Tobacco Road.

Review #1827: Tobacco Road.

Cast: 

Charley Grapewin (Jeeter Lester), Marjorie Rambeau (Sister Bessie Rice), Gene Tierney (Ellie May Lester), William Tracy (Dude Lester), Elizabeth Patterson (Ada Lester), Dana Andrews (Capt. Tim Harmon), Ward Bond (Lov Bensey), Slim Summerville (Henry Peabody), Grant Mitchell (George Payne), and Zeffie Tilbury (Grandma Lester) Directed by John Ford (#398 - The Last Hurrah, #1324 - 3 Bad Men, #1349 - Stagecoach, #1372 - Fort Apache, #1392 - The Searchers, #1409 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and #1778 - 3 Godfathers)

Review: 

"We have no dirt in the picture. We’ve eliminated the horrible details and what we’ve got left is a nice dramatic story. It’s a tear-jerker, with some comedy relief. What we’re aiming at is to have the customers sympathize with our people and not feel disgusted.”

Sometimes even a famous director has a film falls through the cracks. This is one of those films, even with the source material it arose from: the 1932 novel of the same name, which had been written by Erskine Caldwell, which in turn was successful and controversial enough to spawn a play that had been written by Jack Kirkland that premiered on December 4, 1933. The play ran for nearly eight years over the span of two theatres for 3,182 performances, which is the second-longest running non-musical on Broadway. When it came time to possibly sign the right for a film adaptation, Kirkland wanted someone who would help to picturize the film with honesty and fearlessness (as they put it), or at the very least one that could make a useful profit. Of course, the idea to make a movie out of it took a number of years and negotiations due to objections from the Production Code, which thought the contents of the play would not be suitable for a film, which scuttled RKO Radio Pictures from their idea to do a film with Charles Laughton as the lead (as opposed to the lead star of the production, Henry Hull). By 1940, the responsibility would spring for 20th Century Fox, who the Production Code likely favored because they had just adapted The Grapes of Wrath (1940) into a feature film, and the director and writer would be the same for this one: John Ford and Nunnally Johnson, respectively. The studio decided to avoid any potential judgement by shooting in Sherwood Forest and Encino in California as opposed to Augusta, Georgia (since the title of the book refers to a road for tobacco, not the rivalry of the same name that involves the state of North Carolina). The film ended up making almost $2 million in box office returns on release, which means a fair success. Honestly, even peering at the synopsis of the book or play makes one curious on just how one really thought that making a rural comedy with such strange enthusiasm was a good idea. Aspects are familiar, since the play features tattered clothed sharecroppers with bad soil that means one can't make the crop or a proper living, and the family sees one of their own get married to a preacher before having to face the prospect of the bank taking over the property, complete with a prideful patriarch that wouldn't dream of working in a cotton mill. The play has been cited as a "challenging play", since it isn't just a tragedy or a comedy but a mix that ended up with bans in major cities as immoral; of course, the film doesn't feature the cleft lip for the character of Ellie May or the boneless nose of Sister Bessie, although apparently the constant honking of the car horn from the Dude character is actually in the book. The film runs at 84 minutes.

Of course, some folks (me) did not actually watch The Grapes of Wrath, but I am sure there are more folks who haven't seen Tobacco Road, particularly with all the other John Ford films out there; of course, I do imagine there are some folks who aren't quite as familiar with Ford's non-Western output. I am astounded at the idea that one could turn a book that features folks being burned to death and grotesque descriptions and utter depravity...and turn it into a weird mix of comedy and drama with a hopeful bow on top of it all but such is the life under a Production Code. Grapewin certainly must have been the lucky one in the whole proceedings, since it might have been strange to see a different studio try to consider someone like Walter Brennan or even Henry Fonda for the role. Instead, it went to a man that ran away from home to dabble in the circus and Broadway before becoming a film actor, with one of his films coincidentally being The Grapes of Wrath; one can only imagine how it feels to have a starring role at the age of 72. Actually, he does fine with the performance here, if only because he maintains a stubborn sense of lazy pride is probably the most endearing of the cast-mates, engaging without awful caricature. Rambeau does chew the scenery a bit as a ham, but at least it is a serviceable ham performance that homes in some sort of interest when it comes to weird hypocrisy that entails a bit of singing. Tierney is seemingly used just for shots of longing that might have worked in a more desperate film. Patterson does fine alongside Grapewin in terms of long-standing diligence in the face of squalor. Tracy fares the worst, if only because one does not want to hear so much hooting and hollering, which indeed includes him honking a car horn from time to time. Andrews and Bond are in the background for most of the film as if they are just name actors, but at least they seem game for "mild presence" and "goofball foil" types. Honestly, while I can understand the appeal of optimistic features, the movie just doesn't seem to ring the right notes to actually make it sound believable enough to work for a whole time. It seems too easy, too nice-looking, and too loud to really belong to the pantheon of memorable Ford films. Maybe there is something "subversive" in the maintained status of a proud family from Georgia or something, but one knows that even an average Ford film is still better than a mediocre movie, since it does manage to be efficient with its time in not wasting all of it. I can't exactly recommend the movie as one to start on when it comes to looking at John Ford, but I can say that it does what it wants to do in mild amusement and engagement without becoming completely interminable, so I suppose that can be more than enough for those curious enough for a film from long ago.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Rains Came.

Review #1351: The Rains Came.

Cast: 
Myrna Loy (Lady Edwina Esketh), Tyrone Power (Major Rama Safti), George Brent (Tom Ransome), Brenda Joyce (Fern Simon), Nigel Bruce (Lord Albert Esketh), Maria Ouspenskaya (Maharani), Joseph Schildkraut (Mr. Bannerjee), Mary Nash (Miss MacDaid), Jane Darwell (Aunt Phoebe - Mrs. Smiley), Marjorie Rambeau (Mrs. Simon), and Henry Travers (Rev. Homer Smiley) Directed by Clarence Brown (#423 - A Woman of Affairs, #433 - Angels in the Outfield, and #484 - Plymouth Adventure)

Review: 
If you want a disaster film to go along with your romance, I guess this could fit the bill. This was a film that 20th Century Fox spent nearly half of its 100-day schedule in making rain to go along with a flood sequence (using a 50,000 gallon tank of water on a studio soundstage), with 33 million gallons of water used, with a fifth of the $2.5 million budget being spent on flood and earthquake scenes. It surely paid off for its effects crew, since E. H. Hansen and Fred Sersen ended up as the first awardees for Best Visual Effects through this film. Who better to helm the film than veteran director Clarence Brown (a versatile director of romance, dramas and period pieces) and established actors like Loy (a versatile actress known for vamp roles prior to The Thin Man in 1934), Power (a matinee idol in the latter 1930s along with the 1940s), and Brent (a leading man for romances primarily in the 1930s and 1940s) to go with it. The film was adapted to the screen by Philip Dunne and Julien Josephson from the 1937 novel of the same name by Louis Bromfield. A remake would be produced by the studio with The Rains of Ranchipur (1955), which changed the ending (so no one dies). This is a glossy but finely crafted film,  where one will be pleased at what they get on a visual level alongside the romantic quartet when it comes to generating intrigue. Loy certainly seems to be having fun with such a mischievous (at least at first mischievous) headline role, brash but immensely watchable every time she is on screen, whether that involves playful banter or helping the sick. Power comes off a bit reserved, but it works out in making calm passion. This plays itself out with Loy's death scene, where Brown had told her to try acting it out with her eyes open through holding her breath. It is a striking scene, one must say. Brent plays a decent rogue, one that fits in contrast to whoever leading lady he is playing towards, whether that means a clash with Loy or a fresh (in that this was her debut role) Joyce. Bruce (a character actor since 1922 whose most famous portrayal was of Dr. Watson starting in 1939) certainly does fine with a boorish turn, and Ouspenskaya certainly proves a charmer from time to time. The romances play out fine for its 105 minute run-time, where one can see how they'll draw themselves out but not find themselves predicting everything (for a film with a title like this, at least).  In a year with plenty of romance and spectacle on numerous fronts, The Rains Came is a decent little gem among others. It makes for a decent show with its fair passion and well-done effects to make a diverting time to go with, utilizing a workable cast and an accomplished director to get things done without too many troubles.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ah yes, the end of the month (and the tribute to the 1930s) has come. If you are wondering, I have not forgotten about doing films from the current year as well. Those will be sprinkled into March at their own time, apart from the primary goal of March, the third phase of Tribute to the Decades with the 1940s.