You Can't Cheat an Honest Man.

Review #2483: You Can't Cheat an Honest Man.

Cast: 

W. C. Fields (Larsen E. Whipsnade), Edgar Bergen (Himself and the characters Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd), Constance Moore (Vicky Whipsnade), John Arledge (Phineas Whipsnade), Eddie "Rochester" Anderson (Rochester), James Bush (Roger Bel-Goodie), Mary Forbes (Mrs. Bel-Goodie), Thurston Hall (Mr. Bel-Goodie), and Grady Sutton (Chester) Directed by George Marshall (#650 - The Ghost Breakers and #2228 - How the West Was Won) and Edward F. Cline (#877 - Three Ages and #1354 - The Bank Dick)

Review:

Sure, let's talk about W. C. Fields again. This was the first film Fields made away from Paramount Pictures, which he had made over a dozen movies with before troubles with The Big Broadcast of 1938 led to his departure from the studio. He had done work on radio, most notably having routines with ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Bergen had been a ventriloquist since he was a teenager and had McCarthy as his sidekick created out of a broomstick, rubber bands and cords. In what you might as well call "it was the old times", despite a run from vaudeville to movie shorts, the best notable success for Bergen and McCarthy was on radio, which they did all the way from the late 1930s until 1956 (one suggestion is that is because audiences just believed in the character of McCarthy as a youth they could hear, which probably went just as well for the other dummy in Mortimer Snerd); at any rate, Bergen and company did do a few films together, starting with The Goldwyn Follies (1938)*. So here we are with a Universal Pictures effort that had the efforts of two directors: George Marshall did everything besides working with Fields due to an apparent dislike of him, while Edward F. Cline worked with Fields (incidentally, B. Reeves Eason was the second-unit director doing the chase sequences). Fields starred in three further films: My Little Chickadee, The Bank Dick, and Never Give a Sucker an Even Break prior to his death in 1946.

Admittedly, this works for those who just want a hodgepodge of jokes rather than an involving plot. The screenplay was written by Everett Freeman, Richard Mack, and George Marion Jr, as based on a story written by W. C. Fields (for what totally sounds funny reasons, he was credited as "Charles Bogle"). Really the film just sails on how much you value the misanthropy and huckstering of Fields. It probably works out the best when he is doing an impression of performers by necessity, whether that involves taking on a beard or trying to play ventriloquist (at least when he plays the dummy, there's a mustache trying to hide the movement of one's mouth, unlike a certain person). The 79 minutes come and go with a good deal of amusement at the proceedings with Fields basically trying to play people to a fiddle (blood relation or not) because I'll be damned if Bergen can keep up with him. Sure, there are moments when he can be a decent straight man but he can't really sell anything when it comes to the idea of a love story between him and Moore and when you have two puppets that come and go in...being puppets, you have a film that only works on a basic level. One odd thing for the modern audience: No, I'm not sure exactly why blackface was thought to be so funny that it even creeps up for a sequence midway through where the dummy is shown in makeup. So it goes. The sequence where Fields intrudes on the proceedings of higher-class people is at least pretty funny in seeing the contrast and an elaborate game of ping-pong, particularly since the movie basically just ends with little to show for it (you've got a chase of a chariot and a bike that is closed out by a puppet in a balloon). As a whole, there are a few interesting moments within a film that creaks more than most of its age, which may or may not make for a fine time for those interested in Fields or comedies in general.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Right before Bergen died, he filmed a cameo scene for The Muppet Movie - Jim Henson stated that Bergen was his idol. One of the original dummies is now part of the permanent collection of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History.

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).

Terror by Night.

Review #1620: Terror by Night.

Cast: 

Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Alan Mowbray (Major Duncan-Bleek), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Renee Godfrey (Vivian Vedder), Frederick Worlock (Professor Kilbane), Mary Forbes (Lady Margaret Carstairs), Skelton Knaggs (Sands), Billy Bevan (Ticket Collector), and Geoffrey Steele (The Honourable Roland Carstairs) Produced and Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, #1056 - The Pearl of Death, #1161 - The House of Fear, #1216 - The Woman in Green, and #1262 - Pursuit to Algiers)

Review: 

This was the thirteenth film to star Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, respectively, and this is the penultimate feature in the 14-film series loosely based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Honestly, one probably would need a primer on just what happened before in this series to really compare the quality of the films from 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures; the first film is likely the most interesting, while the war-themed films were certainly offbeat, ranging from sabotage ring voices to the return of Moriarty (twice) to microfilm matchbooks to Rondo Hatton to Algiers. Decrying the shift to modernizing the tales is an easy out, but it was the mindset of the producers at Universal to try and keep up with the tastes of young filmgoers (much to Rathbone and Bruce's reluctance, as pointed out by Bruce in his unpublished autobiography). Besides, it wasn't the first Holmes adaptation to turn to modern-day technology, as Sir Doyle had decried the use of telephones for his Victorian icon for the Stoll Pictures series of shorts/features (Doyle lived long enough not only to introduce The Lost World but also admire Eille Norwood as his favorite portrayal of Holmes on screen). At any rate, Rathbone and Bruce (who were good friends besides acting) were also starring in The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with Rathbone and Bruce starring in over 200 episodes before Rathbone left in 1946 (Bruce would leave the following year) that served as adaptations of the Doyle works into 30 minutes. The Neill films were generally made fast (roughly taking over three weeks to make, generally shot out-of-sequence), but they were efficient enough to keep the ball rolling for further interest while usually only running an hour. 

So here we are, back with a series that now has a train murder mystery on its hands with a group of character actors and a hour to spend in the public domain. The film was written by a new writer this time with Frank Gruber, who generally specialized in writing in detective stories and Westerns through magazines and features (he would also write the next film). If you've kept up with the series by this point, there is no good reason to stop now, and what we have is a fairly serviceable film, fair in its setup of mystery in false leads and twists without devolving into anything out of step in nonsense. One gets to see a bit of danger for the lead, a bit of comic amusement (for better or worse), and other familiar aspects and folks (such as Hoey and Worlock, regulars at this point) that prove just diverting enough to keep the tone up to the usual Neill levels. In other words, it will keep your attention for those who seek an effort from the 1940s (read: 75 years ago), with relatively standard acting and pace with its one set (and jewel) keeping focus well. At this point in time, Rathbone was clearly itching to spirit away from playing Holmes (amid the fear of typecasting), but it never seemed to interfere with his work. As is the case for the standard bearer of calm analytical disposition, he delivers a fine performance, one that makes an encounter with a would-be killer while outside seem like a walk in the park. Bruce does what is given to him in retorts for clues and/or offbeat bumbling, whether that means in interacting with passengers that range from friend to foil or in dealing with thieves (teapot or otherwise) - there may be better portrayals of Watson out there, but Bruce will stick with you regardless. Mowbray follows along with Bruce with useful presence, a fair presence to counteract the other supposed figures of suspicion without being reduced to the stature of a coat rack. Hoey makes his last appearance as Lestrade go well enough, even sharing an interesting moment of discussion with Rathbone and Bruce that keeps the film on the conventional toes. Godfrey, sporting an "accent", does okay but is overshadowed by the burrowing bluster of Worlock (who gets the better of Bruce in one amusing sequence). Others fill the detail to what is needed, whether that involves stuffiness in Forbes or conniving with Knaggs, each longtime presences in cinema. As a whole, the film makes enough sense of itself with execution in intrigue and its setting to make for a relatively useful affair in a series winding down but still packing interest in a neat one hour package. If you've done one, what's another one (or thirteen) going to hurt?

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.