredited contributions), who as we all know deserved better when it comes to appraising one of the most prolific women directors of the first half of the 20th century, if not still one of the most prolific of the now. The film is adapted from the 1930 play Blind Mice, which had been written by Vera Caspary and Winifred Lenihan; Caspary was a novelist who is best known for her novel Laura (that was turned into a hit movie), while Lenihan was an actress mostly involved in the theater and her one defining role as the title role in the 1923-24 American production of Saint Joan. It was a re-working of Caspary's novel Music in the Street, which used undercover work at a rooming house by her. However, the play was actually not much of a success, since she was not experienced in writing plays (to the point where the producers did re-writes) that resulted in two weeks of life on the stage. Zoe Akins served as the screenwriter for the film, as she did for a number of Arzner's early films.

I'm sure you are familiar with the classic structure of two women trying to make it while working in the city. Well, don't forget about the joys of pre-marital relations and making light of marriage. Actually, Arzner described the film as one of her favorites, but Paramount Pictures gave it a limited release - keep in mind, this was the Pre-Code era too. A deal by Universal Pictures to acquire a number of films from Paramount's library from 1929-1948 would also bury the movie in obscurity for years without a home video release. Of course, prints do exist that were screened for occasions such as 2015 for UCLA or for bootlegs. Of course, one might not exactly be quite familiar with the stars besides Lukas (well, him and Erwin were both future Academy Award nominees, though). It was the last starring role for Hall, and Wood had her peak (in terms of roles) in this year, while Rogers had a few years of being known as "America's Boy Friend" who dabbled in music. The reason I am spending a bit of time with history window-dressing is to give a little credit to the actual result generated by Arzner when it comes to making a solid Pre-Code comedy that can be interpreted as a useful feminist work with its ruminations about marriage that make for a fairly interesting 77 minutes. Sure, there were a handful of films that aimed to capture the reality of folks trying to mingle the realities of city life with love life with regard to what expectations are held to them, but this time with a truly feminine perspective. While the structure of the film doesn't exactly yield to too many unpredictable closing marks, it does manage to have a charm and efficiency to make things seem worth it without being absorbed in audience-safe fears (with a little bit of editing charm to go alongside it). Wood and Hall pair fairly decently when it comes to showing the associations that comes with free-spirited young people that will either take advantage of situations presented to them or be swept away by it (or both), which results in a few laughs. Rogers proves adequate in flighty charisma, but Lukas is the more distinct presence in terms of measured interest while Erwin makes a casual foil to seal the puzzle of distinct personalities playing against the leads. While its ending nearly shakes with too much offbeat nature (i.e. a gun-induced marriage proposal), the movie is generally riveting enough with showing perspective in the right places that means it still shows relevance among its peers after nine decades, one that is cheery and earthy enough to recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Not Wanted (1949).

Of Human Bondage.

Review #1341: Of Human Bondage.

Cast: 
Leslie Howard (Philip Carey), Bette Davis (Mildred Rogers), Frances Dee (Sally Athelny), Kay Johnson (Norah), Reginald Denny (Harry Griffiths), Alan Hale (Emil Miller), Reginald Sheffield (Cyril Dunsford), Reginald Owen (Thorpe Athelny), and Tempe Pigott (Agnes Hollet, Philip's landlady) Directed by John Cromwell (#1008 - The Racket)

Review: 
What is there to say about Bette Davis that hasn't already been said before? Davis is one of the most famous actresses of film to ever grace the screen, but one only needs to point to her six decade career of various sardonic roles that ranged from various dramas that garnered multiple Academy Award wins (two) and nominations (only three other people have more nominations than her ten). One nomination that is not technically recorded is for her role in this film (for which she received write-in votes for in one of only two ceremonies to allow said votes), which is generally considered her breakthrough role. She had started her career on the stage in 1929 before moving to Hollywood the following year to screen test for Universal Studios. She made her film debut with a supporting role in Bad Sister (1931), but her time with the studio was characterized by a dearth of roles before her release from her contract the following year. On the verge of leaving Hollywood, it was the decision of George Arliss to have her cast as the fiancee to his character in The Man Who Played God (1932) with Warner Bros. that gave her the foot in the door she needed, as she soon signed a contract with the studio after they liked the rushes. She would subsequently stay with the studio until 1949, although there were not always easy times. She notably attempted to breach her contract in 1936 when presented an offer to make two films in Britain, owing to be faced to perform in parts she felt were mediocre (incidentally, it was her appearance in a film named The Cabin in the Cotton (1932) that led director Cromwell to want her for this film). In any case, Davis had wanted the un-glamorous role despite the reluctance of studio head Jack L. Warner to let her star in what was to be a production by RKO Radio Pictures. A chance to trade actresses for a part led to RKO being allowed to borrow Davis for this film while Warner Bros borrowed one of their contract players for a film of their own. Davis proved to be dedicated to making this role the first of many noted performances of her career, from hiring a housekeeper with a Cockney English accent to prepare for the role to even designing her own makeup for her final scenes when downtrodden with tuberculosis.

For a film released just as a strengthened Motion Picture Production Code was coming into effect in July of that year, this is sure a daring film to inspire such shock and passion. This was an adaptation of the 1915 novel of the same name by W. Somerset Maugham, which has a mix of autobiographical and fictional elements, as admitted by the author (with both him and the main character having a physical calamity, being an orphan at an early age, and studying medicine). It was the first of three adaptations, with ones to follow in 1946 and 1964. Obviously the work is going to be changed a bit for a film adaptation, especially a 600-page book going down to an 83 minute film. A curious synopsis glance notes that the film only mentions the main character's uncle at the end when he dies, as opposed to showing his experiences growing up with his uncle. The film has a stagey if somewhat dated feel to it at times (this proves true with some of Cromwell's decisions like the perspective shots), but it is the dominant performance of Davis that keeps the film rolling with curiosity. She has a fearlessness and tenacity to making this role worth viewing to see her run the gamut in cruelty, most notably when she chews the main character out near the end. We all have had at least one experience or knew at least one person in our lives with that kind of emotional recklessness, the kind of person we think we need in our lives no matter how they might treat us. It doesn't mean that Howard's character is completely in the right either, but it is a film that uses most of its time (save for its obligatory moralistic line for the ending) to show two people who really just don't belong together who keep lining up that way. Sure, the main character still finds someone to be with after his obsession is lifted, but the film still hits on those basic points without too much trouble. Howard (a man of theatre and film who was an idol in his own right for the decade) comes off as stiffly sensitive, quiet yet fairly easy to follow along with despite some of the offbeat decisions his character can make. With lesser actors, this could've been easily turned into a vamp piece and nothing else. But these two make for a worthy duet to view, which go with a decent supporting cast to make for a decent piece to study. Interestingly enough, this is a film readily available for viewing, since the copyright for this film was not renewed in the 28th year of publication, meaning that this is in the public domain for easy viewing. I recommend this one without any doubt, a fairly entertaining film on the strength of Bette Davis in the role that made her a star worth viewing with interest.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

I Walked with a Zombie.

Review #998: I Walked with a Zombie.

Cast: 
Frances Dee (Betsy Connell), Tom Conway (Paul Holland), James Ellison (Wesley Rand), Edith Barrett (Mrs. Rand), James Bell (Dr. Maxwell), Christine Gordon (Jessica Holland), Theresa Harris (Alma), Sir Lancelot (Calypso Singer), and Darby Jones (Carrefour) Directed by Jacques Tourneur.

Review: 
This was based off an article of the same name written by Inez Wallace for American Weekly Magazine; this was the third film produced by Val Lewton, known for doing numerous low-budget horror films for RKO Pictures in the 1940s, and he had three rules given to him: The film would have to be made for under $150,000, it would have to run under 75 minutes and his supervisors gave him the film titles to utilize for the film. With a movie title like this, you certainly get what you came for, along with a fairly cohesive film. Just make sure you read the disclaimer on the credits "The characters and events depicted in this photoplay are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead, or possessed, is purely coincidental." It differs from other horror films of the time in how it relies on mood and ambiguity than some sort of monster. It was Lewton's idea to fit the structure of the film like the novel Jane Eyre, and it certainly seems to make sense, seeing how compelling the characters seem to be. Dee and Conway manage to have a fairly interesting chemistry together, mostly because they don't really go for anything too melodramatic, instead having a natural feel that goes with the rest of the film. Barrett is also fairly decent as well, particularly due to her role being more useful than it might seem, and she takes good advantage of that. Gordon does a decent job in the title role as well. It has an exceptional atmosphere and a competent kind of plotting that makes for a breezily interesting experience. The story has numerous turns, and it certainly helps in keeping the film feel fresh while not letting itself become predictable - with a capably odd end scene. The parts with the people of the island aren't as riveting, but they aren't too harmful for the film. It's not a film that goes for scares, but it certainly reaches for chills and succeeds without much doubt in that regard. At 69 minutes, I find it to a fairly easy movie to recommend, sticking out quite nicely from other horror films of its time.

Well. Only one batch to go. The last review with only three digits for the number will be next week, while the big milestone review will follow a day later, as per tradition. No spoilers yet, folks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.