If I Were King.

Review #2018: If I Were King.

Cast: 

Ronald Colman (François Villon), Basil Rathbone (King Louis XI), Frances Dee (Katherine DeVaucelles), Ellen Drew (Huguette), C. V. France (Father Villon), Henry Wilcoxon (Captain of the Watch), Heather Thatcher (the Queen), Stanley Ridges (Rene de Montigny), Bruce Lester (Noel de Jolys), Alma Lloyd (Colette), Walter Kingsford (Tristan l'Hermite), and Sidney Toler (Robin Turgis) Produced and Directed by Frank Lloyd (#099 - Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), #1321 - The Sea Hawk, and #1339 - Cavalcade)

Review: 

Based on the early 20th century play and novel of the same name Justin Huntly McCarthy that involved the noted French poet François Villon, it probably doesn't surprise you to see this film among the list of ones done in the 1930s when it comes to literary inspirations. It wasn't the first adaptation, as Fox Film did one in 1920 with William Farnum as Villon. John Barrymore took his crack at it in 1927 with The Beloved Rogue. A 1925 operetta adaptation was turned into a 1930 musical operetta film with Dennis King. Two further adaptations have followed since this film, with François Villon (a French 1945 film) and The Vagabond King (1956). Who better to do a historical drama than Frank Lloyd? Sure, he may not be the most noted name among famed folks with multiple Academy Awards, but Lloyd specialized himself as a reliable director in both the silent and sound era. He had been born in Glasgow, but he only became an actor after seeing his travels in Canada as a would-be rancher and telephone company worker turn to Los Angeles in 1913. Needless to say, he made a variety of films, with Berkeley Square (1933) being his favorite. If I Were King was actually made in the latter stage of Lloyd's career, as he would retire for the first time in 1946 before a brief comeback with Republic Pictures in the 1950s. A studio man in the most complimentary of senses, he did films for studios from Fox Film to Paramount to Warner Bros. Oh, and this is a film that saw a script written by Preston Sturges. Sturges had made his way to Hollywood as a contributor to dialogue and script work in the 1930s (having first served as a playwright on Broadway) with films such as The Big Pond (1930) and The Power and the Glory (1933). Two years after the release of this film, he would become a director by selling his script The Great McGinty for "ten dollars" and the rest is history. 

It probably isn't surprising to see that even the reign of King Louis XI can lend itself to interesting biodrama with a bit of action and light touch of comedy. Well, having Ronald Colman as the lead actor is a pretty big help, because he brings a great presence of dignity that you would expect from a man of his talents. This time around, playing a poet with elements of the scoundrel that makes a mostly interesting film about the nature of what it really means to say one could do things on the level of a king (defender of the faith, don't forget), especially when playing a loose interpretation of an author that no one knows the fate of after his banishment in 1463 (incidentally, Louis IX became king in 1461 and reigned until 1483). Rathbone provides the support required in an eccentric that plays along in the charade (it is a romanticization after all) in a way that generates some amusement while never forgetting his place on the throne and the ways that he maneuvers people like pawns on a chess board. The little game that the two play of seeing how one would do "if I were King" is really more than just a series of little royal hijinks, instead serving as a trial of pride, one where the King can play both observer and executor. Of course, the romance between Colman and Dee is meant to be the real game of guesswork, and they do make a fine pairing for what is needed beyond the illusions that arise from the film (one built on it because of the very nature of Villon's fate). The rest of the cast do just fine in support, all serving as pawns in this weird little game of "who's playing who" that range from winded father figures in France or friends of the once-low man in Drew or Toler. The 101-minute runtime goes without many hitches, setting up its key conceit within the first 40 minutes without dawdling, and the climax is apt enough to patch things out handily enough. So yes, it is a ham-handed telling of poet and king in who is really setting who up, but it is an enthusiastic film with a useful script, a servicable director and worthy lead performances in Colman and Rathbone to carry things over the finish line with plenty to recommend in the long run, as one would hope from a film of its ilk.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Suspect (1944).

Review #1826: The Suspect. 

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Philip Marshall), Ella Raines (Mary Gray), Dean Harens (John Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), Henry Daniell (Gilbert Simmons), Rosalind Ivan (Cora Marshall), Molly Lamont (Mrs. Edith Simmons), and Raymond Severn (Merridew) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula and #797 - People on Sunday)

Review: 

Sure, perhaps there is something captivating about how obscure a movie is, because there certainly are a handful of thriller adaptations to come across when studying the 1940s, but surely there is a good reason why this one fell through the cracks. Maybe it was the title, because there are at least six other movies out there with that title. The film is an adaptation of the book This Way Out, which was written by James Ronald. As such, the screenplay was done by Bertram Millhauser and Arthur T. Horman. The film was directed by Robert Siodmak, probably best noted for his future effort in The Killers (1946) in a 39-year career, and he was given the task of handling an actor that apparently suffered from bouts of uncertainty. Of course, Laughton was an Academy Award winning actor that could play classical or modern parts, so who wouldn't take the risk if you are Universal Pictures? Besides, he had the name value that compared well when faced with a mix of American and British character actors with either some experience behind them (like Ridges or Daniell) or less (Raines).

It turns out one has a very mediocre thriller on their hands, one that is about as hypnotic as an old frog. The aspects that are interesting prove to be flourishes rather than anything particularly interesting, whether that involves a somewhat interesting chemistry between Laughton and Raines or the idea of some sort of actual suspense in the crime angle. The 85 minutes are brisk, but it probably isn't surprising that the film did not exactly become a known name since its premiere in 1944. The streets of 1902 seem nearly comatose when it comes to characters with complexity or challenge, if only because the main character's weakness is being too decent. So yes, it is probably the politest portrait of a murderer one could watch, which means that it is more of a Laughton showcase. To be fair, he does deliver an interesting performance here, since this is a middle-aged role that requires a bit of earthy presence (i.e., not just a smart-mouthed youth), one that needs patience and dignity, and you get the idea. There isn't a hammy performance with him on this one, since he calmly walks through the film with no trouble in displaying the quandaries presented here, maneuvering through the slowly building gears of turmoil while trying to stay as himself, which only seem to make him burrow down rather than up even after one is done seeing the chemistry-building scenes with Raines, since that is generally the most curious part of the movie in seeing the mismatch (well, whatever you want to call it). Besides, Ivan and Daniell are only mildly interesting as the heels to Laughton, ones who aren't exactly the kind of folks you frown to see go away - one knows crime doesn't pay (to the standards of the film board of the time) anyway. Ridges is stuck in the middle with no real distinguishing qualities that seems a problem when one is trying to see an investigation and trap take place. You would think the poison sequence would generate something other than mild bemusement, but not quite. There is an attempt of distinguished air here that doesn't seem fitting for a movie that begs for something more, as if you know what you are getting into before you really see it. One sort of struggles to say things about the movie beyond just Laughton, because if had included a lesser actor, one could have lapsed into a snooze. But, since here we are with this, I guess you won't be irritated too much. Honestly, this is a toss-up kind of movie, where one will either find it to be splendid enough despite its failings or just too unremarkable to be worth one's time. For me, I just can't see myself recommending it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

No Way Out (1950).

Review #1798: No Way Out (1950).

Cast: 

Richard Widmark (Ray Biddle), Linda Darnell (Edie Johnson), Stephen McNally (Dr. Dan Wharton), Sidney Poitier (Dr. Luther Brooks), Mildred Joanne Smith (Cora Brooks), Harry Bellaver (George Biddle), Stanley Ridges (Dr. Sam Moreland), and Dots Johnson (Lefty Jones) Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (#750 - All About Eve and #1378 - People Will Talk)

Review:

“If the fabric of the society were different, I would scream to high heaven to play villains and to deal with different images of Negro life that would be more dimensional. But I’ll be damned if I do that at this stage of the game. Not when there is only one Negro actor working in films with any degree of consistency.”

There were film noirs that also existed within the realm of social consciousness. Boomerang! (1947) dealt with following the rule of law, Crossfire (1947) was a mystery that gradually revealed a message against antisemitism, Panic in the Streets (1950) dealt with trying to stop the plague. What we have here is a film of blind rage...specifically, racist rage, complete with a hallmark film debut for Sidney Poitier. Born in 1927, Poitier grew up in the Bahamas before moving to the United States as a teenager, where he would serve in the United States Army during World War II. Right after the war ended, he applied twice to the American Negro Theatre, where he would study acting - he broke into Broadway in 1946. He was under contract for a play when he decided to take a screentest for this film, not expecting to actually receive the part. However, director Joseph Mankiewicz saw something he liked in Poitier (who actually fibbed his age to say he was five years older than his actual age). Poitier became a star in the next two decades in his way to becoming the first major African American film star, one who became the second black actor to win an Academy Award before he shifted focus to directing in later years; Poitier passed away this year at the age of 94, and he is generally remembered as an icon who made a difference with his integrity as a filmmaker. 

The script was done by Lesser Samuels and Mankiewicz, as the former had a son-in-law doctor (Philip Yordan provided uncredited contract script work). Mankiewicz modified the story to be more of a noir with the viewpoint of Poitier rather than an observation of black medical hopefuls. Darryl F. Zanuck, the head of 20th Century Fox (the studio that released the antisemitism expose Gentlemen's Agreement three years prior), personally supervised production of the film. Of course, the original script apparently ended with a gruesome murder, but the studio did not want to leave audiences with a hopeless feeling (which honestly seems like a good decision). Seven decades later, this 106-minute film certainly pulls enough punches within an outspoken flair for useful storytelling and a message that still stings curiosity without turning into predictable mush on any count. It is the story of a man trying to dig his way out of an awful situation: trying to prove themself when a racist is breathing down their neck (complete with inciting a riot). The unshakable object meets the immovable force when the facts are not enough to stop rage, and this still seems like something that could be seen today.

You have to remember that Widmark had captivated the screen with Kiss of Death (1947), so to see him in a scuzzy role filled with venom is not too surprising. He proves startling effective as the simmering bully, one who balances the line between caricature and terror, since he serves as a reflection of people who would rather blame race rather than confronting themselves for why their lives are the way they are (in that sense, he makes the audience uncomfortable and thus does it right). Of course, Poitier can't be forgotten, even if he is billed fourth despite having the brunt of screentime. Filled with self-doubt and pride, he makes an astonishing debut here (incidentally, Widmark and Poitier became friends during production, and he would even go so far as to apologize to him after certain takes), with the enmity between the two leads being quite palpable when it comes to a match of pride. McNally is fine here, although one can see the seams of a character that could've seeped into self-righteousness. Darnell fares better in the conflict of which strife matters most to her (i.e. the scuz-ball saying things in her ear or her crappy life) that makes the climax (and its fateful last words) fairly worth it.

The supporting cast is nicely assembled, revolving from the warm presence of Smith to the tense Johnson. Additionally, this is the onscreen debut of Ossie Davis (in a brief uncredited role), and he appears with wife Ruby Dee briefly for the first time of numerous occasions where they were paired together on screen. The film was not a major success, likely owing to objections from select censor boards due to its content (what with the whole race riot and all, although I wonder if they were totally fine with all the racial epithets), with Chicago fearing it would incite riots (which as we all know is bullshit) before cuts were made regarding the riot. Of course, Mankiewicz already had another film ready to release later that year with All About Eve (1950), while this film is less well-known (incidentally, each film would have their script nominated for Academy Awards). At any rate, this is a film anybody would be proud to have been a part of, and it is definitely one worth seeing for what it manages to do for the time as a socially conscious movie with a worthwhile debut from an actor that was just getting started.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Carib Gold.

To Be or Not to Be (1942).

Review #1358: To Be or Not to Be.

Cast: 
Carole Lombard (Maria Tura), Jack Benny (Joseph Tura), Robert Stack (Lt. Stanislav Sobinski), Felix Bressart (Greenberg), Lionel Atwill (Rawich), Stanley Ridges (Professor Alexander Siletsky), Sig Ruman (Col. Ehrhardt), Tom Dugan (Bronski), and Charles Halton (Dobosh) Directed and Produced by Ernst Lubitsch (#1026 - The Shop Around the Corner)

Review: 
Satire can be a curious thing. If you do it right, one will appreciate the humor and irony for years on end, regardless of how much time has passed (such as Gulliver's Travels). One would expect a war satire to come from brilliant directors (such as Charlie Chaplin with The Great Dictator the previous year), so it only makes sense for Ernst Lubitsch to make one as well. The German-born director had started as an actor in 1913. Although he appeared in roughly 30 films over the next seven years, he gradually shifted his attention to directing, making his debut with Shoe Palace Pinkus (1916). He made numerous movies in his native Germany with actors such as Pola Negri before leaving to Hollywood for good in 1922. He made films in numerous genres, ranging from comedy to bio-dramas to musicals, and he received an Honorary Academy Award in 1946, one year before his death from a heart attack. The story was done by Melchior Lengyel (who had co-written Ninotchka) while the screenplay was done by Edwin Justus Mayer (with un-credited work done by Lubitsch). Naturally, one would expect a star or two to headline the film, and one can't go wrong with Lombard and Benny. Lombard had started her career in 1921 (with a main debut in Marriage in Transit in 1925),  having small roles in films for Fox Film and Mack Sennett's short films before reaching her first high point with Twentieth Century (1934). It was the first of numerous screwball comedies that she became known for over the next few years. Tragically, this was to be her last film. She was killed in a plane crash after a war bond rally on January 16, 1942 (roughly a month before the film's release). Benny came into this film because Lubitsch wrote the film directly for him. He had originally done vaudeville for his violin playing before eventually deciding to do comedy with his act. In 1929, he had signed a contract with Metro Goldwyn Mayer and had his debut with The Hollywood Revue of 1929. While he made numerous appearances in film over the next few years, he became more well-known for his radio program, which ran from 1932 to 1955. 

The film is a wonderful one, dark and witty with its pursuit of making ridicule of a serious situation like the Nazis, in a time where World War II was in its third year and America had just entered the fight. There was a mixed reception among audiences and critics of the time, where even Benny's father initially was disgusted with the sight of his son in a Nazi uniform before being convinced otherwise (where he promptly saw it again and again). It is a keen movie with plenty of sharp observations and facial situations that rewards the viewer time and time again. The movie has a tremendous sense of timing, balancing comedy and drama with such deftness, which is helped with a prime screwball pairing through Lombard and Benny, who are both inspiring to watch either together or with others. The film doesn't repeat itself with tiring gags, knowing when to do something without needing to be prodded into it, where one could make a comedy-less version of the same basic story without finding trouble. Stack (who was reportedly terrified going into this role) does just fine with keeping up with Lombard and Benny with careful demeanor. The other actors pull off an inspired front in retaining interest, with Ruman doing the most well with bombast. It certainly is a timeless one to last among other comedies, and it even inspired a remake in 1983. The film moves with a dashing pace of 99 minutes, never seeming to wear itself out at any time with making a capable dark comedy that also serves as a romance and thriller with plenty to make light of with daring ambition and an especially capable director and stars at hand to make things shine in the dark. One can't go wrong with a Lubitsch picture, and this is no exception.

Next Review: The Invisible Man (2020).

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.