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.

A Farewell to Arms.

Review #1611: A Farewell to Arms.

Cast: 

Helen Hayes (Catherine Barkley), Gary Cooper (Lieutenant Frederic Henry), Adolphe Menjou (Major Rinaldi), Mary Philips (Helen Ferguson), Jack La Rue (Priest), Blanche Friderici (Head Nurse), Mary Forbes (Miss Van Campen), and Gilbert Emery (British Major) Directed by Frank Borzage.

Review: 

It is easy to say a film is overdue to cover when you can see it any time you like, which is particularly true for this film. It was originally distributed by Paramount Pictures, but somehow it managed to fall into the public domain when its copyright was not renewed. This was a film released in the middle of the career of established director Frank Borzage, who by this point in time was the second director to have received two Academy Awards for Best Director (he started his career in 1916, after having appeared in a few short films) with dramas such as 7th Heaven (1927) and Bad Girl (1931). The screenplay was done by Benjamin Glazer (who also co-produced the film) and Oliver H.P. Garrett, which was based on the novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway. He had written the novel in 1929 that was based on his experiences in World War I, in which he served in the Italian Front (his stint in a Milan hospital with treatment from a nurse that he fell in love with, was dramatized into a film of its own with In Love and War decades later). This is the first of two film adaptations, with the other being released in 1957. This film was released before the advent of a tighter Production Code (hence content like abandoned duty and babies born out of wedlock and such), which means that one has a mix of romanticism and cynicism that proves quite enjoyable.

The film received four Academy Award nominations with Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, and it won in the latter two categories, certainly earning a merit as some sort of prestige picture for its time. In other words, it is the kind of movie that you can look to and highlight from the curious era of the 1930s, just making its way out of the silent era while continuing the trend of adapting notable works of literature with spin for its target audience that just happen to deal with either war, romance, or a bit of both (besides, the Best Picture winner that this film lost to happened to involve drama and coverage of war - the inferior Cavalcade (1933), naturally). In that sense, even if Hemingway wasn't exactly thrilled by the film's tone compared to his book, I'm sure one will find enough to enjoy in a romance rift with energy and tragedy. Featured as our stars are two rising stars that would become famous names in time. Hayes was already an actress by the time she was a teenager (she is known as "First Lady of American Theatre" for a reason), and her debut in feature film with The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931) garnered an Academy Award for her. She reportedly developed a crush on Cooper during production, and it is clear to see a brimming honesty coming from her that makes for a well performance in vulnerability. Cooper had been established as a star with film roles such as The Winning of Barbara Worth (1926) and The Virginian (1929), so it only seems appropriate to see him in a strong brimming kind of film like this, where he towers a bit over Hayes (by at least a foot, although the camera angles certainly help sometimes) that makes for an interesting romantic courtship. He composes himself well in careful charisma like a mighty oak tree, one might say. Not to be forgotten is Menjou, a name actor in silent and sound films (with a select group of lead roles owning to his suave nature that served for a five decade career), playing cavalier with Cooper that works quite well in turning the screws for what is needed without fiddling the mustache in scene-chewing. Philips goes along okay, although it is La Rue who makes memorable effort in a "wedding" sequence in the middle of the film. There were actually two endings to the film, depending on preferences of the theater at the time of release, with one following the novel and the other being more optimistic. Hemingway, displeased already by the altering of tone with his novel into less cynical, was angered by the decision for theater owners. One silver lining is that he struck up a friendship with Cooper that lasted for over 20 years (and he surely must have found it engaging to see Cooper star in another adaptation of his work a decade later). In any case, what we have here is a fine film to see play out for 88 minutes in classic traditional fare for those who like that sort of thing. It isn't great, but it certainly represents a well effort for its stars and director in entertainment, for which one can fit their curiosity for any time they like.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

No Orchids for Miss Blandish.

Review #1598: No Orchids for Miss Blandish.

Cast:

Jack La Rue (Slim Grisson), Hugh McDermott (Dave Fenner), Linden Travers (Miss Blandish), Walter Crisham (Eddie Schultz), MacDonald Parke (Doc), Danny Green (Flyn), Lilli Molnar (Ma Grisson), Charles Goldner (Louis, Headwaiter), Zoe Gail (Margo), Leslie Bradley (Ted Bailey), and Richard Neilson (Riley) Directed, Written, and Produced by St. John Legh Clowes.

Review:

In fairness, this film is only notable to really get around to covering because of the furor it inspired with contemporary critics of the time. The film is based on two sources: the original book, which was originally written by James Hadley Chase in 1939, and the play of the same name that was adapted by Chase and Robert Nesbitt in 1942. The original production ran at Prince of Wales Theatre in the West End for a brief run that had starred Travers in the lead role. Somehow, the play received better notice than the film eventually proved to have. The film starts with a listing on an "A" [Passed for Public Exhibition to Adult Audiences] rating, which would mean that someone under 12 couldn't watch it. Some of the critiques at the time even mentioned that when decrying the film as "salacious". Actually, let me rewind that a bit, because even the book had a bit of critique at the time for its violence and sensuality, where even George Orwell (essayist, journalist, and famous writer of works such as Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four) made an essay about it. To add on to that, the Chase novel was inspired by another novel involving "salacious" material with Sanctuary, written by William Faulkner in 1931 that involved a kidnapping of a college girl with bootleggers in the South alongside other seedy elements. Incidentally, Sanctuary also had its own film adaptation in The Story of Temple Drake (1933) that had La Rue in the lead role, and a further adaptation of the book alongside its follow-up book was done in later years, while Chase's novel would also receive a further film adaptation with The Grissom Gang (1971) by Robert Aldrich as director. In any case, this was the third and last film directed by Clowes, with the most other notable contribution being his play Dear Murderer (1946), which was turned into a film by others the following year. One alternate title was actually called Black Dice...creative in decadence, surely. Apparently, while the film was a hit with British audiences, it has never been shown on British television.

Look, the book had a blurb on the front that said it was "the toughest novel you'll ever read", so is the film really that surprising? Actually, the real surprise is the fact that the film really isn't that bad. Is it over-the-top and weird? Oh you bet, but that doesn't mean this is exactly horrific in its crime of daring to make a gangster film, albeit one that tries to sell a mix of British and European actors (save for La Rue) as Americans in a New York affair. Was this really something so bad that led to a publication calling it a "sickening exhibition"? Sure, the film tries to sell a kidnapping-turned-romance with a variety of plot twists and lines that are cliché to the maximum effect, but this isn't exactly what I call gruesomely disgusting. With lines like asking to soften up and given one a tumble, it has all the markings of a classic trashy gangster piece, complete with numerous examples of violence and raw energy that don't lift for its ending. What's to hate about this? I don't care for romance films like Twilight, but I didn't exactly call it sickening. If this had been done in the following decade, one would be wondering how similar in tone it sounded to Kiss Me Deadly (1955, which happened to he directed by Aldrich), which had a government commission decrying its effect on young viewers. The crime presented here is how easy this does well at being a B-movie. The acting is a blend of mediocrity, but that seems like part of the charm: La Rue and Travers are stuck in a tawdry script that puts them together: in that regard, Travers does well with her wavering nerves of grace, one that makes for plenty of posh quivers and swoons in a role near the end of her career before retiring. La Rue is fine as well in that tradition of gangster-ese acting that wants to play tender too, one supposes. Others are weird in placement, such as McDermott (a golfer-turned-actor) and his narc-type acting with a character that nearly distracts from the climax, while Molnar's maternal gangster presence is quirky enough to work. Crisham and Green make for good goon folks to go with refined Parke and others. For 102 minutes, what we have is a movie that might as well serve as unintentional parody, with a considerable count of bodies falling in a variety of ways (namely shooting) that nevertheless has a keen appeal to keep watching anyway. It might have been a bit much (or perhaps enough) for certain groups in 1948, but it has a place for itself regardless to be remembered. It is a strange, unusual movie that will make one look back on their noirs and romance and wonder just where this film got all of its weird hang-ups from each genre from.

Next Time: Killers from Space.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.