view_and_review Reviews

What Every Woman Knows (1934)

A One-Sided Marriage

[5/10 · 1 June 2024]

"What Every Woman Knows" is an odd sort of romance. It involved two people who were in a one-sided relationship. The woman loved the man, and the man just tolerated the woman.

Maggie Wylie (Helen Hayes) was a plain Scottish woman who couldn't find love. Her father and her two brothers were determined to help her get married even if it meant making a man contractually obligated to do so. And that's what they did.

They entered into a bargain with a young rabble rouser named John Shand (Brian Aherne). They would pay for his schooling for five years and in return, he'd have to marry Maggie should she want him. Maggie was well aware of this bargain, and she didn't mind it at all. After the five years were up, Maggie wanted to marry John, and he agreed to marry her per his word, even though he didn't love her. It was a rare movie in that a man was obligated to marry a woman instead of the other way around. That gave it a different sort of feel.

There have been plenty of movies in which a woman goes through with marrying or being with a man out of a sense of duty, but very few men have ever had to be in that situation. I've always felt a little sorry for the women, I didn't feel sorry at all for John Shand. Maggie gave him the option to be free of her, but he was too principled to back out of an agreement he benefited greatly from.

In some ways it was sad watching Maggie sweat and toil for John's benefit in hopes that he would one day love her as she loved him. John was such a serious man that it seemed he would never love anybody. Such a sentiment was put to the test when Lady Sybil Tenterden (Madge Evans) entered the picture.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

Madame Du Barry (1934)

Sassy Dolores Del Rio as Madame Du Barry

[6/10 · 31 May 2024]

It seems that Madame Du Barry really captured the imagination of Hollywood. The made a movie about her in 1912, 1917, 1919, 1928, 1930, 1934, 1935, and 1954. I watched the 1930 version starring Norma Talmadge. It was a romanticized version that they admittedly said was a fictionalized telling of Madame Du Barry's saga. Whether the 1934 version was more accurate or not, it was certainly more fun.

The spicy Dolores Del Rio played Jeannette Vaubernier aka Madame Du Barry. What "Madame Du Barry" captured, that "Du Barry, Woman of Passion" (1930) failed to capture, was that Jeannette was a prostitute. She was a known prostitute and King Louis XV (Reginald Owen) fell for her because she was so different. She was sassy, fearless, confident, and unrefined. And she had King Louis XV wrapped around her little finger. Naturally, people hated her for it.

Personally, I didn't hate her at all. I viewed her like I view a spoiled child; she was only doing what King Louis enabled her to do. If she turned the castle into her own playground and thumbed her nose at decorum, then King Louis was the blame. Madame Du Barry never pretended to be something she wasn't. She never aspired to be queen or to rule France, she was Cyndi Lauper up in that joint: she just wanted to have fun.

Dolores Del Rio brought all the sass and spunk she could for the role. She was the ultimate non-conformist and a third degree black belt in not giving AF. While some of her behavior could rightly be called impertinent and uncouth, you had to respect her at least a little.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

A Girl of the Limberlost (1934)

Distasteful Romance

[2/10 · 31 May 2024]

For the most part, I don't like movies from the early-30's, but I watch them incessantly. They are so odd, so strange, and so different. Society was so different back then, and at the same time it wasn't. Like they say: "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

In this poorly acted and poorly thought out movie we have a girl named Elnora Comstock (Marian Marsh) who was the daughter of a mean woman. Her mother, Katherine (Louise Dresser), blamed Elnora for the death of her husband, Robert. Her husband drowned while coming home late at night from another woman's place and for some strange reason she took it out on her daughter. It didn't add up at all.

Luckily for Elnora she had neighbors that really loved her: Wesley and Margaret Stinton (Ralph Morgan and Helen Jerome Eddy). They showed her the love her mother didn't. And when she decided to go to high school against her mother's wishes, they encouraged her and tried to make it as easy as possible for her.

No movie with a nubile, young woman is complete without a love interest; and that's where this movie collapsed. The movie was good enough showing the hardships Elnora had to face with limited resources and an unloving mother in rural Indiana circa 1910. Even though a romance was inevitable, it certainly didn't need the romance we got.

A doctor and his nephew, Phillip Ammon (Edward Nugent), were in Elnora's isolated part of the country to visit Wesley Stinton (Elnora's neighbor). Phillip was in college, but the moment I saw his face I knew that he and Elnora would hook up somehow. He was the only young, halfway decent-looking man in the whole movie. Plus, it was early 20th century Indiana, and I'm sure Elnora was of breeding age.

There was a connection between them right away, but Phillip was engaged (as if that's ever been a problem before). I think that if Elnora hadn't just began high school there would've been nothing to stop the big city boy from macking on the small town girl. He did the right thing and didn't romantically engage with Elnora, but he promised to stay in contact--so he could help her get to college of course.

He stayed in constant contact with Elnora, sending her money whenever she could send him "Indian" (Native American) artifacts. After three years Phillip was back in town to visit with his uncle. This time he had his fiance, Edith (Gigi Parrish), with him. Apparently, they still hadn't gotten married. Personally, I thought he'd be divorced, thereby making him available for Elnora, but what happened was far more distasteful.

Immediately, you could tell that Edith was going to be a disagreeable woman. When Phillip was raving about the Stintons and the need to invite them to their engagement party, she gave some excuses as to why it would be a bad idea to invite them (read: they don't fit in).

She was your typical, rich, classist woman who prejudged the Stintons based upon where they lived. Being devil's advocate, I could say that she was only worried about how they'd be dressed at the swanky affair, which is a legitimate concern.

The Stintons and the Comstocks (i.e. Elnora and her mother) showed up to the party even though Elnora was bitterly jealous. While Phillip was dancing with his fiance he told Elnora to save a dance for him. He was all smiles. Edith was not.

"Phillip, do you realize you've been talking about her (Elnora) all evening?" Edith complained to Phillip.

"Oh, my girl's jealous," he jokingly quipped.

I don't think he could've been more daft. What person, man or woman, wants to hear their fiance raving about someone else--especially when that someone else could be a direct rival?

Phillip wasn't done being stupid and inconsiderate.

When Elnora found a moth flittering away she ran after it to perhaps catch it and add it to her moth collection. Phillip ran with her.

Can you see things taking shape now?

They lost the moth and decided to take a breather. As they were talking all too closely Phillip kissed her (who could've seen that coming?!?).

"I hope you didn't mind my doing that," he guiltily stated almost as a question, even though he was asking the wrong damn person. He should've asked his fiance, who was only a few hundred feet away being neglected, if SHE minded.

"No I didn't mind, it's just friendship," Elnora reassured him, knowing that the kiss was more than "friendship," but also knowing their relationship couldn't go anywhere.

At this time, Edith was looking all over for Phillip. When he arrived back to the party hand-in-hand with Elnora, she was not pleased.

"Phillip what does this mean?" Edith asked bluntly.

Phillip, ever the idiot, smilingly answered, "Why nothing. We almost caught a Yellow Emperor for Elnora's moth collection."

"Do you expect me to believe that?" Edith responded. She was more than a little suspicious, as she should've been. Given the opportunity Phillip may have ended up rolling in the hay with Elnora.

"Really, It's true," Elnora said.

"Oh come now. You may as well admit it. Chasing moths is a flimsy pretext," Edith chided.

"Wait, what do you mean?" Phillip asked angrily.

"You know what I mean. Now I understand why you want a summer place here," she clapped back.

"Edith!" he snapped, then turned to Elnora to apologize. He continued to Edith, "Now you apologize to Elnora!" he fumed.

"I'll do nothing of the sort," Edith calmly said.

The whole charade was infuriating to watch. Phillip was being a complete d-bag and didn't even realize it. He'd been engaged to Edith for over three years, he didn't know that she would be upset with him running off to frolic with some other girl DURING THEIR ENGAGEMENT PARTY!!! And her suspicions were correct anyway. This fool was all in Elnora's grill the moment they got out of eyesight. Yet they made Edith look like the bad guy. As if she was a paranoid jealous psycho looking for something that wasn't there.

Oh, it was there.

This was all a flimsy pretext (to use Edith's words) to set up Phillip leaving his fiance and professing his love to Elnora. It was trite, distasteful, lame, unimaginative, and cringey with a capital C. Couldn't they come up with a better scenario. At least if he was already divorced they wouldn't have to make Edith some kind of witch who wasn't good enough for the pure-hearted Phillip.

The following day we got what was being plainly foreshadowed: Phillip went to Elnora's place to tell her that he'd broken the engagement off with Edith because he's in love with her. How long had he been in love with Elnora? Since the moment he met her. When she was sixteen (and they call R. Kelly twisted).

It was a stomach-turning scene trying to pass itself off as romance. Phillip quite literally dropped his fiance of three+ years for the high school farm girl he fell in love with when she was an early-teen. Someone please tell me where's the romance in that.

Free on YouTube.

She Learned About Sailors (1934)

Lackluster

[3/10 · 31 May 2024]

Larry Wilson (Lew Ayres) was a sailor and a ladies' man. On shore leave he could get any woman he wanted. While on shore leave in Shanghai where Americans called the Chinese "cooley" and yelled "chop chop" to get the rickshaw drivers to move faster, Larry won the heart of Jean Legoi (Alice Faye), a singer at a club. He employed the stalking and harassing style of courtship whereby the woman ends up bargaining with the man just to get him to leave her alone, then, invariably, she falls in love with him. Larry was the type who didn't take no for an answer--which was pretty much every successful loverboy in the 30's. They would stalk and harass until they broke down the woman's defenses. In this case Larry showed up in Jean's dressing room and her home. Four days later they were in love.

"She Learned About Sailors" was a bad romance and an even worse comedy. If we weren't watching the Don Juan who'd finally found "the one," we were assailed by the violent physical comedy of Jack Durant and Frank Mitchell who played Eddie and Peanuts. It really was a forgettable rom-com. It had the look and feel of a speedily churned out movie just to meet a quota.

Free on YouTube.

Four Frightened People (1934)

Frightened in the Forest

[5/10 · 30 May 2024]

"Four Frightened People" is a title that tells you the emotional state of the four subjects, but it doesn't tell you why or how. It was quite simple really. They were lost in the jungles of Malaysia with little hope of finding their way out. That is a frightening scenario, although it wasn't nearly as scary as it would be had Eli Roth or Wes Craven directed the film.

Judy Jones (Claudette Colbert), Arnold Ainger (Herbert Marshall), Mrs. Mardick (Mary Boland), and Stewart Corder (William Gargan) were lost in a Malaysian jungle with a self-described "white man" Malaysian named Montague (Leo Carrillo) as their guide. There were wild beasts, insects, disease, and, of course, "savage" natives to deal with. As formidable as the two white men were, they simply couldn't beat up EVERY tribal Malaysian.

All four wanted to get back to civilization for one reason or another. As time drew on, and a romance developed between Judy, the shrinking violet turned blossoming rose, and Arnold, a married man, they found less and less of a reason to return to their old life. Judy had broken her glasses and had no more reason to keep her hair pinned up, and that's when Arnold noticed her (so typical).

The entire movie took place in the jungle focusing on these four and their guide. It was intriguing at times, and at other times it was dull and a bit condescending (as movies in that era tended to be when portraying other cultures). It was a net "meh" and nothing I'll remember.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

Anaconda (1997)

It was Cool in 1997

[7/10 · 29 May 2024]

"Anaconda" is not a good movie, but I like it. Not only was it lacking in the acting and script writing department, the anaconda was comically bad. It was early CGI, it had vocal cords, and it was able to move like no snake that size should. But hey, in 1997 it was awesome.

A young Jennifer Lopez and Ice Cube played Terri Flores and Danny Rich, a director and a cinematographer in Brazil's Amazon to shoot a documentary on the Shirishama tribe. With them were Dr. Steven Cale (Eric Stolz), Terri's beau and an anthropologist; Mateo (Vincent Castellanos), the guide; Warren Westridge (Jonathan Hyde), the narrator for the documentary; Gary Dixon (Owen Wilson), the equipment manager; and Denise Kalberg (Kari Wuhrer), the production manager. Along their journey they picked up Paul Serone (Jon Voight), a mysterious and surly character with a downturned mouth, a ponytail, and a scar on the side of his face.

It wouldn't be long before the crew realized that Paul was bad business. His goal was to capture the deadly anaconda and the crew was powerless to stop him. Once "Anaconda" introduced the 40+ foot serpent, it was nonstop suspense from then on. Between Paul, the anaconda, and the rest of the Amazon, there was danger all around.

Watching "Anaconda" again for the first time in over twenty-five years, it doesn't have the same appeal, but it does make me nostalgic. I didn't know Danny Trejo was in the movie, not that I knew who he was back then anyway. If you don't remember him either, that's because he died in the opening scene.

I also didn't know Owen Wilson was in it for the same reason: he wasn't a star back then. "Anaconda" is one of those movies that I liked as a teen and now have a hard time explaining to my kids why it was a cool movie.

Netflix.

Kansas City Princess (1934)

Aimless Film

[3/10 · 28 May 2024]

Joan Blondell went from playing more reserved and respectable comedy relief roles to playing a caricature. She had good roles like 'Flips' Montague in "Make Me a Star," Vida Fleet in "Big City Blues," and Anne Roberts in "Blonde Crazy." Then, in 1934 she had quirky, wacky, and embarrassing roles like Vicki Wallace in "Smarty," Marie in "I've Got Your Number," and Rosie Sturgess in "Kansas City Princess." I still like Joan Blondell even if her agent was misguiding her.

"Kansas City Princess" was a nonsensical movie that didn't have a concrete plot. A manicurist named Rosie (Joan Blondell) was seeing an unsophisticated brute named Dynamite Carson (Robert Armstrong). Their relationship was odd and a bit scary. Dynamite pretty much claimed Rosie and she was too afraid to turn him down. It would've been a suspenseful thriller if it wasn't a comedy. Dynamite threatened everybody, and he even threatened Rosie a few times.

At one point, Rosie and her friend, Marie Callahan (Glenda Farrell), had to flee Kansas City to get away from Dynamite after Rosie lost the engagement ring he bought her. Dynamite was such a lunatic he followed the two women all the way to Paris.

The Tom and Jerry routine between Dynamite and Rosie and Marie put them in contact with a millionaire named Junior Ashcraft (Hugh Herbert), who was trying to ascertain if his wife was cheating on him or not. One botched plan and a lot of goofiness later, Junior proposed to Marie (who wanted to marry him for his money), and Rosie was doting over the abusive and potentially homicidal Dynamite. It was bizarre, wacky, and worst of all, not funny.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

Our Daily Bread (1934)

A Humbler American Dream

[7/10 · 28 May 2024]

One thing "Our Daily Bread" (ODB) had going for it is that it didn't feature any high society folks, nor did it feature a tawdry romance, nor was it about becoming rich. ODB was about people at the bottom helping one another survive and have a little something they could call their own. It did, however, have one head-scratching character in it which I think was shoved into the plot to create drama. ODB was mainly about working class folks who joined to form a community based on collectively supporting each other through trading goods and services.

John and Mary Sims (Tom Keene and Karen Morley) were days from being evicted when they received a lifeline from John's uncle. He gifted them a parcel of land in a remote part of the state. It was a worthless piece of land that he couldn't sell, so he handed it over to the struggling couple to make something of the property.

What the two did was open up the multi-acre property to folks who had skills and talents to help develop the land and build a community. John wanted carpenters, mason workers, and farmers, but he still accepted preachers, barbers, and others so long as they were willing to work.

The community was growing and they'd elected John to be their leader. John was doing a fine job until the introduction of Sally (Barbara Pepper). Sally was driving through when her car broke down. They gave her shelter and she decided to stay. She had eyes on John and she was able to woo him with her blond hair and sex appeal.

The reason I didn't like this aspect of the movie was because her presence there didn't add up. She was a city gal through and through. She was used to nice clothes, make-up, night clubs, and men spending money on her. There was NONE of that there. It was nothing but toiling, limited resources, and no amenities. Her being there seemed like a cheap way for the writers to add drama which she did. John was about to leave the community he established in its most dire hour because of Sally, and I didn't like it.

I actually liked the movie as a whole. It was about the working poor joining together to make something for themselves even though it wasn't much. Everyone got a fresh start in this new community and everyone was sacrificing for the good of the whole. There were plenty of pitfalls and plenty of obstacles to overcome, there was no need to make a cheap floozy one of them.

Free on Tubi.

Cleopatra (1934)

I Don't Know What to Believe

[2/10 · 28 May 2024]

Admittedly, I don't know anything about Cleopatra. I only know the name because of the 1963 movie starring Elizabeth Taylor. Per "Cleopatra" 1934, Cleopatra (played by Claudette Colbert) had the dubious distinction of losing Egypt to the Romans. She attempted to keep Egypt and her crown by hooking up with Julius Caesar (played by Warren William), and when that didn't work she wooed Marc Antony (played by Henry Wilcoxon).

"Cleopatra" was one of at least three films between 1933 and 1934 about female rulers. The other two were "Queen Christina" (1933) starring Greta Garbo and "The Scarlet Empress" (1934) starring Marlene Dietrich. I'd say "Cleopatra" was closer to "Queen Christina" in that both focused on love.

Cleopatra presented herself to Julius Caesar in attempts to save herself and her crown. She fell in love with him and he fell in love with her. It bought her country a temporary respite from Rome's forces, but it brought Julius an early death by him being branded a traitor.

Marc Antony and Octavian (played by Ian Kieth) became co-rulers when Julius was killed. They were united in their belief that Cleopatra should yield and be put in chains. Marc Antony had a plan for Cleopatra, but then even he fell in love with her. Eventually, she fell in love with him as well, making "Cleopatra" a sappy movie about another woman who can't help but fall in love. Given the slanted nature of early films, especially when it comes to women and people of color, I don't know what part of this melodramatic movie to believe.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The Gay Divorcee (1934)

"Chance is the Fool's Name for Fate"

[6/10 · 28 May 2024]

"The Gay Divorcee," (TGD) coincidentally, did not feature a divorcee. Mimi (Ginger Rogers) wanted a divorce, but her husband wouldn't grant her one. Divorce wasn't a favorable thing on film for the main character back then even when divorces were sought. Usually, regardless of what may have occurred, the main character would remain married. A divorce was inevitable in TGD because Guy (Fred Astaire) was in love with Mimi and he wasn't her husband.

This was Fred Astaire's first starring role. He was in "Dancing Lady" (1933), but I don't even remember him in it. In TGD he plays Guy Holden, a well known singer and dancer. He's not quite Bing Crosby with the singing, but he's got him beat in the dancing department.

Guy was smitten with Mimi the first time he saw her even though she gave him the cold shoulder. That set up a standard man-doggedly-pursuing-woman scenario with Guy hunting down Mimi and harassing her into liking him. When he finally made a bit of a breakthrough there was a silly miscommunication/misunderstanding scene that was supposed to be comedic, but tends to be frustrating for the viewer unless you find it funny. You know the scenario in which one question, or a few more words of clarification would solve the whole matter.

I hate that.

Misunderstanding-scene aside, the movie was pretty good. It was a musical, of course, which allowed Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers to show off their singing and dancing. Even Edward Everett-Horton, the perennial square, got in on the singing and dancing. He played the attorney trying to help Mimi get a divorce. Hopefully, this was his first and last musical.

Free on YouTube.

Dangerous Corner (1934)

What is Truth and How Much Should We Know?

[6/10 · 28 May 2024]

"Dangerous Corner" begins with text reading:

"This is a story of what really happened... and what might have happened."

We were then introduced to our main characters at different intervals. There was Ann Peel (Virginia Bruce) and Charles Stanton (Melvyn Douglas). They were the talent scouts, in a sense, of a book publishing company. There was Robert Chatfield (Conrad Nagel), co-owner of the publishing company Whitehouse-Chatfield, and he was married to Freda (Erin O'Brien-Moore). There was Gordon Whitehouse (Henry Wadsworth), the other half of Whitehouse-Chatfield, who was Freda's brother and married to Betty (played by Betty Furness). Finally, there was Martin Chatfield (Ian Keith) who also had a role in the Whitehouse-Chatfield firm.

Ostensibly, they were all the best of friends. Their friendship was challenged when $50,000 in bonds was found missing from a safe only the four men had access to. No one admitted stealing the bonds and there was no clear suspect until Martin was found shot to death. Everyone assumed he committed suicide because of guilt, but as they began questioning each other about the theft and the death, things began to get a lot seedier than they'd hoped.

"Dangerous Corner" was truly about the "truth": what is it and how much of it should we know. How much of it do we want to know? It leaves the viewer him or herself pondering that very thing. It was a bit salacious and soap opera-ish as well, but it was also a mystery which held the attention a lot more than the interpersonal drama. I liked it overall, and the ending was a bit unique.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

Judge Priest (1934)

Requiem for the Confederacy

[1/10 · 24 May 2024]

"Judge Priest" could've been a wonderful movie except for two things:

1.) Stepin Fetchit

2.) It praised the Confederacy

"Judge Priest" took place in Kentucky in 1890, a time not too far removed from the Civil War and even closer to the end of Reconstruction. Judge William Pitman Priest (Will Rogers) was a "liberal" judge in a small Kentucky town (or county). His liberality was established at the very beginning when he opted not to punish Jeff Poindexter (Stepin Fetchit), a slow, dimwitted Black man* on trial for stealing a chicken.

Until the end, the most dramatic issue was the budding romance between Priest's nephew, Jerome Priest (Tom Brown), and Ellie May Gillespie (Anita Louise).

The movie took a dramatic shift when Bob Gilis (David Landau) was put on trial for stabbing a coward named Flem (Frank Melton). Jerome Priest had to defend him, but that's not the important part. The important part is that a man named Rev. Ashby Brand (Henry B. Walthall) gave a moving testimony about Bob's bravery and character in respect to the Civil War and fighting for the Confederacy. The testimony Brand gave was so serious, detailed, and laudatory that you would've thought he was testifying about a man who helped good triumph over evil.

And that's when I had a stark change in attitude towards this movie. Can a person be brave even if they're fighting for slavery and oppression? Certainly he can, but that doesn't mean we extol it. The way Brand spoke about Confederate soldiers and the Confederacy, it was as if he were talking about soldiers of God. Like no finer men ever walked the Earth. I was tensing up with each passing second as Brand continued his nostalgic retelling of heroism replete with flashback footage and patriotic music playing. He even referred to the Confederate flag as "stars and bars."

Brand's testimony finished to a burst of excited shouting and applause. There was no doubt that Bob was to be acquitted, but IT WASN'T EVEN EVIDENCE!! Brand didn't provide a shred of testimony that could be considered evidence--and especially new evidence to reopen the case as it was. So, never mind the fact that Bob stabbed Flem out of self-defense (which he did), what was most important was that he was a good Confederate soldier!!!???

The movie ended with a grand parade marching down Main Street with Bob in the lead proudly holding the Confederate flag. It was a sight to behold. For some, it was a source of pride. For others, like me, it was a source of revulsion.

I've never seen anything like it. The closest thing I've ever seen to praising the Confederacy was "Dukes of Hazzard" when I was a kid. "Judge Priest" was a requiem for the Confederacy. I've never seen it held in such high esteem. I began to wonder had they thought they won the war or maybe the movie was set in an alternate universe in which the North was fighting for slavery while the South was fighting to free the slaves. With nothing to support the aforementioned scenarios the only conclusion is that they believed they were on the side of right and, more importantly, so did Hollywood.

So, instead of the movie being about a man who was adequately defended because he acted in self-defense, we got a movie about how great the Confederacy was. I simply cannot

*Stepin Fetchit was a stage name and his stage persona was always the same in every movie. He was a slow moving, slow speaking idiot. He never stood up straight, rather he was always slouching. He'd talk slowly with a little bit of a whine and mumble so badly you could barely understand most of what he said. His name became an insult among Black people in the '60s along with Uncle Tom.

Easy to Love (1934)

Monogamy in High Society is a Joke

[1/10 · 24 May 2024]

Right after watching "Easy to Love" I went searching for the nearest Man in Black to have my memory erased. Then I thought, "First I must warn people," so I started angrily banging away on my keyboard just to let people know how abysmal this movie is.

The whole plot centers around adultery, which was a very common topic back then. There were always mistresses and lovers, especially among society folks. Even the most committed, monogamous, and dedicated married couples would fall victim to infidelity. "Easy to Love" decided to make it comedic.

Funny it was not.

Not only was this movie not funny, it simply wasn't good. John (Adolphe Menjou) was cheating on his wife, Carol (Genevieve Tobin), with Carol's best friend, Charlotte (Mary Astor). Meanwhile, John's best friend, Eric (Edward Everett Horton), was in love with his (John's) wife. Yeah, it sounds like a trashy soap opera or an episode of Jerry Springer.

John would hook up with Charlotte everyday; telling his wife he was playing polo. She got suspicious and hired a PI to tail him and see where he was really going. When she found out where he was going and who he was going to see, she decided to play a game instead of being an adult and confronting him with the information.

She pretended to be in love with Eric and, not so subtly, let it "slip" so that her husband would find out. It led to John hypocritically confronting Carol about the relationship that poor stupid Eric thought was real. The entire childish act went on until the inevitable end: they remained together and recommitted to one another.

I don't mind the overall message: couples should remain married. Hollywood has done that before. They did several movies reinforcing marriage over divorce even in the face of adultery. The problem is that most of them, if not all of them, treated the matter so trivially. The offended party would get upset, some type of rumblings would happen, then they'd stick together as if nothing ever happened; as if no trust was eroded.

Because "Easy to Love" was a comedy it really trivialized the adultery. John was lying to Carol DAILY and he was banging her best friend. Her idea of getting even was to make John jealous by claiming to be in a relationship with Eric. Not only was it a weak, feeble-minded attempt at revenge, it also clouded the issue. The issue was that John had a steady relationship with another woman and it was never addressed. She was too cowardly to address it, so she opted for some lame trick to bring it out into the open. Then, once the cat was out of the bag, she went on pretending to love Eric to keep the gag going instead of sitting down like adults and hashing it out.

John never apologized and he never explained himself. He and Carol simply complied with their daughter's wishes and remained together, presumably, eschewing the other would-be lovers in their life. To say the resolution was unsatisfying would be like saying that a thimble of water won't quench an elephant's thirst. But, unfortunately, this movie was in line with the sentiment at that time. Mistresses were expected, so long as they were kept hidden. John messed up by marrying a woman who still loved him and wanted his affection after nearly twenty years of marriage. Had she been a stale set piece, his inattention to her would've been ignored as well as his frequent games of "polo." But Carol still loved and adored him, so she was heartbroken to find out he was cheating. "Easy to Love" unequivocally failed to capture that heart break.

Carol was an anomaly. She was part of high society and she had been married many years, which means she should've expected her husband to have a mistress, and she should've had a lover of her own--or at least she should've chosen the willful ignorance route. The fact she didn't have a lover and she actually cared that her husband was cheating on her made her a rare breed, hence it made her a joke. It was laughable that such women like Carol existed which makes "Easy to Love" a sad movie.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The Lemon Drop Kid (1934)

When Storks Brought Babies

[4/10 · 24 May 2024]

Movies like "The Lemon Drop Kid" are so bad they tire me out. I've gotten less exhausted running a 5k. It didn't help that Lee Tracy was the star. He's one of those funny types that you either like or you don't. I'm firmly in the "don't like" camp with regards to Lee Tracy, Jimmy Durante, Frank McHugh, and Jack Oakie. They all have a particular schtick that annoys me. Lee's thing is being a fast talker. Oh, they're alright as co-stars or smaller roles, but I don't like them as the lead actor.

Lee Tracy played the Lemon Drop Kid aka Wally Brooks, a conman and a thief. He had to split from Baltimore when he conned an old guy out of $100. He fled to a little town called Kibbsville where he found a sweet woman named Alice Deering (Helen Mack) and settled down. It would've been cute if it wasn't so revolting.

To start with, Wally forcibly kissed Alice when he was a guest at her home. They hadn't known each other ten minutes and he took it upon himself to kiss her. She did the respectable thing and slapped him, but still she was like every other woman in that her indignation stopped right after slapping him. In other words, there were no other repercussions: she didn't scold him or kick him out--just a simple slap which means "I'm a lady."

After that interaction Alice got word from the town's phone operator that the police were looking for Wally. Alice decided to keep that information hidden. She'd only known the guy a few hours at most and she was protecting him from the law. She had no idea what he was wanted for, but she surmised that he couldn't be bad because he gave pa a ride home. Truthfully, all it was was small-town-girl-gets-breath-taken-away-by-big-city-guy.

Eventually it came time for the two to get married. Still, Alice didn't know Wally's past and, what's more, she didn't want to know. She wanted to be blissfully ignorant, leaving Wally a blank canvas for her to paint an imaginary picture upon of who she was in love with. Even when Lee tried to tell her, she shut him up, afraid that he'd ruin the ideal image of him she'd created in her head. This was a common occurrence of both men and women in 30's movies as if not knowing about a person makes the love purer. Personally, I think it's reckless and stupid. Furthermore, I don't think that you can say you truly love a person unless you know all there is to know about them. Otherwise you're in love with a fictional character. I say test your love and find out what there is to know. If you find out he's Ted Bundy and you still stick with him, then that's love.

The point of this banal romance was that Wally would have to go straight and live a square life in order to be with Alice, which meant that he would probably be met with the demons of his past life at some point to test his strength and commitment to Alice.

The two got married and six months later Alice was pregnant. As we all know, she would never say the word "pregnant" on screen. We have to use silly context clues to figure that out. Alice was such a child that after whispering her secret to her friend Maizie (Minna Gombell) she went and hid, too shy and embarrassed to tell her own husband. He found her ducking behind a cabinet like a guilty toddler where he had to kiss her to reassure her that everything was alright.

That was yet another trope of 30's movies I couldn't stand: women afraid to tell a man they were pregnant. And I don't mean that they were afraid to say the word pregnant (that was a cinematic no no) because they would use euphemisms like "I'm having a baby" or "you're going to be a father" or "our family is growing," etc. I mean that women were afraid as though the news would be too much for the man to bear and they dare not upset him or scare him off. Alice's case was even more extreme than most. Firstly, they were married, and what do married couples do but have kids? Secondly, it's a known fact that she had to have sex with him in order to get pregnant, so the fact that she was too shy to tell him she was having a baby is puzzling, and it portrays a false type of innocence like they still believed in storks. She looked like a frightened mouse at the prospect of telling Wally he knocked her up.

To further paint Alice as this innocent and fragile creature, she got sick during her pregnancy. It was almost ladylike and dainty for a woman to faint while pregnant (they fainted for everything). Alice not only fainted, but she contracted a life threatening illness as well. No, that wasn't normal, but it was necessary for the plot of this film.

The doctor told Wally that he'd have to take her to a specialist if he wanted to save her, which meant Wally would need money. And this is where his past revisited him. The only way Wally knew how to get real money was by hook or crook. He chose to rob his boss, Martin Potter (Clarence Wilson). It was all for naught because Alice died right after giving birth. While Wally was still grieving, the police arrested him for the Potter robbery. Just like that he'd lost his wife and his freedom.

A couple years passed and Wally was in prison being a bad inmate because he was angry at the world. The warden guessed correctly that a visit from his baby boy would liven him up and give him something to live for. Wally had nowhere to go but up. And that's what he did. He got out of prison on parole and found that Mr. Griggsby (Robert McWade)--the old man he conned back in Baltimore-- had not only dropped the charges against him but gifted him $4,900 ($5,000 less the $100 Wally stole), and reunited him with his son. I have to say, as much as the movie sucked to this point, I was happy to see Wally back with his son. I may have hated the movie, but I'm no black heart.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The Case of the Howling Dog (1934)

Perry Mason's Debut

[8/10 · 23 May 2024]

Warren William has the distinction of playing Philo Vance after William Powell and playing Perry Mason before Raymond Burr. "The Case of the Howling Dog" was Perry Mason's debut and Warren William was a perfect fit. I doubt anyone knew it would spawn decades of Perry Mason relevancy.

Perry Mason (Warren William) was a successful Los Angeles lawyer who had so many people clambering for his services he had to turn many away. One man had a seemingly uneventful request, but Perry's secretary, Della Street (Helen Trenholme), insisted he see him.

The man, Arthur Cartwright (Gordon Westcott), wanted to make a will and he wanted to complain about a howling dog. He spoke very cryptically as if he were going mad. His simple request led to tales of infidelity, cheating, and murder. What started with Arthur Cartwright wanting to shut up a dog morphed into a murder case involving Bessie Foley (Mary Astor), her philandering husband, Clinton Foley (Russell Hicks), and a police dog. There were a lot of moving parts and a lot of characters to get familiar with. A couple of the actors of note were Allen Jenkins, who played the police sergeant, and Grant Mitchell, who played the D. A.

What made "Howling Dog" different from a lot of the murder mysteries of that era was that it was more of a courtroom drama than most. Usually murder mysteries ended with the investigator piecing everything together and no trial is ever seen. "Howling Dog" stars a very savvy attorney, so we see the investigation as well as the court proceedings. You can think of it as an early "Law & Order."

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The Trumpet Blows (1934)

Tepid and Uninteresting

[5/10 · 23 May 2024]

"The Trumpet Blows" was an unexciting and flavorless movie. Of course, it didn't help to have George Raft starring in it. He's on my list with Gary Cooper and William Boyd as the biggest stiffs of the 1930's.

The movie took place in Mexico. Manuel Montes (George Raft) had just returned home after attending college in America. His older brother Pancho Montes (Adolphe Menjou) had goals for him. He wanted him to be a "gentleman" and marry into a good family. Manuel wanted to be a bullfighter and he had no interest in the woman his brother made arrangements for him to marry. Who Manuel did like was Chulita (Frances Drake) and he didn't know that his brother was madly in love with her.

That set up the two brothers after the same girl scenario. For two brothers or two friends in love with the same girl see "The Flying Fool" (1929), "Central Airport" (1933), or almost any movie with a love triangle.

Manuel moved a lot faster than Pancho and he wasn't going to let a thing like marriage be an impediment to him getting freaky with Chulita. After the two slept together Manuel found out that Pancho was in love with her. Manuel never divulged that he'd already deflowered Pancho's crush, he just left to become a bullfighter. He did the standard gentleman thing which is to go away when you are in direct competition with a better man for a woman's love. That's something else that you can see in a lot of movies from that era.

Eventually, Pancho discovered the romance between Manuel and Chulita and he cut them both off. They went their separate ways until Manuel was gored by a bull and fell into depression. Chulita wanted to save her man so she went to Pancho to ask for his help restoring Manuel to the man he once was.

It was all pretty lame. In the end they were all chummy with each other. Thank you and good night.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

One Night of Love (1934)

Bello

[7/10 · 23 May 2024]

It's quite interesting that an 80 minute movie could be tanked by one scene. "One Night of Love" wasn't quite tanked, but one scene did do considerable damage. The movie went on to recover from that damage, but I still think it's worth mentioning. It was a lame frame-up to make a man look like he was cheating. It's been done in so many movies and it always amazes me how well the frame-ups work. It's like the relationships were just waiting for a reason to be fragmented.

Giulio Monteverdi (Tullio Carminati) was an operatic maestro. If he took a student she was sure to be a success. He was tired of his current student, Lally (Mona Barrie), because she'd fallen in love with him and became difficult to teach. Love and teaching don't mix well. Where does the role of teacher end and lover begin? Monteverdi stated that his next pupil would be forbidden from falling in love with him--which is a telltale sign that she will.

Monteverdi's next pupil was an American woman named Mary Barrett who was in Italy for the express purpose of breaking into opera. She was performing at a cafe when Monteverdi discovered her. He took her under his wing and became her whole world much like John Barrymore did with Carole Lombard in "Twentieth Century." Monteverdi dictated her eating schedule, her sleeping schedule, her training, her social life, and everything in between. If she was to be a success, she was going to have to pay a heavy price.

The intense training worked and Mary aka Maria became a success, but Monteverdi remained strict with her and didn't allow her hardly any freedom. Although she complained bitterly about him and his training, and would openly declare she couldn't stand him, a small hint of admiration could be detected. At one point she was ready to quit when Monteverdi went on a date with his old student. This is when it became obvious she had feelings for Monteverdi; exactly what she wasn't supposed to do.

When Mary's ploys didn't keep Monteverdi from his date, she emphatically declared that she was done with the opera and that she was going to marry Bill Houston (Lyle Talbot), an American in Italy who was infatuated with Mary. She looked so resolved until Monteverdi coaxed her back onto the stage. He eventually had to admit that he loved her to get her to perform again. So, just like George Raft said he'd never do in "Bolero" when he fell in love with his dance partner Carole Lombard, Monteverdi had fallen in love with Mary, and she couldn't have been happier.

Which leads us to the weak and unimaginative frame-up scene.

Monteverdi was back at home preparing a romantic meal for Mary and himself when Lally barged in on him. Lally wanted to perform at the Metropolitan in New York and she wanted Monteverdi to make it happen.

He refused and he demanded she leave.

Lally wasn't leaving until she got what she wanted. She wanted to witness Monteverdi call the director of the Metropolitan and propose her for their newest addition. As she was arguing with Monteverdi, Mary walked in. Right then and there Lally put her arms around Monteverdi and said something to make it seem as though she was reciprocating his love and affection. Then, in the cliche manner it had become, Mary marched right past the two of them and started preparing to leave. She wouldn't listen to Monteverdi or give him a chance to clear up the misunderstanding; she walked out of his life, presumably forever.

This part of the movie riled me up so much for two reasons:

1.) It's trite. It was overdone even by 1934. There were so many movies in which a third party intentionally caused a rift between two lovebirds. Sometimes it was out of jealousy, sometimes out of greed, sometimes for the good of one or both lovers, and in "Flirting with Danger" (1934) it was a joke. Most of the time the conflicts could've been cleared up in a matter of minutes.

2.) How is it that these romances burn so hot with love, yet they are extinguished with the slightest misunderstanding or miscommunication? When the writer wants a love to be strong, nothing will break it. Conversely, when it suits the plot, they make the relationships as fragile as a spider's web.

The entire scenario led Mary to the decision of going to New York to join the Metropolitan opera. Monteverdi didn't think she was ready, but he'd lost all sway over her once she saw Lally's arms wrapped around him.

Shortly before Mary was set to make her debut in New York it seemed as though she was going to go down in a ball of flames. She was all nerves and said that she could not go on. Should she fail to perform or perform well, it was surely to be the end of her operatic career. But, then, as if he heard her inner cries, Monteverdi was there just below the stage to be the calming influence she needed. She would go on to be a sensation. We don't know if she reunited with Monteverdi or not because the movie ended with her on stage receiving rousing applause. I like to think that they straightened things out, which is one of the little treasures of this movie: that the end is left to the viewer's imagination.

Despite the poor rating, I liked "One Night of Love." It was a little "Bolero," a little "Twentieth Century," and a little "Tonight or Never." Normally I don't like such concoctions, but for "One Night of Love" it worked. If you like opera singing, this movie has plenty of it. I'm not a fan, but I don't hate it either.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The Barretts of Wimpole Street (1934)

A Possessive Patriarch

[7/10 · 22 May 2024]

Charles Laughton. Man, this guy can act, but he is ALWAYS the antagonist. He's not a strong imposing fellow, so he's normally a weaselly bad guy like in "Devil and the Deep," "Payment Deferred," "Island of Lost Souls," "White Woman," and even "The Private Life of Henry VIII" to some degree.

In "The Barretts of Wimpole Street," Charles plays an overbearing patriarch of a mid-19th century English family. He was the male version of Laura Hope Crews in "The Silver Cord" (1933), or Louise Closser Hale in "Another Language" (1933). He was stern, mean, controlling, and manipulative. He ruled his family with an iron fist, yet he desired love from them--especially from Elizabeth (Norma Shearer).

Elizabeth, also called Bar by her siblings, was a sickly woman. She had a mysterious illness that kept her in one room and her father seemed set on keeping her sick. He spoke as if he wanted her well, yet he defied the doctor's orders as though he knew better. She was non-ambulatory for some time until she eventually learned to walk.

Things were always contentious between him and Elizabeth, but the tension ratcheted up a notch when Elizabeth found love. Suddenly, Edward Barrett (Charles Laughton) found himself in competition with a poet named Robert Browning (Fredric March) for Elizabeth's love. It was a position he couldn't bear to be in and he only knew how to use fear and manipulation to keep Elizabeth near him physically and emotionally.

I was all into the dysfunction of the Barrett family. There was so much tension and such a tug-of-war going on at all times. The sons in the family were inconsequential, but the two of the three daughters, Elizabeth and Henrietta (Maureen O'Sullivan) were front and center in their battle against their father. They wanted love and happiness and Edward was a direct impediment to that.

I really thought I would tire of the proper, stuffy, high society English family, but I didn't. Sure, their manner of speaking and properness were annoying, but past that was a family in a passive aggressive, subtle and open war of wills that had my full attention.

Free on YouTube.

Belle of the Nineties (1934)

Witty West Wins Again

[7/10 · 21 May 2024]

Mae West is back to her sassy self. I shouldn't say "back" because she never left off being sassy. Mae West began her career by finding a character she liked and faithfully sticking with it; and it can't be said that it was someone else's doing. Mae West wrote the scripts she performed. She wrote "Night After Night," "She Done Him Wrong," "I'm No Angel," and "Belle of the Nineties," and she was the same character in all of them--just a different name.

"Belle of the Nineties," like "She Done Him Wrong," took place in the late 19th century. Ruby Carter (Mae West) was a club performer in St. Louis dating a boxer named Kid Tiger (Roger Pryor). When a ploy by Kid Tiger's manager broke them up, she took her talents to New Orleans. Ruby was just like every other Mae West character: a vamp. She was smart, sassy, sexy, witty, flirtatious, and ALL the men wanted her. Mae's characters never break a sweat, never lose, and are never in a hurry. She's too cool for any of that.

In New Orleans Ruby had a contract with Ace Lamont (John Miljan) to perform at his Sensation House. Ruby packed the place. She had to deal with Ace as well as the throng of panting men who paid to see her. Her chief suitor besides Ace was Brooks Claybourne (John Mack Brown). He lavished her with expensive jewelry in hopes of winning her heart. She entertained the compliments and charms of them all, but she didn't give her heart to any of them.

Things were rather easy going until Tiger Kid came to New Orleans for a fight. He hooked up with Ace, who was bad news, and he saw Ruby again after their break up. It was anybody's guess how things were going to turn out, but Ruby would be the victor no matter what.

I think I liked this movie more than the previous two Mae West movies because the vamping was tempered more to focus on the scheming aspects of the plot. Instead of this being so much about the men who desired her (they were still there, just not as heavily as "She Done Him Wrong" and "I'm No Angel"), it was a little of the men who desired her and more of the scheming men in her life (principally Ace). It played out rather nicely.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The House of Rothschild (1934)

Money Money Money

[5/10 · 21 May 2024]

Rothschild. That's a name I would hear when someone was referring to mega-money, along with Rockerfeller. I don't know how factually accurate "The House of Rothschild" is, but it would seem that the Rothschilds overcame incredible odds and made a huge gamble that paid off.

The movie began sometime in the late 17th century I'm guessing. Jews were corralled into the ghettos and were being generally mistreated. A financially shrewd man named Mayer Rothschild (George Arliss) had a vision for his sons and his family. As the story goes he told his five sons to open banks in five major cities throughout Europe but to act as one bank with Nathan (also George Arliss), in London, being the head. That way they'd amass money after which would follow power to uplift themselves and their race.

It would seem that Mayer Rothschild was prescient. Even though Jews were being persecuted, the five sons were able to realize their father's dream up until the Rothschilds became one of the most pivotal banks during France's war with Napoleon.

There was also a bit of a love story embedded in the movie if you need such a thing. Nathan Rothschild's daughter Julie (Loretta Young) was in love with Captain Fitzroy (Robert Young). Their love was interrupted by anti-semitism and a protective father.

The message of "The House of Rothschilds" was very clear: amass money. If I heard any word I heard money. Amass money, make money, money is power, money money money moooonay. Mooonaay; as the O'Jays sang it. Should any family or people amass enough money, they could turn things into their favor. Maybe they can't change everyone's sentiment, but they can at least be powerful enough to change how they're treated.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

The Scarlet Empress (1934)

I Took a Chance on Marlene and it Paid Off

[7/10 · 17 May 2024]

"The Scarlet Empress" is a period piece taking place during the mid-eighteenth century in Russia. The Empress of Russia at the time, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (played by Louise Dresser) desired a suitable wife for her son Grand Duke Peter Theodorovich (played by Sam Jaffe). Her search netted her Princess Sophia (pronounced so-fie-a) Frederica (played by Marlene Dietrich). Sophia was a beautiful woman of Prussian royalty; precisely what Empress Elizabeth wanted.

Sophia was escorted to Russia by a royal aide named Count Alexei (John Lodge). He was a big handsome man, one like Sophia hoped her husband would be. When she asked what the Grand Duke looked like Alexei responded with, "would you like him to be handsome?"

"Isn't he?" Sophia asked.

"Would you like him to be better looking than all other men, and tall and gracious?" Alexei added.

"Yes, I think I would," Sophia demurely replied.

"Well, he is all that and more," Alexei stated.

This brief dialogue at the beginning of the movie did a few things. First, it made me laugh. The entire exchange was quite comical. Second, it showed me something from Marlene Dietrich I hadn't seen before: emotion. I was only used to the impassive I'm-to-pretty-to-have-to-try Marlene that I'd seen in "Dishonored," "Blond Venus," and "Morocco." Finally, the dialogue made me more interested in the movie.

Even though, given the exaggerated description, we expected that the Grand Duke wouldn't be quite how Alexei described, it was even more shocking to see just how ugly and spastic he looked. Sophia was equally shocked as I'm sure all the viewers were when Grand Duke Peter presented himself with his eyes open too wide, his hair disheveled, and an odd grin on his face. It was going to be a real trial for Sophia, now named Catherine Alexina, to be married to Grand Duke Peter. He was not only a chore to look at, he was also dim witted.

"The Scarlet Empress" was good because it was a good story, an outstanding production, and had fine acting.

It also succeeded where the Greta Garbo starred "Queen Christina" had not. Catherine used her title and power to protect herself and to protect Russia from a madman. She wasn't so consumed with a man's love that she let herself be derailed. Greta Garbo as Queen Christina, the queen of Sweden, desired love and as a result abdicated the throne to go after it. I had the utmost respect for Catherine and what she overcame to rise to power and do what was best for Russia. "The Scarlet Empress" as a movie and as a woman was commendable.

Free on YouTube.

The Age of Innocence (1934)

More Tortured Lovers

[2/10 · 17 May 2024]

Love triangles, high society, tortured lovers: all the stuff I hate wrapped up into one crappy movie.

"The Age of Innocence" is one of those mushy romances that romanticizes infidelity and selfish behavior in the name of love. The movie in which the man tells the woman that conformity is bad, doing what's right is cowardice, and casting aside social mores is freedom.

Newland Archer (John Boles) was engaged to May Welland (Julie Haydon) some time in the late 19th century when engagements lasted a year and people were more innocent. Or as Slick Rick put it: "Once upon a time not long ago when people wore pajamas and lived life slow. When laws were stern and justice stood and people were behavin' like they ought to, good."

That was the era, and Newland and May were so in love. They couldn't wait to tie the knot, but they had to wait because both of them were decent folks not looking to upset the apple cart.

Then along came a bogey. May had a cousin named Ellen (Irene Dunne) who was seeking a divorce from her husband. The way the women in her family spoke it was as if she was looking to have him murdered, divorce was such a no-no. Ellen was the black sheep of the family. She came from Europe where society was more liberal and her behavior reflected it.

Well, wouldn't you know it, Newland fell in love with her. She was such a woman, unlike his fiance who was beholden to familial fealty and social mores. As the slow soundtrack played Newland passionately told Ellen how her lifestyle was much better than that of high society Americans.

"When we say dignity, we mean fear of what others will say. When we say good taste, we mean glossing over the truth. When we say decency, we mean hypocrisy," he said, speaking from his limited scope.

Newland was from society where those words applied, but he spoke like it was a universal truth. And really, I don't believe he believed what was coming out of his mouth. The dude was in love by this point, he was liable to say anything. Things like, "nothing and no one in the world matters but you."

Get outta here with that. The sh-t people say when they're drooling over someone. It is so sappy and so hyperbolic. They're all trying to say how much they "love" the other person, but seeking new and inventive ways to say it. And Hollywood is trying convey a message: go after who/what you love. Don't be concerned about opinions, money, obstacles, and not even duties and responsibilities sometimes--just go after your love.

In the end Newland was a forlorn man because he had to let his love go. After making the mistake of marrying his fiance, he made the further mistake of getting her pregnant, so then he couldn't leave even if he wanted to, lest he be a real jackass. He opted to forgo his own happiness for duty, but you always got the distinct feeling that even that may not have been the right thing.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

Blind Date (1934)

Extra Sappy

[1/10 · 17 May 2024]

"Waiter! Give me a plate of romance with syrup, and make it extra sappy."

"Here we are with a dish called blind date. I hope it suits your taste, it's the sappiest thing we have on the menu."

This was just another one of Hollywood's many lessons to us all, which is that blonde beauties can never be poor and loveless. They may be poor, but they definitely will have love, but by and large they will have both prosperity and love.

This sorry movie was yet another tortured beauty who has to choose between two men.

"Oh woe is me! No one has suffered as I am now. There are two great men I have to choose from and I don't know what to do!"

These movies are so pretentious and off-base because they make it seem as though no one in the world is as bad off or as tortured as the beautiful girl who has multiple suitors. And generally, one of the men plays the gentleman and gracefully steps aside for the sake of the woman's long term happiness.

Ann Sothern plays Kitty Taylor, a working girl from a poor family struggling to make ends meet. She is engaged to a working man named Bill Lowry (Paul Kelly) who is trying hard to build up his tow garage business. Like all working men in 1930s films, he is unromantic. For romance, you have to get a society man (i.e. Man with a lot of money). When Bill makes the fatal mistake of choosing to work and earn money over taking Kitty out for her birthday he essentially loses her. She hooked up on a blind date with a rich playboy named Bob Hartwell (Neil Hamilton) and Bill was no match for Bob. Bob put some smooth moves on Kitty, plus Bob had everything Bill didn't: he had money, charm, and time; all the things a woman could and would want from a man.

Caution! All working class men who have to put in many hours just to provide and many hours just to have some extra spending cash for their lady; rich boys with plenty of money, time, and charm are just waiting to take your women (for reference see "The Easiest Way," "Sinners in the Sun," "Skyscraper Souls," and others).

It wasn't even a fair fight. As much time and effort that Bill put in he lost kitty in a matter of one night. He couldn't compete with the charm and money of Bob Hartwell. Even if they tried to downplay the money angle, the money angle had everything to do with it. Without money, Bob Hartwell would not have had the time to spend with Kitty. Without money, Bob Hartwell would not have had his own driver to take he and Kitty on romantic drives. Without money, Bob couldn't have gotten Kitty a job where she could be near him. So even though the writers wrote it where Kitty truly loved Bob for himself, it was still money that allowed Bob to be Bob, and if Bill had the same amount of money that Bob had, he would've had the amount of time that Bob had to spend with Kitty as well, and he wouldn't have had to be working on Kitty's birthday.

That's one of the main reasons I can't even stomach movies like this because the message is always the same. And the 1930s had so many of these romances with society men and society women with nothing but time to play, and wine and dine, and romance. Every so often, like in "Blind Date," they would make it seem as though the society man or society woman was truly in love with the working class girl or the working class boy, when the truth is they were probably just curious and wanted to satisfy that curiosity.

So chalk this movie up to another crappy romance from the 30s where flowery talk, expensive lavish gifts, and plenty of recreational time to spend lusting over a woman wins over a guy who has limited resources and limited time to give to the woman he loves.

Free on YouTube.

The Count of Monte Cristo (1934)

One of the Best Tales of Revenge

[8/10 · 16 May 2024]

In 2002 I watched the Antonio Banderas starred "The Count of Monte Cristo" and I found it so-so. The 1934 version was superior in every way. This is one of the best tales of revenge ever written.

The Count of Monte Cristo, the man, was forged in the dungeons of France. He began life as Edmond Dantes (played by Robert Donat). He was a first mate on a French ship during a time when Napoleon was exiled and the king of France was executing anyone with allegiance to Napoleon. Those with fealty to Napoleon kept it hidden lest they lose their life. Edmond was not one of them, but Edmond was a dutiful first mate to his captain who was a Napoleon supporter.

When his captain gave him a message to deliver, he was arrested immediately after delivery. Edmond was unconcerned because he had done nothing wrong. He was sure the matter would be cleared up in court. In the meantime he was thrown in a dungeonous jail where he was expected, unbeknownst to him, to rot for eternity. Three men plotted against him for no other reason than their own nefarious aims.

Raymond de Villeforte (Louis Calhern), the king's magistrate, put Edmond away to shield his own father, the recipient of the message, from being outed as a supporter of Napoleon. Such a discovery would mean certain death for his father and a ruined career for Raymond, so he signed the paperwork to have Edmond locked up for life with no trial.

Danglars (Raymond Walburn) bore false witness against Edmond for a payday. He claimed that Edmond wasn't simply a delivery boy, but a more involved person in a wider plot to aid Napoleon.

Fernand Mondego (Sidney Blackmer) helped put Edmond away to have unfettered access to Edmond's fiance Mercedes de Rosas (Elissa Landi). She and Edmond were madly in love and with Edmond's removal Mondego had a better chance at gaining Mercedes' hand in marriage.

The three unscrupulous men successfully conspired to put Edmond away for good, and they nearly succeeded but that Edmond met a man named Abbe Faria (O. P. Heggie) while in prison. Over the years Abbe gave Edmond the knowledge, guidance, patience, and wealth for him to emerge a new man and exact revenge--not for himself, but for society at large which was being continually wronged.

It was a wonderful movie. It was done so well it made me interested in the book by Alexandre Dumas. As a production, it was everything you'd hope for. The script was on point, the set design and costumes were grand, and the story... the story made it all worthwhile.

What made this such a spectacular tale of revenge was how he exacted his revenge. Edmond didn't want to kill the men or physically torture them; he wanted to ruin them, which in some ways is worse than death. He wanted to tear them down and expose them to the public. This was one of those rare times in which I was hoping that the antagonists, who tried to destroy a man, lived. I was hoping that they lived long enough for Edmond to escape and continued to live after Edmond began his revenge tour. I wanted the men to live with the shame, ignominy, and public ridicule. Only a story that is written well and written right could put the reader (or viewer in this case) right where it wants him/her to be. "The Count of Monte Cristo" did just that.

Free on Amazon Prime.

Dames (1934)

Another Early-30's Movie with too Much Runtime Dedicated to a Musical

[3/10 · 15 May 2024]

One of the problems with movies in the early 30s was that the talkie era overlapped with and competed with Broadway, Vaudeville, and other stage productions. Just by the subject matter of a lot of movies you can tell that Broadway and off-Broadway was still very popular, hence you have movies that had large chunks of it dedicated to theater productions that were being made within the movie such as "42nd St.", "Murder at the Vanities", "Footlight Parade," "Glorifying the American Girl," and more. It was as if they were trying to have the best of both worlds: talking films and Broadway productions. In most cases it was an overall negative and instead of having the best of both worlds, they just did a disservice to both worlds. That is especially true for this movie. It seemed this movie was a pretext for a lousy play with terrible singing, and Joan Blondell was the worst offender.

Speaking of Joan Blondell; 1934 was a bad year for her. She was in some awful movies with some awful roles*. In this movie she played an actress who wasn't above sleeping in a man's bed to make it seem like he was two-timing. Even that behavior wasn't worse than her singing.

The entire first half of "Dames" was just a set up for a theater production. A man named Horace Hemingway (Guy Kibbee) was summoned by his eccentric, millionaire cousin-in-law, Ezra Ounce (Hugh Herbert), to discuss his fortune and how he planned to divy it out. Like in most movies with a rich progenitor, everyone sucked up to him because of his wealth.

Ezra planned on giving Horace and his family $10M provided they were morally upright and provided they didn't associate with the outcast James 'Jimmy' Higgens (Dick Powell) who was considered "bad fruit" because he was into theater. Ezra despised immorality and he saw that it was mostly propagated on stage. He even started an organization called the Ounce Foundation for the Elevation of American Morals.

Horace and his wife Mathilda (Zasu Pitts) would capitulate to any of Ezra's demands including joining his association and distancing themselves from cousin Jimmy (the playwright). They didn't associate with Jimmy, but what they didn't know was that their daughter Barbara (Ruby Keeler) was dating Jimmy (they were thirteenth cousins per Jimmy).

So began the quick march toward Jimmy Higgen's production titled "Dames."

When musical numbers from a play within the actual movie run 10 to 20 to 30 minutes, that is a sign to me that they don't even have a full movie so they're just filling time with content that people may like. I've said it regarding other movies and I'm saying it again, it is a terrible way to make a movie. It's one thing to make a movie a musical; it's another thing to insert musical numbers from a play into the movie as though they're congruent with the plot when they're not.

*None worse than "Smarty." In that movie she bounced from husband to husband, finally landing on the first one (Warren William), who beat her and she liked it.

Free on Odnoklassniki.