Christopher Strong.

Review #2187: Christopher Strong.

Cast: 

Katharine Hepburn (Lady Cynthia Darrington), Colin Clive (Sir Christopher Strong), Billie Burke (Lady Elaine Strong), Helen Chandler (Monica Strong), Ralph Forbes (Harry Rawlinson), Irene Browne (Carrie Valentine), Jack La Rue (Carlo), and Desmond Roberts (Bryce Mercer) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party)

Review: 

Technically, the focus should be on Arzner, because she was the one key regular female director in the sound era (there were others too such as Dorothy Davenport, but I think you know what I mean). But 1933 was also the year of Katharine Hepburn, so why not a few words here. She had early ideas of being an actress, but it was not until she graduated Bryn Mawr College in 1928 that had her on the road to professional acting, which started in the theater. She appeared in a handful of roles that ranged from understudy to being let go, but her performance in 1932's The Warrior's Husband got her notice in Hollywood from a scout. George Cukor vouched for her in casting for what became A Bill of Divorcement, released in the fall of 1932. 1933 saw her star in three films: Christopher Strong, Morning Glory, and Little Women (it was for the middle film that saw her win her first Academy Award). Hepburn came into the picture after Ann Harding had contractual problems, with this being a production under David O. Selznick at RKO. Strong was based off the 1932 novel of the same name, as written by Gilbert Frankau (it only seems apt that he wrote a novel about a Member of Parliament, Frankau apparently had a desire to serve in politics but a conservative man with his history in divorces did not test well for the times). The screenplay was written by Zoe Akins (who had written for Arzner's Sarah and Son), a future Pulitzer Prize winner as a playwright; the profession was changed from the book, which was about a woman racecar driver. Tommy Atkins apparently served as an assistant director. Hepburn reflected on the film in her autobiography and said that she enjoyed her time making the film (along with noting that each wore pants). It was Arzner who apparently modeled Hepburn's character off Amy Johnson, the first woman pilot (well, the word is "aviatrix") to fly solo from England to Australia (there was a mix of newsreel footage for parades and flights included as well). 

It wasn't a huge success at the time, but it certainly stands as a curious film that happened to be made just a year before the enforcement of the Production Code. Of course, the film isn't really about the one in the title as it is about, well, the woman experiencing her first love affair and how it affects her when it comes to the clashes of caution and danger-seekers. Courage, death, love, well, it all comes together in a crash of emotion that really could only come in that Pre-Code era. Hepburn just has that straight-to-the-point personality that exudes confidence with a knowing aura that moves leaps and bounds over anyone she interacts with, which is curious when wrapped with the idea of being in love for the first time - to a stuffy one, no less. Clive is put in the interesting position of being the stodgiest person in a film where he is playing the title character that at one point gets to look upon a woman wearing an outfit that reminds one of a moth. It is a clammy tightrope to walk in terms of "dignity" (he's playing a character that did enough to be called "Sir", remember) when it comes to trying to maintain the idea of normalcy when facing someone with similar features in single-minded goals. All the while, one sees Burke and Chandler from time to time in that engagement of trying to cope with the predicament that comes in love for one with an "occupied" status. Apparently, Arzner paid significant attention to getting something out of Burke when it came to performance along with stating that her interest really fell to Clive's character, which she described as "a man on the cross". Interpret that any way you wish, but each of them do fairly well anyway. As a whole, the film rests on how much one will go with that ending, which, well, rather than face the prospect of an illegitimate child (as one reads between the lines) and wreak havoc on the lives of people she cares about, a decision is made to fly high into the sky with a plan to never see them again. At 78 minutes, it is a decent experience for the curiosity alone.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Cavalcade.

Review #1339: Cavalcade.

Cast: 
Diana Wynyard (Jane Marryot), Clive Brook (Robert Marryot), Una O'Connor (Ellen Bridges), Herbert Mundin (Alfred Bridges), Beryl Mercer (Cook), Irene Browne (Margaret Harris), Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Snapper), Merle Tottenham (Annie), and Frank Lawton (Joe Marryot) Directed by Frank Lloyd (#099 - Mutiny on the Bounty and #1321 - The Sea Hawk)

Review: 
It is easy to say in retrospect what films are memorable or striking for a particular year (particularly when talking about awards for said films of a year). When one thinks of 1933, one would likely think of certain films like King Kong, The Invisible Man, or perhaps even Morning Glory before Cavalcade. This is a strange one, since this was the highest grossing film of the year, and it eventually went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, the first and only win for studio Fox Film Corporation before its merger in 1935 along with an award for Lloyd, the second director to win two Academy Awards. Lloyd had a forty-year career directing films for a variety of studios, and this was one of his noted films (the war sequences, however, were directed by William Cameron Menzies). Maybe this is perhaps of its home video history, since its first VHS release came only in 1993, while the first stand-alone release on DVD and Blu-Ray came out in 2013, after being included in one of those prestige movie packs in 2010. This 2013 release came after winning an online write-in poll, which made it the last Best Picture winner to do so (of course it also is available on streaming services, but those don't count for anything). One must note the source material it comes from, a play by famed playwright Noël Coward, which had premiered in 1931 in London, which used hydraulics and moving components on a big stage for great effect. One can give credit for the ambition in making a British production (in terms of stars and writers while Lloyd was born in Scotland), but this generosity does not quite help the film when it comes to actually watching it.

For an epic that spans 30 years, one would be surprised to note that the pace of the 112-minute film makes one feel like they are spending 30 years watching it. Events come and go, but these characters remain flat for most of its run-time, as if the "stiff upper lip" is the only thing worth mentioning of these people. This is a march of platitudes (a fancy word for cliche) that is in search of an idea. Oh sure, one gets to see glimpses of history such as the Boer War, the Titanic, and World War I. But all of it feels tremendously empty, a by-the-numbers kind of romantic drama that seems dated now but certainly must've reeled others more familiar with the dawn of the 20th century than I. With such stagy qualities, one can't quite fault the actors for not quite living up to film standards, where one is left with a sense of detachment. Wynyard was an actress of the stage (before and after being borrowed for this film, a nominated performance), while Brook had fair success abroad from Hollywood before moving back to Britain in a few years later, reportedly in part because of kidnapping threats on his children. In any case, they seem unflappable as one could expect, but it seems hollow nowadays. At least Wynyard proves effective when it comes to the war sequences, checking on to see if her husband (and in another sequence, son) are still alive. The cliches have collapsed into other cliches, honestly. The best instance of that is a sequence involving a newly wed couple, speaking about romantic cliches while aboard a ship on April 1912. Gee, I wonder what ship these folks are on. Of all the events portrayed in the film, this is the only one that seems brushed aside, with the famous wreck of the Titanic and the fate of said characters being talked about just once in dialogue. One can depict flashes of war, the death of Queen Victoria, someone getting run over by horses, but I guess the Titanic is a bit too much. Seriously though, the way in people come and go in this film is astounding, where one would find more emotion present in someone's death in a children's book. At least the film looks like it spans a couple of decades, as opposed to being done on the cheap (not that there's anything wrong with that). On the whole, this is a film that has little enduring power, doing so on the basis of awards from decades ago and milder-than-mild spectacle that make it an antique above usual antiques. If you're into this kind of film, you might find something worth looking into, but for me I found mild disappointment above all, a piece that fits the 1930s in ambition but not one in terms of ultimate enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.