Regeneration (1915).

Review #2053: Regeneration.

Cast: 

Rockliffe Fellowes (Owen Conway), James A. Marcus (Jim Conway), Anna Q. Nilsson (Marie "Mamie Rose" Deering), Maggie Weston (Maggie Conway), Willam Sheer (Skinny), Carl Harbaugh (District Attorney Ames), John McCann (Owen Conway - 10 years old), and Harry McCoy (Owen Conway - 17 years old) Directed by Raoul Walsh (#399 - The Thief of Bagdad (1924), #907 - White Heat, #1333 - The Big Trail)

Review: 

The funny thing about the gangster film is that there really can't just be any one "first" of the genre. But you can still find curious examples in the days of the 1910s and the directors who were assigned to make them. In 1915, Fox Film Corporation was created with the merger of the Greater New York Film Rental Company and Box Office Attraction Company. Regeneration was one of a handful of films released in that year with the Fox moniker (as named for William Fox), but more importantly, it is the first film directed by Raoul Walsh. He had been an actor since 1909 and eventually found himself in the company of D.W. Griffith as an assistant. He would appear in various films as an actor, such as the now-lost The Life of General Villa (made in 1914, which actually featured the real Pancho Villa) along with the infamous The Birth of a Nation (1915) as actor/assistant director. He directed a handful of one-reel and two-reel films for the Biograph studio. In 1915, Walsh was 28 but asked to serve as director for this film, which would be filmed in Manhattan's Bowery district with real gangsters and prostitutes as extras. For the next couple of decades, Walsh would serve as a director in both silent and sound features. Walsh and Carl Harbaugh wrote the film based on the 1903 memoir My Mamie Rose by Owen Frawley Kildare (once called the "Kipling of the Bowery"), which had in turn been adapted into a 1908 play The Regeneration by Kildare and Walter C. Hackett (tragically, when Kildare saw the interpretation of the lead character, he became angry, and he later suffered a mental breakdown after a fall in the subway before he later died in a psychiatric center in 1911). 

So yes, to get to the road to films such as Underworld (1927), you have to consider films like this first. It probably isn't the most surprising thing that Walsh became the most enduring aspect of the film when compared to the cast (one of them in Sheer wears an eyepatch), because there is obviously promise within him as a director of cutting-edge drama. Granted, it isn't the most solid piece of social dramas when you think about the various films of the 1910s and 1920s, but Walsh makes a gritty feature of conscious atmosphere with promise of action to come. Fellowes actually was making his debut here in features (at the age of 31), and it ranks as his most noted of his appearances in dozens of films. He plays it okay, with a little bit of camera bulging but he does just fine in keeping this lingering tale of would-be redemption from falling off the rails. His desperation matters to us when it comes to a life learned of using fists to claw out of the bottom. Nilsson had moved from Sweden to the States just a couple of years prior in the early 1900s, and her silent film works are what she is most known for. This works out to probably the most noted performance of this film, which involves warm presence and curiosity for all that comes with willingly looking at both sides of the city. The path to beating out those bad habits of hard life in the streets (which just happens to involve finding love with a woman who is on her own journey in the street) is a gradual one, but it is an interesting one presented with useful curiosity, whether that involves a ship fire (one that evidently resembles the one that happened in 1904 on the General Slocum that saw many people die) or the lurid details of city life or the inevitable conclusion that comes in sacrifice. It is the curiosity of what could come from gangster films in later years that prove a key aspect in watchability for 72 minutes, since the key to getting people more curious about narrative drama is to give them a nice first taste of what could be done further. The drama comes out with enough conviction to make for a useful recommendation now, one that shows the potential of its director in dependability that would be accomplished in more ways than once. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Big Trail.

Review #1333: The Big Trail.

Cast: 
John Wayne (Breck Coleman), Marguerite Churchill (Ruth Cameron), El Brendel (Gus), Tully Marshall (Zeke), Tyrone Power, Sr. (Red Flack), Frederick Burton (Pa Bascom), Ian Keith (Bill Thorpe), Charles Stevens (Lopez), Louise Carver (Gus's mother-in-law), John Big Tree (Indian Chief), DeWitt Jennings (Boat Captain Hollister), and Ward Bond (Sid Bascom) Directed by Raoul Walsh (#399 - The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and #907 - White Heat)

Review: 
The 1930s were an evolving and experimental time for film. The decade had already started with the Great Depression that affected the entire world on an economical level (which would doom Fox Film founder William Fox in 1930). As such, escapist or big spectacle fare was quite prevalent during this time, with this decade being a prominent one for the Golden Age of Hollywood, particularly with a prevalent studio system (domination of film production and distribution by a small group of major studios). Sound films were a phenomenon during this time, and certain movies even were done in color. One film with its own attempt at innovation is The Big Trail - which was shot in Grandeur, a 70mm film process. It was the last film released by Fox Film with this short-lived process nor the first done with the intent of making a widescreen movie. The Corbett-Fitzsimmons Fight (1897), film's first feature film, was shot on a widescreen ratio of 1.65:1. Warner Bros released films with their widescreen process Vitascope, and MGM had the Fanthom Screen for a brief time, while The Bat (1930) was filmed in the 2:1 Magnifilm 65mm aspect ratio. Converting theaters to show in widescreen would prove futile, since they already had to deal the costs with adapting to sound, with the next push by a major studio to make films in widescreen not occurring again for two decades. One has to remember that this film was shot numerous times - not only was it done with the Grandeur cameras, it was also done with the conventional 35mm film alongside making versions for world audiences, with four versions in French, German, Italian, and Spanish done (this was before dubbing became more popular). Nowadays one can view the film in widescreen as originally intended - most theaters could not show it in this process, and the original 70mm negative was only preserved through a special printer over a year long process in the 1980s. On top of all that, the 35mm version was shorter at 108 minutes than the 70mm 122 minute run-time, so both films have scenes that aren't in the other version. This was a big spectacle piece, with over 90 actors and 700 natives from five different Native American tribes, hundreds of wagons and thousands of animals from cows to horses brought in. It only seems fitting that Raoul Walsh was behind the direction, seeing how this was the beginning his third decade of directing films, having spent the past fifteen years acting and directing before going on to direct further films in the next 34 years.

Of course the film also has a young talent with John Wayne at head. Wayne, who had went to the University of Southern California for football before an injury, had been hired as a prop boy/extra to actor Tom Mix (one of cinema's first Western stars, who also happened to good friends with Wyatt Earp) and director John Ford as a favor for his coach. He recorded bit parts in films such as Bardelys the Magnificent (1926), but it was Walsh who would notice the actor and think of him to headline this film While the film was not a major success at the time of its release (owing to its big budget), it is now noted as a prime Western for the era, one with sweeping spectacle and a well-earned first turn from its star and an engaging supporting cast to go with it. It takes its time to tell its story with an episodic nature on its take of the development of the West (which sounds a bit like The Covered Wagon (1923) - which also depicted a trip to Oregon), and it proves just as engaging with depicting the drive to make a living for oneself in a place of their own regardless of the struggle it would take to do so, whether involving the elements of weather or trying to get a wagon across the lands (along with some frontier justice). The film looks wonderful to view, where even the backgrounds can prove interesting to view besides the main conversation pairings. When it comes to Wayne, he really must have been born to play an Old West hero. Beyond his persona and the way he speaks and struts (which he took inspiration from Wyatt Earp) is a man who just has that raw presence this film desires in an everyman hero. While the film wasn't a major success, Wayne did continue to find work, albeit with B-movie Westerns before Stagecoach (1939) gave him another chance at prime status, which he worked handily. Churchill lines up fine when the film requires so, having some chemistry with him. Brendel, the vaudeville comedian turned film star does fine with delivering some comic relief alongside Carver when the film needs a fair chuckle. Power Sr, in his last role before his death the following year (along with his only talkie role), proves to be a worthy and sharp adversary, one who seeps right in as someone lurking in plain sight without needing to go for overblown theatrics. Marshall rounds out the cast in terms of being a fun highlight - warm, crusty and right-at-home kind presence (much like how he was the last time I saw him on film - which happened to be The Covered Wagon). In the end, the scenery is lush enough to be captured right on the screen, with Walsh handling a fairly well-made story (done by Hal G. Evarts, with un-credited help by Marie Boyle, Jack Peabody, Florence Postal, and Fred Sersen) together with craftsmanship and a game cast that stands tall as a gem that shines now more than ever after nine decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

White Heat.

Review #907: White Heat.

Cast:
James Cagney (Arthur "Cody" Jarrett), Virginia Mayo (Verna Jarrett), Edmond O'Brien (Hank Fallon / Vic Pardo), Margaret Wycherly ("Ma" Jarrett), Steve Cochran ("Big Ed" Somers), Ford Rainey (Zuckie Hommel), John Archer (Philip Evans), Wally Cassell ("Cotton" Valletti), Fred Clark (Daniel "The Trader" Winston), Ian MacDonald ("Bo" Creel), and Paul Guilfoyle (Roy Parker) Directed by Raoul Walsh (#399 - The Thief of Bagdad (1924))

Review:
This review has been in the making for a long time, if you can believe that. Ever since I bought the film from my local Blockbuster over two years ago, this movie has been on the backburner of things I wanted to cover, but its time hadn't quite aligned with me, until now. When it comes to film noirs and gangster movies, White Heat certainly does not disappoint, being one of the seminal movies of its time. Cagney is a good chunk of why the movie works so well, portraying the instability of this villain without any sort of fakery nor too much overblown nature to him. The scene with him on his screen mother Wycherly's lap is also a good scene in showing the strange nature and dynamic of the two that plays off well with a movie that doesn't play to easiest gangster types. The scene where he reacts to a death personal to him is also quite exceptional in how he conveys the agony of that moment without stock elements in any way. Mayo does a fine job as the femme fatale, having good chemistry with Cagney along with being respectable with her charms. O'Brien is quite exceptional in his role by managing to size up well with Cagney without being overwrought with too much hero hokeyness. The rest of the cast does a good job in their roles, serving their purposes with the right kind of competency. The cinematography is good, having the right balances of color (for a black-and-white film) and picture. This is a movie with the right kind of tension and action, where even though you know how movies of the time might roll you still manage to really invest in how the movie plays itself out, owing to its great cast, all starting with James Cagney. I highly recommend this movie.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Thief of Bagdad (1924)

Review #399: The Thief of Bagdad.

Cast
Douglas Fairbanks (Ahmed, the Thief of Bagdad), Snitz Edwards (His Evil Associate), Charles Belcher (The Holy Man (Imam) / Narrator), Julanne Johnston (The Princess), Sojin Kamiyama (Cham Shang, Prince of the Mongols), Anna May Wong (The Mongol Slave), Brandon Hurst (The Caliph), Tote Du Crow (The Soothsayer), and Noble Johnson (The Prince of the Indies) Directed by Raoul Walsh.

Review
The Thief of Bagdad provides a few firsts for Movie Night, the first film from 1924 reviewed here, the first film with Douglas Fairbanks (Who also wrote and produced this film) on here, and the first film on here directed by Raoul Walsh, who directed many films in six decades. How is the film though? It's a fun tale, to say the least. The film (Who some might recognize is freely adapted from One Thousand and One Nights) has a good enough story that manages to not feel stretched, not feeling too short or too long at 140 minutes. The actors don't speak, but they do have actions and movements to them, and Douglas Fairbanks uses the action to his advantage swashbuckling excellently as the rest of the actors do a fine job, keeping the film from falling off balance. The production design by William Cameron Menzies is extraordinary, a new thing at the time. The effects work well, looking state of the art for the 1920s, especially given that Fairbanks wanted his epic to look and work well, which while being expensive (At the time) to make, was a success back then and it still is today, spawning two remakes and also the film Aladdin as well. This is a film of spectacle, that manages to work brilliantly. There's only one more thing to review...Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.