Honor Among Lovers.

Review #2522: Honor Among Lovers.

Cast:

Claudette Colbert (Julia Traynor), Fredric March (Jerry Stafford), Monroe Owsley (Philip Craig), Charles Ruggles (Monty Dunn), Ginger Rogers (Doris Brown), Avonne Taylor (Maybelle Worthington), Pat J. O'Brien (Conroy), Janet McLeary (Margaret Newton), and Ralph Morgan (Riggs) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party, #2187 - Christopher Strong, #2362 - Anybody's Woman)

I suppose the best way to start talking about the film is to let Arzner's words (conducted in the 1970s) about the movie: "I collaborated in the writing of Honor Among Lovers, which I made for Paramount in New York. As audiences were ready for more sophistication, it was considered the smartest high comedy at the time. No, there was no pressure regarding the script, I had very little interference with my pictures. Sometimes there were differences in casting, sets, or costumes, but usually I had my way. You see I was not dependent on the movies for my living, so I was always ready to give the picture over to some other director if I couldn’t make it the way I saw it. Right or wrong, I believe this was why I sustained so long––twenty years." This was the 8th credited feature film for Arzner as a director, right between Anybody's Woman (1930) and Working Girls (1931). There were apparently a few working titles with "Sex in Business", "Strictly Business", and "Another Man's Wife". This was the second pairing of Colbert and March, who first appeared together in Manslaughter (1930) (they appeared again with The Sign of the Cross [1932] and Tonight is Ours [1933]).

Okay, sure, an office triangle movie with a couple of future Academy Award winning actors involved*. It sounds like a pretty casual affair, particularly with a runtime of 75 minutes that basically coasts on just how much you yearn to see how one woman's choices create so many ripples for all involved. It's the type of movie that has its own little quirks for modern audiences, of course, mainly because the boss in the film is, well, a boss trying to strike up a romance with his secretary that decides that the best course of action after she gets married is to fire her. But at least he seems normal when compared to the other man in the triangle in Owsley, who was a stock theater troupe man before he got onto film (in the last days of silent film) that acted all the way until his death...at 36 in 1937 (from a heart attack, of all things). One can enjoy a little bit of ham-handedness (especially when representing the underrated aspect of a love triangle story: a guy who isn't actually that good at wooing). One thing comes to another and boom, suddenly you have folks trying to throw their significant other down the river for their foolishness. At least the movie isn't completely judgmental over the decisions made by its one key feminine presence (because if it was, the movie probably would hit the rails into melodrama to chuckle at). Colbert and March prove fairly dependable and have a bit of chemistry together to where it at least isn't too hard to see where they would actually grow up and want the other. As a whole, it's a decent movie that comes and goes with the relative craftsmanship that Arzner had honed down in less than five years as a director that just rolls with useful sophistication and perspective for human nature.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*March won his first Academy Award with his performance in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) while Colbert won her award with It Happened One Night (1934), and if you pay attention to the supporting roles, you'll see the future winner for Kitty Foyle (1940) in Ginger Rogers

Apologies, I forgot to include a song of the day for the previous review. So enjoy two: 

belated) Song of the day

and this song of the day!

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Review #2103: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Cast: 

Fredric March (Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde), Miriam Hopkins (Ivy Pierson), Rose Hobart (Muriel Carew), Holmes Herbert (Dr. John Lanyon), Halliwell Hobbes (Brigadier-General Danvers Carew), Edgar Norton (Poole), and Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Hawkins) Directed by Rouben Mamoulian (#773 - Applause and #1869 - The Mark of Zorro [1940])

Review: 

Well, I'm sure you are familiar with at least one adaptation of the 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, as written by Robert Louis Stevenson. The novella was popular enough to inspire a stage play in 1887 by Thomas Russell Sullivan, who was asked to write it by actor Richard Mansfield because he was intrigued at the idea of playing two roles. In the 20th century, a handful of the Jekyll and Hyde films took their inspiration from the play, and the screenplay by Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath here is not too different. Undeniably, this had been on my to-do list for quite a while, because how could I resist the urge to do a 1930s horror film made by a major studio that wasn't from Universal? The only other Jekyll film I watched was the 1920 edition with John Barrymore, but that was five years ago (incidentally, 1920 also saw the release of Der Januskopf, a F.W. Murnau production that had Conrad Veidt as the star that is unfortunately lost). Besides, the pre-Code era is never a bad one to look through when it comes to the days of getting in tune with "talkie" films and literary adaptations that engage in a degree of entertaining acting along with the fact that one could even see the film at all. Cuts had been made later in the decade for a re-issue due to the Code, but thankfully those scenes are still around. When MGM made their own version of the Hyde story in 1941, they had Victor Fleming as director and Spencer Tracy as the star while making sure to purchase the rights to the previous 1931 film and they basically hid it to avoid competition, which meant one couldn't really study it or rescreen it on a regular basis for the next two decades (ironic too, because the 1941 film is generally considered fairly inferior to the 1931 movie). Apparently, it was Mamoulian who suggested the use of March for the lead role rather than Paramount's idea of using Irving Pichel (or Barrymore, but he was busy at MGM) because he would be fine but "not handsome enough" for the role of Jekyll. The makeup was done by Wally Westmore, but the key element to the effects for transformation came with cinematographer Karl Struss, who noted the use of panchromatic film with differing color in makeup for certain filters to go with certain camera shots. He actually felt that the effect for Hyde looked too much like a monkey while wishing it was more of a psychological change with subtle effect for the change in the mental state. 

Eventually, one sees the deterioration that comes with the arrival of Hyde to the scene, which does make for a useful 98-minute venture of costume drama in atmospheric scares. It is the kind of thing one would retain in their memory to go along with other present 1931 novel "adaptations" with Frankenstein and Dracula (either version). Evidently, one sees March as Jekyll just a notch above when they see him as Hyde in terms of scenes/time, which manages to come off as two distinct people in the boisterous way that March plays his hand. The film isn't a stagy stodgy adaptation in part because the camera action is focused on establishing the tension that comes from a man waiting to burst out of his traditional chains, whether that involves POV shots (which actually start the film) or the eventual crash of man and pre-evolved man. It probably isn't surprising that he won an Academy Award for this film (sharing it with Wallace Beery), because he is tremendous here, showing the tragedy that comes with curiosity that goes too far, which involves desperation and lunacy that impulsively strikes fear for those around him. Those transformation sequences (by potion or later by impulse) are astounding, and that first sequence of Hyde in the open as one of uninhibited design and desire works to what the film wants in distinct characterization with useful effect. What we have is a victim of his own desires. Hopkins and Hobart make up both sides of the impulse here, whether that involves charm or stuffy patience for the scenario presented in upbringing (one lives in a boarding room and the other is not allowed to marry until it reaches a certain day), which makes for a quality payoff when seeing the result of overblown desire (or passionate frustration). The rest of the cast play their parts in the roundabout way to be expected, contrasting the impulsive March handily. In total, this is a splendid horror film in its camera construction and its headliner performance from March that makes for a neat encompassing film still fit for the times required.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Night of the Creeps.

The Wild Party (1929)

Review #1992: The Wild Party.

Cast: 

Clara Bow (Stella Ames), Fredric March (James 'Gil' Gilmore), Marceline Day (Faith Morgan), Shirley O'Hara (Helen Owens), Adrienne Dore (Babs), Joyce Compton (Eva Tutt), Jack Oakie (Al), Jack Luden (George), and Phillips Holmes (Phil) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son and #1810 - Working Girls)

Review: 

There are three things to note with this film: it is the earliest surviving film in the career of Dorothy Arzner, as each of her first four works (Fashions for Women (1927), Ten Modern Commandments (1927), Get Your Man (1927), Manhattan Cocktail (1928)) are lost, save for select parts in two of the four. It is also the first "talkie" film featuring the Brooklyn native Clara Bow, who was considered the "it girl" of the 1920s, specifically within silent films. The 1930s would bring more sound films than silents, but Bow (never a fan of the sound process despite receiving reasonable reviews) appeared in just ten more films before retiring in 1933. Malcolm St. Clair was originally slated to be director for the film, but disagreements with Paramount led to the hiring of Arzner, who had directed Bow earlier with Get Your Man. It is also one of the first starring roles for Fredric March, who had been appearing in small roles for various years (while making his Broadway debut in 1926) before making his star turn in films such as this, which was the first of four appearances in an Arzner film. For theaters without sound capabilities, a silent version was constructed (this is also the case for Bow's next film in 1929 with The Saturday Night Kid). There were various writers involved: Samuel Hopkins Adams, known as an investigative writer, wrote the story under the pseudonym Warner Fabian (he also wrote a handful of novels featuring young women in the Jazz Age). E. Lloyd Sheldon was credited with "adaptation", while George Marion Jr and Sheldon wrote the titles and John V.A. Weaver was left uncredited. Apparently Bow was quite nervous when it came to filming in sound, to the point where a microphone exploded on the first day of filming. To help Bow out, Arzner tied a microphone in a fishpole, which basically makes this the first movie with a boom mic. 

The movie is a pretty decent one. It may seem to be a carefree movie about young women having fun, but there is a question that comes through in just what it means to see people treat life like one wild party, seemingly aiming for nothing but cheap sensation. But it is a useful 77-minute feature filled with energy and zip from Bow that goes well with an unconventional romance set by Arzner and company for a decent time with mild laughs and a semi-interesting romance. Reviews of the time were varied on the film, but they all generally focused on the sound of Bow and her voice, but she does quite well here, probably since she doesn't seem constrained to stiff habits that would doom a lesser early sound film. She seems engaging and compelling to view in charm in art of wandering youth. The space created by Arzner of these youthful women works out to reasonable sequences that invite the viewer into the proceeding by stringing them along to what might happen next without chattering time away. They make for a quality group of bad behavior (read: 1929), whether that means the light O'Hara or the feisty Compton. As for March, he makes a bemused counterpart to the action, one where you can see how he might become a bigger name in movies, which mostly means he has a useful growing rapport with Bow, whether that involves a friendly rescue of the latter (with fists, obviously). As a whole, it is a mostly carefree film about the joys of finding a party worth having with people, whether that means in romance or on the wild side. When it comes to viewing Arzner the director or Bow the star, you can't really go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Where Are My Children?

I Married a Witch.

Review #1955: I Married a Witch.

Cast: 

Fredric March (Jonathan Wooley), Veronica Lake (Jennifer Wooley), Cecil Kellaway (Daniel), Susan Hayward (Estelle Masterson), Robert Benchley (Dr. Dudley White), Elizabeth Patterson (Margaret), Eily Malyon (Tabitha Wooley), Robert Warwick (J.B. Masterson), Mary Field (Nancy Wooley), Nora Cecil (Harriet Wooley), Ann Carter (Jennifer Wooley), and Aldrich Bowker (Justice of the Peace) Produced and Directed by René Clair.

Review: 

To start with a director, the middle is sometimes a pretty good idea. René Clair was a director of various films over four decades, born to a soap merchant in Paris in 1898. He served in World War I as an ambulance driver before becoming a journalist. His film career came to start because of persuasion by Damia (the stage name of singer Marie-Louise Damien) to visit the Gaumont film studio, which ended up resulting in him getting cast as a lead role in acting. He became an editor to a film magazine in 1922 before doing a bit of travelling to Belgium and subsequently becoming an assistant director to Jacques de Baroncelli. In 1924, he got his chance to direct with a couple of shorts in The Crazy Ray [Paris qui dort] and Entr'acte before his first feature film came with The Phantom of the Moulin Rouge [Le Fantôme du Moulin-Rouge] (1925). By the time the silent era was over, he developed a reputation as one of the most notable French names in cinema. His sound features would be an interesting case. Le Million (1931) and À nous la liberté (1931) were noted classics involving Paris, but the failure of The Last Billionaire [Le Dernier Milliardaire] (1934) was not only a flop but also the last film he did in France for years. A deal with Alexander Korda while in London led to a deal between the two to make films together, and Korda directed two films for him (The Ghost Goes West and Break the News). He then moved to America and directed a handful of feature films, which started with The Flame of New Orleans (1941). He did not return to France until 1947. He directed four films in America for various studios. His reputation dipped in light of the French New Wave deeming him a member of the establishment, with his last film being The Lace Wars [Les Fêtes galantes] (1965). Clair died at the age 82 in 1981.

 

The film is an adaptation of the book The Passionate Witch, which was being written by Thorne Smith (best known for his two ghost books in Topper) prior to his death in 1934 that saw Norman H. Matson finish it to see publication in 1941. Robert Pirosh and Marc Connelly are credited with the screenplay, but several writers were left uncredited for the dialogue, such as Clair, André Rigaud and Dalton Trumbo. Preston Sturges was originally the main producer of the film (it is him that brought Veronica Lake onto the project by convincing Clair and Paramount Pictures), but artistic differences with Clair led to him leaving the project with no screen credit. Incidentally, this film and Bell, Book and Candle (1958) would prove the inspiration for the television series Bewitched. There is something quite hypnotic that comes through with the chemistry of March and Lake, acting in their one and only feature together. Lake (a twenty-year old at the height of a career that saw her last three films be released in 1951, 1966, and 1970) proves quite bewitching in the right sort of timing, one who alternates between bubbly and later hopelessly smitten, which makes her ideal for a screwball supernatural film that rests on her shoulders for confidence and mostly succeeds; Clair later stated that she was a gifted actress who didn't believe she was gifted, and that statement seems to hold water now. March (25 years older than Lake, talk about contrasts) plays the straight and wavering role to general amusement without coming off as just the fool. They make a worthy pairing, which is probably an indicator of their talent given that they disliked working together (with names of "poseur" and "sexpot" being thrown around). Kellaway proves a solid conniving presence in support, a useful adversary in a silly film with plenty of goofs and magic to go around, while Hayward makes a solid icy foil of ambition. What can one expect from a film of witchcraft that sees wedding crashers and a flying car? It is offbeat, but it is consistently on time with amusement that never seems to cloy at the viewer in desperation or take itself too seriously. Instead, it uses peculiar charm and timing to make a film worth celebrating and viewing after eight decades because of the craftsmanship at hand to turn a bedeviling witch film into worthy entertainment for the young and old at heart. There may be no perfect answer to where to start with Rene Clair as a filmmaker, but this one is a solid place to consider.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: I know, not enough hints about what comes up next in a month for new voices. I got one hell of a spotlight coming with this one film from Korea...

Sarah and Son.

Review #1648: Sarah and Son.

Cast: 

Ruth Chatterton (Sarah Storm), Fredric March (Howard Vanning), Fuller Mellish Jr (Jim Grey), Gilbert Emery (John Ashmore), Doris Lloyd (Mrs. Ashmore), William Stack (Cyril Belloc), and Philippe De Lacy (Bobby) Directed by Dorothy Arzner.

Review: 

"When I went to work in a studio, I took my pride and made a nice little ball of it and threw it right out the window."

When it comes to the history of women in cinema, one name that should come up in consideration is Dorothy Arzner. There were a selection of female directors  in the first years of the 20th century, although the pioneer in the field was Alice Guy-Blaché, who produced and directed for Gaumont Film Company beginning in 1896 for France. She would later take credit for giving a start to another pioneer with Lois Weber, who would direct and write her own films in the advent of the silent era. The shift to sound alongside the consequences of further focus on commercial interests led to less opportunities for women filmmakers, but one director that found a place within the silent and sound eras was Dorothy Arzner. The California native grew up around the times of actors because her father owned a restaurant near a theatre that would attract various actors to dine. She initially wanted to become a doctor, having studied at the University of Southern California. However, she would shift her interests upon spending a few months with a surgeon's office. The passing of World War I alongside a flu epidemic meant that folks were needed for work, and Arnzer found her chance with Famous Players-Lasky Corporation (now known as Paramount Pictures) and William DeMille. Seeing the units of the studio work led to inspiration, as seeing the unit of Cecil DeMille in directing interested her with his drive of telling folks what to do on set. She would start as a typist before moving to script writing and eventually editing (in a span of six months); she would edit by her estimate 52 films in such a short time that ranged from Blood and Sand (1922) to The Covered Wagon (1923) while observing a variety of directors that ranged from James Cruze to Fred Niblo. In 1927, she was planning to leave for Columbia Pictures to write/direct, but a chance encounter with Walter Wanger (a production head in New York that she encountered upon wanting to say goodbye to anyone before leaving). She would get her chance to direct with Fashions for Women (starring star of the time Esther Ralston), which proved to be a wise choice. She would become noted for directing famed silent actress Clara Bow to her first talkie with The Wild Party (1929), with her idea to create a flexible microphone to help a nervous Bow (essentially creating one of the first boom mics). Among the early films of Arzner, it is the only one of her first five to survive intact. Sarah and Son (1930) is her sixth of eighteen overall films she would direct, with her films at Paramount generally having little interference before she shifted to freelance work by 1933. In that decade, there were only three women who directed a film: Dorothy Davenport, Wanda Tuchock, and Arzner. Her career would last for two decades, marching to the 1940s with First Comes Courage (1943). She would retire after the release of the film (owing to a bout of pneumonia that weakened her right before production ended), although she would work with a variety of professions relating to acting such as the Women's Army Corps with wartime training films, the Pasadena Playhouse, and teaching at the UCLA Film School.

Although her films languished in obscurity for years, there certainly is time still to look upon her perspective of filmmaking. This would be one of the first films that starred Ruth Chatterton, who was known for her stage work at the time (along with, I kid you not, side work as aviator), with successes like this film soon leading to a nickname of "The First Lady of the Screen." (Madame X (1929) and this film would each garner Academy Award nominations) and this was also the second of four films that Arnzer would direct Fredric March (this was the year before his first big role with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde). The film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Timothy Shea, with playwright Zoe Akins writing the adaptation. It is the classic melodrama for 86 minutes, involving lost kids, weird spouses, and dangerous peril leading to dramatic last shots. In other words, it's a decent little movie that obviously works on just how much one rolls with the punches of its story in keeping their eyes open. We are talking about a movie that has someone try to fool a mother with a deaf mute kid as their actual son, after all. It's an okay time, since 86 minutes isn't too long to see through to its inevitability and its one key performance. Chatterton does quite well in her range to carry the film within its two segments (1915/1918 and 1928) with patience and interest for playing to dramatic flair without hamming it up for a role requiring some banter and singing. March follows along with some fair charm, playing second fiddle within an okay romance that can only go so far (i.e. finding the child seems more important to think about). This was the third and last role for Mellish Jr, who died a month before release of a hemorrhage at the age of 32. The performance is okay, subdued in those moments spent in the first half that comes and goes quickly. Emery and Lloyd serve as the foils with varying results of middling okay quality. No one is overacting or struggling too much with speaking to the microphone. There are moments here and there that work fine, such as the reunion between mother and son that override sillier moments (the entire segment involving a family believing someone is nuts for thinking their son is totally not adopted) that makes a passable effort. The world didn't really need a dozen of films like this one, but it doesn't hurt to see the perspective of Arzner when it comes to useful melodrama from a time long ago - take it or leave it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

I will admit that I wanted to take some time off, so taking eight days off seemed like a good time to take (I also had to/still am dealing with Blu-Ray player issues). Admittedly, one themed month is usually not enough. March happens to be Women's History Month (and today incidentally is International Women's Day), so the time has come for a trove of films with female directors. Guesses can be made about what is to come, but there certainly will be at least ten films to cover over the month, which I hope will be a good one in terms of varying perspectives.

Next Time: Mädchen in Uniform (1931).

The Best Years of Our Lives.

Review #1368: The Best Years of Our Lives.

Cast:
Myrna Loy (Milly Stephenson), Fredric March (Platoon Sergeant Al Stephenson), Dana Andrews (Captain Fred Derry), Teresa Wright (Peggy Stephenson), Virginia Mayo (Marie Derry), Cathy O'Donnell (Wilma Cameron), Hoagy Carmichael (Uncle Butch Engle), Harold Russell (Petty Officer 2nd Class Homer Parrish), Gladys George (Hortense Derry), Roman Bohnen (Pat Derry), Ray Collins (Mr. Milton), Minna Gombell (Mrs. Parrish), and Walter Baldwin (Mr. Parrish) Directed by William Wyler (#509 - Roman Holiday, #1022 - Jezebel, and #1360 - Mrs. Miniver)

Review:
The most enduring films can be the ones that strike us in their poignancy. Emotional honesty can be the best policy, particularly when it comes to a film basked in real life, about soldiers coming home from war. One prominent person returning from the war was director William Wyler. The year that he had directed Mrs. Miniver (1942) to roaring success (although he subsequently called it an "incomplete" film that only scratched the surface about war), he had volunteered to serve in the US Army Air Forces; he shot footage that was turned into two war documentaries, and there were risks to filming footage over actual bombing missions, with Wyler losing a significant part of his hearing due to exposure to loud noise. It should prove no surprise that Wyler was the director to be for a film about veterans arriving home from war, with numerous touches done by the director to make an authentic piece of grand naturalness, such as having the actors buy their own clothing and having sets constructed at life-size level (as opposed to camera-friendly larger sets). To go alongside Wyler was a producer with the capable hands in Samuel Goldwyn. He had gone from bustling garments to salesman to being in a film company partnership in 1913 with Jesse L. Lasky and others to turn plays into feature-length films. They would later merge with Paramount (alongside Adolph Zukor's Famous Players Film Company), although Goldwyn would later resign in 1916 over disagreements, so he went on to partner with the Selwyn brothers to make the enterprise known as Goldwyn Pictures (with that leading to him changing his name to Goldwyn after being known as Goldfish that he had changed from Gelbfisz). It ran for eight years before being acquired by Marcus Loew to merge with Metro and Mayer to form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, although Goldwyn moved on to his own production company, and the company produced films for 36 years that would distributed through various studios such as United Artists and RKO. This was written by Robert E. Sherwood (four-time Pulitzer Prize winner and head of the Office of War Information from 1943 until the end of the war) as an adaptation of the novella Glory for Me (1945) by MacKinlay Kantor, which had been inspired by an article in Time Magazine.

One finds themselves wrapped right in with a film like this from the very first minutes, and it should prove no surprise that this film manages to accomplish this through capable storytelling, having a consistent and engaging focus for each of its veteran plots that weaves magnificently for 172 minutes, where one is absorbed in where the path may go next. March commands the film with great presence, a weary and dogged man that we can go along at any point, which matches Loy and her capable patience that makes for great established chemistry. Andrews pulls off a tremendous performance as well an evolving performance built on humility, with him and March both expressing trauma in their own respective ways (which is especially striking now as it was then). Wright proves fairly charming in a film wrapped in honest realism, where naivety and sentiment are behind for most if the film, while Mayo pulls off a conniving turn in her moments on screen, with the best highlight probably being the scene between the two when they are on a double date and talking to themselves privately. an Army instructor who had lost his hands due to a defective fuse when handling TNT) had been noticed by Wyler due to an Army film named Diary of a Sergeant, which was about rehabilitating veterans. He appeared in three total films, with Wyler having told him to finish his interrupted studies at Boston University. He pulls off his story with tremendous courage in a natural manner, where one is focused on him and his trouble like we would with others with more acting experience while not thinking about his hooks. Rounding out the cast is capable edge filling from singer-turned occasional actor Carmichael and an understanding O'Donnell performance. There is plenty that one can see when it comes to following natural pursuits in this film, one that eventually finds hope in the murkiness that could accompany such a hard readjusting that war can be. It isn't overly-sentimental or cynical to the point of irritation, finding an honest middle ground that lets these characters breathe for themselves. From the deep focus shots from Gregg Toland to highlights like the aircraft boneyard sequence, one will have an interesting time to spend with people that still seem relevant now.

One may not be surprised to know that this was a hit for its year with audiences and critics. It won seven Academy Awards, with Wyler, Sherwood, March, and Russell winning in respective categories of directing, screenplay, and acting while also winning for editing and original score. The night belonged to Goldwyn and Russell, with the former being awarded both an Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award along with Best Picture (his one win in eight nominations as producer for Best Picture) for this film while the latter became the first and only actor to receive two Academy Awards for the same performance, having been awarded an Honorary Academy Award (since the Academy apparently believed his Oscar hopes were slim). In any case, it is easy to see why this endures as one of the best films of its era, where one will find themselves satisfied with going through the time to see something like this and not finding their patience tested at any real point.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Star Is Born (1937).

Review #973: A Star Is Born.

Cast: 
Janet Gaynor (Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester), Fredric March (Norman Maine), Adolphe Menjou (Oliver Niles), May Robson (Grandmother Lettie), Andy Devine (Daniel "Danny" McGuire), Lionel Stander (Matt Libby), Owen Moore (Casey Burke), Peggy Wood (Miss Phillips), Elizabeth Jenns (Anita Regis), Edgar Kennedy (Pop Randall), and J. C. Nugent (Mr. Blodgett) Directed by William A. Wellman (#349 - Wings, #494 - The Public Enemy, and #866 - Nothing Sacred)

Review: 
A Star Is Born is certainly a interesting film about the insides of Hollywood (made by people in the system), with a fair amount of melodrama and good performances all around. A Star Is Born is a neat flick that has had the fortune of being remade three times (1954 and 1976, with one coming out in 2018), but this one and its legacy cannot be understated; the fact that the film is in the public domain and is readily available doesn't hurt either. Gaynor has a fine capable charm to her that makes it easy to follow along with her on her path, and she even makes some neat impersonations of actors of the time. March does a fine job as well, portraying his self -destructive arc quite capably that fits in line with the tone of the film. They have a fine amount of chemistry together, seeming quite at ease with each other, with their last scene being quite fitting. Menjou is fairly interesting, making a decent and convincing impression. Robson and her character are quite quirky along with being useful to the film for the most part. Devine and his distinct raspy voice make for a fine side role that makes for some amusement. Stander does a fine job, showing the smarmy nature of his character that comes off as convincing along with helping to giving the film an edge of cynicism. It's not a film mired in optimism (nor pessimism), as it's a film that wants to show the glow along with the drama that goes on with Hollywood, albeit with some inspiration from real life, such as the marriage of Barbara Stanwyck and Frank Fay, though the film has some similarity to What Price Hollywood? (1932), and the studio that had made that film (RKO) had thought about suing Selznick International Pictures (the production company for this film) for plagiarism but had decided against it.

The cinematography by W. Howard Greene is quite nice, showcasing a fair amount of color that certainly stood out for the time. He was given an honorary Academy Award for his color photography on the film (fun fact: from 1936 to 1938, Special Achievement Academy Awards were given for color films, and from 1939-1967 (except for 1957), there were separate awards for black-and-white and color cinematography). This won the Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Story, which is now known as Best Original Screenplay), and it's not hard to see why. It has its heart and mind in the right place while running at a smooth pace of 110 minutes that doesn't have a minute of false nature to it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Nothing Sacred.

Review #866: Nothing Sacred.

Cast:
Carole Lombard (Hazel Flagg), Fredric March (Wally Cook), Charles Winninger (Dr. Enoch Downer), Walter Connolly (Oliver Stone), Sig Ruman (Dr. Emil Eggelhoffer), Frank Fay (Master of Ceremonies), Troy Brown (Ernest Walker), Maxie Rosenbloom (Max Levinsky), and Margaret Hamilton (Warsaw, Vermont Drugstore Lady) Directed by William A. Wellman (#349 - Wings and #494 - The Public Enemy)

Review:
In a time like this, Nothing Sacred manages to find its place in being relevant to the point where it is timeless, in part due to a neat simple story and some fun screwball comedy within its satire elements. This film is readily easy to find, due to it being in the public domain after its copyright registration wasn't renewed in 1965, so you can find it on the Internet (or other alternative manners) without problem. It should be noted that this was the first screwball comedy in color, along with Lombard's only film in Technicolor, and it certainly stands out. This was also a film that used effects such as rear screen projection (most notably during the scene where the characters arrive in New York via plane). Lombard and March certainly have a decent chemistry together, especially when they argue, which culminates with a "boxing" scene at the end. Lombard has a welcoming presence, being one easy to root for, certainly fitting the part with enough grace and charm to fit such a fun role, which she often called one of her favorites. Connelly certainly stands out as the exasperated newspaper head; one of my favorite parts is when he tells March's character some news with a cracked voice, obviously trying to hide exasperation, which is amusing. As one would expect there is enough fine little lines, with a fine balance of timing. The rest of the cast is also pretty good, even if the film is really all about Lombard and March, who seem to have a really good time. The satire excels in that it doesn't choke the fun of the film nor does it seem artificial. It's not a film that will make you deeply about journalism and the "big story", but it is a movie that would inspire at least one conversation, and I suppose that is all that counts.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Inherit the Wind.

Review #228: Inherit the Wind.

Cast
Spencer Tracy (Henry Drummond), Fredric March (Matthew Brady), Gene Kelly (E. K. Hornbeck),  Florence Eldridge (Sara Brady), Dick York (Bertram T. Cates), Donna Anderson (Rachel Brown), Harry Morgan (Judge Mel Coffey), Claude Atkins (Rev. Jeremiah Brown), Elliott Reid (Prosecutor Tom Davenport), and Paul Hartman (Deputy Horace Meeker) Directed by Stanley Kramer.

Review
In the last review, I talked about Gene Kelly and what he did for singing and dancing. Here, he does none of that, but he's still good in a supporting role. Why did I add that last part? It's to mention the main two leads, Tracy and March. They play off each other well, given the proceedings. The film keeps you interested all through out, and the film can still be watched today with no real problems of age. All in all, the cast works, with no real problems. Happy belated (100th) birthday to Gene Kelly. I said it was his birthday, yet I didn't say that in the last review (I'd edit it, but it wouldn't make a difference) Oh well. A hidden gem for the age. Gloomy, but useful film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.