OVP: Captain Blood (1935)

Film: Captain Blood (1935)

Stars: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Lionel Atwill, Basil Rathbone, Ross Alexander

Director: Michael Curtiz

Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Picture, Sound Recording)...at least in terms of official nominations.  In reality, because of write-in awards, Captain Blood is usually regarded as having been nominated for Best Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Score (and nearly won the first two) because Warner's block voting allowed people to write in names that weren't actually nominated, so when we finally reach the 1935 OVP I'll have to make a judgment call on what to include...but only Best Picture & Sound are recognized by the Academy as official nominations.

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Errol Flynn: click here to learn more about Mr. Flynn (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

With some of the stars we've profiled in the past seven seasons, I've had a bit more time to really reflect on their careers and in some cases their careers were traditional enough that it was mostly just talking about that week's movie.  That...will not be the case with Errol Flynn, whose gigantic personal life is worthy of multiple biographies, and you can't really get to all of it in four articles.  So we'll break it up into four sections: his early career (and partnership with Olivia de Havilland), his peak stardom (and the juxtaposition between his big screen & real life personas), the sex scandal that dramatically changed his career (and changed in many ways the way that we talk about Hollywood scandal), and the bizarrely long list of things that were discovered about Flynn after his death, most of which is allegation since Flynn himself wasn't able to commentate on it.

(Spoilers Ahead) If you're going to talk about Errol Flynn's early stardom, you can't really do it without talking about Captain Blood, the 1935 film from Warner Brothers that turned him into a household name.  The film, seeing it for the first time (one of an increasingly small list of Best Picture nominees I've never caught before), is glorious.  It's a story about a young doctor named Peter Blood (Flynn), sold into slavery but bought by a clearly smitten woman named Arabella (de Havilland), and how he slowly works his way up in the ranks, specifically by treating the governor's gout.  In a bid to escape his bondage, he turns into a pirate (but an ethical one!), and storms the Caribbean, eventually finding Arabella captive (and buying her, thus paying his debt), before eventually, thanks to some honorable help to the English army, becoming governor himself, and wedded to Arabella.

The movie is silly, and it's a bit too dry in parts (when it wants to make sure you know that Peter is a fan of social justice, as this is a Warner Brothers movie), but you won't care for two reasons.  One, the production is scrumptious-gorgeous ships filled with detail, and special effects you kind of can't believe.  It's hard not to watch this and think of not just the Pirates of the Caribbean move, but also the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland, as it uses many of the same motifs, particularly the battle scene.  If you're a Disney adult, this needs to be added to your list as you won't regret it.

The other is that Flynn and de Havilland are divine together.  At the time they were not famous.  De Havilland was only 19, and Flynn (despite some bit work in film & theater) had not struck it big yet.  But their chemistry is palpable, and they're both so freaking gorgeous.  That's the thing with Flynn-save for maybe Buster Crabbe, he was (by modern beauty conventions) possibly the sexiest man in movies, and he looks it, even with a ridiculously hideous haircut.  You see Olivia de Havilland swoon over him, and you swoon over him too.

And that was what audiences in the 1930's did-they demanded more of Errol & Olivia.  Both actors have been pretty forthright that there was a romantic attraction to each other, but that they did not consummate the relationship.  At the time, Flynn was married to Lila Damita (who, proving how incestuous Old Hollywood was, had just finished an affair with Captain Blood director Michael Curtiz), and de Havilland (whose later Hollywood conquests would include Jimmy Stewart and a tortured affair with John Huston) was about to become one of the many flames of Howard Hughes.  But their professional relationship would create one of the most important duos of the Classical Hollywood era, starring together in eight films between 1935 and 1941, after which Flynn would encounter unfathomable scandal and de Havilland would become a pioneer against the studio system.  But when they were on, they were undeniable.  And in the best-regarded of their movies, The Adventures of Robin Hood, they created one of the most enchanting films ever made.

Curly Top (1935)

Film: Curly Top (1935)

Stars: Shirley Temple, John Boles, Rochelle Hudson, Jane Darwell, Esther Dale

Director: Irving Cummings

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Shirley Temple: click here to learn more about Ms. Temple (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

For as long as there have been child stars, there have been child star cautionary tales.  Child performers ranging from Carl Switzer & Bobby Driscoll to Dana Plato & Amanda Bynes have suffered from depression, suicide, criminal behavior, and drug addiction.  One of Shirley Temple's child actor rivals during this era, Judy Garland, would become the textbook example of a "doomed child star."  But Shirley Temple, the world's biggest star and arguably the most important child actor in film history, largely escaped such plights...though if she had succumbed, there would have been reason for it.  Behind the iconic curls & adorable grin, Temple's offscreen life was tough.  In 1934, she was such a big deal that she made ten movies, and another four a piece in 1935 & 1936, virtually all of them as the lead.  Keep in mind that in 1936, Temple turned eight-this was an enormous amount of pressure to put on such a little girl.  During this time, her father spent much of the fortune she was bringing in (despite a court order that they keep it aside for her), nearly leaving her broke in adulthood.  She had an attempted assassination at the age of 11 when a woman became obsessed with Temple for "stealing her daughter's soul" and she was worked to the bone, frequently being forced to film when she had suffered injuries or after an eardrum operation.  All of this is to say that, while Temple would become the counterpoint to Garland, as the child star that got through the industry unscathed, it wasn't like Hollywood wasn't trying to take her down as they made a profit off of her.

(Spoilers Ahead) We are focusing today on Curly Top, one of the four starring roles that Temple took on in 1935, when she was basically printing money for Fox her box office was so consistent.  Here she plays Elizabeth (Temple), who goes by the nickname Curly because of her hair.  She and her older sister Mary (Hudson) are adopted by a wealthy man named Edward (Boles), after Edward meets them both at an orphanage.  He does this, though, under the guise of being a surrogate for a "Mr. Jones" rather than admitting he and his aunt are adopting Curly and serving as Mary's guardian.  Curly loves both her sister and Edward, but it's clear that Edward, over the summer, has developed romantic feelings for Mary.  By the end of the summer, Edward & Mary have found love, and decide to get married, finally providing Curly with the kind of home she'd always dreamed of in the orphanage.

The movie's plot reads as a bit "sus," and it'd be a lot more problematic if it made any sense at all.  The film was actually remade with Fred Astaire & Leslie Caron in the 1950's and was called Daddy Long Legs, though I suspect that plot will have changed (I've weirdly never seen it, but always meant to), since this one focuses solely on Temple.  That's partially why it doesn't come across as particularly nefarious-Mary & Edward are just props being moved around so that Temple can mug for the camera, sometimes literally (there's a lot of confusing fourth-wall breaks in this picture).

That said, Temple's a delight here.  This is the source of "Animal Crackers in My Soup," which is one of her signature songs, and it's sweet in the film.  Temple is better in the first half of the movie when she's off getting into mischief at the orphanage rather than when she's being doted upon in the latter half of the picture.  Your mileage on this will vary on your tolerance for precociousness, but I get why fans of Temple's frequently name-check this as one of their favorites-it has pretty much every reason to like Temple (cute one-liners, dancing, musical numbers) all wrapped into 75 minutes.

The Little Colonel (1935)

Film: The Little Colonel (1935)

Stars: Shirley Temple, Lionel Barrymore, Evelyn Venable, John Lodge, Bill Robinson, Hattie McDaniel

Director: David Butler

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Shirley Temple: click here to learn more about Ms. Temple (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Shirley Temple was such a big star by 1935, that at the age of seven, she managed to pull off something no other actor could've pulled off in a Hollywood that was still deeply segregated when it came to star billing.  In the 1930's through the 1950's, the Hays Code held back Black performers onscreen, and you rarely saw Black actors in major parts in movies.  It's worth noting that Hattie McDaniel not only would be the first Black actor to win a competitive Oscar, she'd do it 24 years before another Black actor would, basically the entire stretch of the Classical Hollywood era.  In 1935, Temple became part of the first interracial dance team with Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, starting with The Little Colonel, our film today.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about an intergenerational fight between Colonel Lloyd (Barrymore), his daughter Elizabeth (Venable), and his grand daughter Lloyd aka the Little Colonel (Temple).  When Elizabeth marries a man that the Colonel thinks is unworthy of her, Jack (Lodge), he cuts her out of his life.  Years later, Elizabeth moves back to living in the house that her mother left her in her will (down the road from her dad), and she brings with her her daughter Lloyd.  Little Lloyd doesn't understand the feud, particularly since she adores her father, and so she befriends the Colonel, who develops a soft spot for her.  Jack finds himself in a bad business deal, and is nearly broke (frequently Little Lloyd is concerned about them ending up in the "Poor House"), but when the deal turns out to be good for them, he is nearly cheated out of it by men trying to steal the deed to his land...until the Colonel, after some coaxing from Little Lloyd, storms in and aids in the arrest of the men trying to steal from his son-in-law.  All reconciled (and suddenly in Technicolor, the only time a young Temple was ever shot outside of black-and-white) they are finally a family again.

The movie is cute, with Temple about as adorable as can be here; she has great chemistry with her cast, and unlike some of her other movies, working alongside Barrymore & Hattie McDaniel, she has stronger actors to play off of and it improves the quality of the picture.  The movie's racial politics are suspect.  This is one of the few films (outside of Gone with the Wind) that I've seen where McDaniel is a definite featured, large role.  She has wonderful chemistry with Temple, and honestly is the best performance in the movie (she even steals scenes from Shirley, not an easy task), but being stuck playing a comic-relief maid during a Reconstruction Era South, this is not the most progressive role for McDaniel, and was one of the parts she'd be criticized for by the NAACP.  Still-there's no denying she's giving good work here.

As I mentioned above, this film featured the first (and most famous) dance sequence between Temple & Robinson, with the two of them dancing up a flight of stairs when little Shirley doesn't want to go to bed in her grandfather's house.  The two would end up being in four films together (the others being The Littlest Rebel, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, and Just Around the Corner), and would become lifelong friends.  The scene wouldn't be seen in the South, though.  The first interracial dance team, even between a little girl and a grown man (whom in the confines of the film, works for her family), would've been unthinkable to play in the South, which would regularly delete scenes featuring Black actors throughout the coming decade.  So this scene, like all of the later scenes with the two dancing, was cut out of Temple & Robinson's films together.

Call of the Wild (1935)

Film: Call of the Wild (1935)

Stars: Clark Gable, Loretta Young, Jack Oakie, Reginald Owen, Frank Conroy

Director: William A. Wellman

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Loretta Young: click here to learn more about Ms. Young (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we talked about Loretta Young's Pre-Code era, which had a surprisingly excellent film called Midnight Mary at its center.  But the Hays Code was fully in effect by the mid-1930's, and may well have been the end of Loretta Young's career had it not been for some quick thinking from the publicity-minded actress.  In 1935, Young made Call of the Wild, a movie that was relatively uneventful in terms of its theatrical run-it starred two big names (Young & Clark Gable), but it won no Oscar nominations, wasn't a particularly big hit, and paled in comparison to Gable's other movie that year, the Best Picture-winning Mutiny on the Bounty.  But the film would become one of the biggest & most consequential of Young's life (if not necessarily her career), and would continue to be debated for decades to come due to the off-screen relationship between Gable & Young.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is based on the classic novel by Jack London, and is about Jack Thornton (Gable), a gold prospector who along with his pal Shorty (Oakie) go out looking for a hidden gold strike that only they and two other people know about.  We soon learn that half of the other team may be dead, but he's left his wife Claire Blake (Young) behind.  Initially Claire dislikes Jack, but hate turns to love, and she joins their expedition, looking for the gold with Jack, Shorty, and Jack's dog Buck (who is, if you've read the book, the real star of Call of the Wild).  Things turn sour when another group of men, when a bunch of other men try to steal the gold, letting it fall into a river as they drown fleeing from taking the fortune at gunpoint, and Jack has to let both Claire (whose husband has returned) and Buck (who cannot fight his instinct to go run with wolves) go before he can finally be free of the "call of the wild."

The movie is not good, but it's not bad either.  Young & Gable don't have great chemistry, and honestly this is the kind of Young I'm not a fan of onscreen.  Compared to Midnight Mary last week, where she played a woman of the world, here she's a haughty, prim-and-proper type that would become her bread-and-butter as an actress in the coming decades but she comes across as too matronly to be interesting onscreen.  Gable has far better chemistry with Buck the Dog, who genuinely steals all of his scenes and is adorable, but Buck isn't in enough scenes, and the villains feel too ridiculous to be true.  Not a winner.

The reason I picked this movie, though, is because of the weird chapters it had decades after the fact.  Young & Gable had some sort of relationship (more in a second) off-screen during the filming of this movie, which resulted in the birth of a daughter, Judy.  Gable was married to Maria Langham at the time and Young was between marriages, so the scandal becoming public surely would've killed Young's career, likely Gable's as well.  As a result, Young kept the birth hidden, and for the first 18 months of Judy's life, she didn't spend time with her mother, until later Young "adopted" her.  Judy Lewis (last name from Tom Lewis whom Young would be married to for most of Judy's childhood) would spend much of the first couple of decades of her life thinking she was adopted until her husband finally told her the truth, and her mother confirmed it to her.  Decades after that (in the mid-1990's) Lewis published a book confirming the shocking scandal, which resulted in a riff with her mother than would last over three years.  Young would later confirm in her posthumous autobiography that Lewis was Gable's daughter from her time on this set.

That would seemingly have been the end of it, but it wasn't.  Shortly after Lewis's death, her sister-in-law Linda Lewis said that it was not, in fact, a romance between Young & Gable that resulted in Judy, but instead the result of Gable raping Loretta Young on the set.  Lewis claimed that Young had not consented, and had hidden this fact because she considered what she'd done to be "adultery" which to the devoutly Catholic Loretta was a mortal sin.  Young died two years after she purportedly told Linda Lewis about this, and Gable, Young, and Judy Lewis were all dead when Linda Lewis made this public in 2015.  For what it's worth, while Young does acknowledge that she had an affair with Gable on the set of Call of the Wild, she does not call it rape in her memoirs.  As a result, we'll never entirely know what really happened in one of the most scandalous Hollywood moments of the 1930's.

OVP: The Broadway Melody of 1936 (1935)

Film: The Broadway Melody of 1936 (1935)

Stars: Jack Benny, Eleanor Powell, Robert Taylor, Una Merkel, Sid Silvers, Buddy Ebsen, June Knight

Director: Roy Del Ruth

Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Original Story, Dance Direction*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Jack Benny click here to learn more about Mr. Benny (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We're going to start a few years into Jack Benny's career primarily because Benny's early film career, with the exception of one film, The Hollywood Revue of 1929, has nothing really of note.  He signed a contract in 1929 with Irving Thalberg to work at MGM, but after his movie Chasing Rainbows flopped, Benny was basically out of the film industry and quickly returned to Broadway, and then radio in 1932.  Radio would become the primary home of Benny's career for most of the next twenty years, as his eponymous radio show would be what he was most known for until his TV show in the early 1950's.  That being said, Benny would continue to make a number of movies, still trying his hand at a film stardom that would never happen.  One of the more important films from this portion of his acting career, when he was starting out as a big radio star was MGM's The Broadway Melody of 1936, which he gets prime billing on even though he's definitely third lead behind two figures who were about to become superstars on the MGM lot, Eleanor Powell & Robert Taylor.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like many of the musicals in the Broadway Melody series (which would spawn four films in its combined run), the movie's plot is secondary to the musical numbers, but essentially we have Broadway producer Robert Gordon (Taylor) who is being wooed by his wealthy backer Lillian Brent (Knight), but is clearly destined to pine for his childhood sweetheart Irene Foster (Powell), newly in town & looking for a gig in his show.  Gordon is being chastised by newspaper writer Bert Keeler (Benny) who is being forced to disparage Gordon, even to the point of making up an actress that Gordon can't get into his show, in order to sell newspapers.  When Irene pretends to be that actress, unbeknownst to be both Bert & Robert (she's in disguise), everything comes crashing down for them all...until of course everyone involved gets their happy endings.

The movie is cute, and was a pretty big deal for pretty much all involved.  Eleanor Powell got her first leading role here, and as the movie was a smash hit, she'd soon become one of the bigger stars on the MGM lot (she also does a terrific impersonation of Kate Hepburn that's honestly worth the price of watching alone).  Tap dancer Buddy Ebsen also got his film debut here as a wayward friend of Irene's.  The film won three Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, making it (at least nominally) the first sequel to ever be cited for the prize.  In retrospect this isn't a great movie, but it has some funny one-liners and unlike many musicals of the era, at least it makes sense (a plus for the Original Story category).

It's the music, though, that is the best part.  It's sometimes hard to tell with films of this era what is an original and what isn't, but it does appear (at least from what I can find on the internet, correct me if I'm wrong oh readers) to include such standards as "You Are My Lucky Star," "Broadway Rhythm," "I've Got a Feelin You're Foolin" and "Sing Before Breakfast" in their original incantation, which makes the fact that it didn't get a Best Original Song nomination a true crime.  The best numbers are probably Powell's manic tap dancing to "Broadway Rhythm" (honestly, it's a race between Powell & Ann Miller over who was the best hoofer in Classic Hollywood), and Buddy & Vilma Ebsen tripping the light fantastic while dressed like Seurat characters to "On a Sunday Afternoon."  There are a lot of great musicals in 1936 to compete for Dance Direction, so I can't say for certain whom I would've picked for the Oscar, but know that AMPAS did itself proud by giving Broadway Melody this prize.

And Mr. Benny?  He's really funny.  The persona of this character is very similar to the "Jack Benny" creation he would have on his television show, but it works.  He lands virtually all of his punchlines, frequently at his own expense, and plays the "villain" with enough charm that his about-face at the end (when he helps a forlorn Powell), feels authentic.  This isn't a great performance, but it works within the confines of the movie...I am curious as we go throughout the month to see if this is all Benny could play, or if he has more in him than just "Jack Benny" but he was very good at playing Jack Benny.

The Raven (1935)

Film: The Raven (1935)

Stars: Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Lester Matthews, Irene Ware, Samuel S. Hinds

Director: Lew Landers

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

This month we are devoting all of our classic film reviews to Golden Age Horror films that I saw for the first time this year.  If you want to take a look at past titles (from this and other seasons of this series), look at the bottom of the page for links.

As you'll see below, we have covered a lot of ground when it comes to classic horror films, and as we are on our final season of Classical Hollywood-focused horror (never say never, especially with the sequel-prone horror genre, but we will definitely not be doing this at least next year, as we'll go to a different era or style), I wanted to start with something big.  The problem is that most of the classics we have left are not from the 1930's, and since we are doing these chronologically I struggled to come up with the perfect solution until it hit me (like a bolt of lightning, mwahahaha!).  We have had throughout this series two primary mascots: Bela Lugosi & Boris Karloff, who starred in many of the below films & launched the characters behind even more of them.  While we have covered all of the Universal Monster incarnations of these two men, we haven't gotten to all of their films, or even all of their films together, and so we will be kicking off our season with these two headliners, taking on their best (loose) version of Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is not, it's worth noting, an adaptation of Poe's classic poem (the 1930's Poe films rarely had anything to do with the horror author).  Instead, it's about a mad scientist named Richard Vollin (Lugosi) who has been pulled out of retirement by Judge Thatcher (Hinds) to save the life of his beautiful daughter Jean (Ware).  While Vollin initially refuses, he is convinced, and soon becomes obsessed with the lovely Jean, with whom he shares a love of Edgar Allen Poe's works.  Unfortunately for Richard, Jean is engaged to another man, and this makes Judge Thatcher warn Vollin to stay away from Jean.  Of course, Vollin being a raving mad scientist, he decides he needs revenge on all involved, and gains help with the assistance of an escaped convict named Bateman (Karloff).  Bateman requests a new face so that he can live in peace (since he's an escaped convict), but Vollin instead purposefully deforms him, and says he will only return his face to normal if Bateman helps Vollin kill Judge Thatcher.

It's at this point where arguably the most famous part of The Raven comes out, and the one part of the film that actually relates to Poe.  Vollin has a giant torture chamber in his basement (cause, like, who doesn't?) that is inspired by different works from Poe.  There's a "Sword of Damocles" style device from The Pit and the Pendulum, and while it's not specifically-mentioned there's a clear nod to the Cask of Amontillado where Jean & her fiancee are sentenced to a crushing fate until Bateman saves them.  This is also the best part of the movie-it allows Lugosi to camp it up to the hilt, espousing on how much he loves torture, and has some really fun set design.

The film itself is fine-it's not a classic or a truly great horror movie like Bride of Frankenstein (not enough humor) or Creature from the Black Lagoon (which is just outright spectacular), but it's fun.  If you're into this style of movie (which you might be able to tell, I am), I love this campy motif & the bad side acting & the wonderful plot holes-it's without pretension, and it's always a good time.  One thing to note here-Lugosi is better than Karloff in this movie.  Not only does he get the better (and larger, despite the billing from Universal) part, but he takes more time with it & seems to relish it.  I have listened to the Bela & Boris season of You Must Remember This more times than I can count (it's an annual tradition for me at this point), and this was not oftentimes the case as the two men had a professional rivalry, and Lugosi was jealous of the fact that Karloff was the more natural actor (particularly in English), something I've echoed oftentimes on this blog, but that's not the case with The Raven.

Past Horror Month Reviews (Listed Chronologically): The Golem, The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, Freaks, The Mummy, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, The Black Cat, The Bride of Frankenstein, Mad Love, Werewolf of London, Son of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man Returns, The Mummy's Hand, The Wolf Man, Cat People, The Ghost of Frankenstein, The Mummy's Tomb, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, The House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, It Came from Outer Space, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Revenge of the Creature, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob, The Masque of the Red Death

OVP: Broadway Hostess (1935)

Film: Broadway Hostess (1935)

Stars: Winifred Shaw, Genevieve Tobin, Lyle Talbot, Allen Jenkins, Phil Regan, Spring Byington

Director: Frank McDonald

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Dance Direction)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I am, if you couldn't tell from the countless articles on this blog, a relatively organized person.  I don't like chaos (though currently my messy kitchen would beg to differ), and I'm someone who is always armed with at least a dozen "bucket/to do/goal" lists that I'm working on.  One of the ones I've been focusing on is trying to finish a certain number of OVP films each month so that I am completely done with the project by the time I reach a specific age (that will remain between myself & my birth certificate, but let's just say it's a long way off so don't worry if you love the series).  This month, because it's a shorter one, I'm kind of cheating my way through it, and only watching the shortest films on my DVR, one of which is Broadway Hostess, a largely forgotten musical from the 1930's that was cited for Dance Direction, but who got its "play button click" on Saturday due to only being 68 minutes long.

(Spoilers Ahead) You know the plot of this movie, or at least you think you do, from pretty much the opening scene when Winnie (Shaw) works her way into a musical act for a failing nightclub & quickly becomes the show's star.  Lucky (Talbot), a Broadway hoodlum who has Park Avenue dreams, sees her & gets her to the top, but while she's madly in love with him, he has his eyes on Iris (Tobin), a beautiful society dame who won't marry a guy from such a low class.  The movie positions their love triangle alongside another love triangle, that involves, Lucky, Winnie, and Tommy (Regan), Winnie's piano player who has an eye for her, even though all she sees is Lucky.

Broadway Hostess is an underwhelming film, and not an interesting one.  Shaw can sing, but has zero chemistry with either of her leading men, and I honestly spent more of the film cheering for Tobin's Iris, even though she's meant to be the "spoiled rich girl who needs to be taken down a peg."  But the weird thing is...the script agrees with me.  Iris does end up with Lucky, though he nearly dies when her brother shoots him in a truly bizarre & unexpected final act moment, and Winnie does with Tommy, so the cardinal rule of romantic comedies (that you cheer for the leads to get married) is upended here.  That's not enough to save the movie, and neither is the best part of the film (Spring Byington's randy society lady who also marries a Broadway commoner in Allen Jenkins' Fishcake), but it is enough so that I'll remember this longer than I normally would such a film.

The movie's Oscar nomination feels something of a cheat.  In 1935 the Dance Direction category was more for the choreographer himself than just for the film, and choreographer Bobby Connolly (who would be nominated all three years the category existed) was cited both for this and for Go Into Your Dance with Al Jolson & Ruby Keeler.  Broadway Hostess has exactly one dance number, and it's not that impressive though it is bizarre.  During one of Winnie's final torch songs, we zoom in on a champagne glass that is filled with a number of beautiful women decked in veiled swimsuits, who are doing a coordinated "seduction-style" dance, though it's hardly worth of Salome.  We literally have at one point young women's heads floating out of the glass and popping like bubbles...it's not impressive, but it is trippy, and one of the weirder nominations so far I've found in the Dance Direction category.

The 39 Steps (1935)

Film: The 39 Steps (1935)

Stars: Robert Donat, Madeleine Carroll, Lucie Mannheim, Godfrey Tearle, Peggy Ashcroft, Wylie Watson

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2021 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different one Alfred Hitchcock's Leading Ladies.  This month, our focus is on Madeleine Carroll-click here to learn more about Ms. Carroll (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

In writing up the Saturdays with the Stars series over the past two years, we get a lot of deep cut films.  We've had movies that I'd never heard of, not even in a footnote or a "virtually unknown" way...just movies that I never knew existed until this series.  And then there are times where I sheepishly have to confide that I haven't seen a bonafide classic, and that's where we are today.  Madeleine Carroll's career was filled with an enormous number of hits, made with some of the most important leading men & directors of the 1930's, but when it comes down to it, her story is really about The 39 Steps.  While movies like Vertigo and Psycho are the first go-to's for the director, The 39 Steps is chronologically the first movie of his that pretty much everyone involved has universally-praised as a masterpiece, and is the most important film of Madeleine Carroll's life.  Nearly 90 years after the film came out, it's worth confessing-it's also still really good.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie's plot is complex, even for Hitchcock, but I'll get through it so we have some grounding before we get to the actual quality of the movie.  The film is about Richard Hannay (Donat), an ordinary man who witnesses a man who can recall anything at a side show called Mr. Memory (Watson).  Shots are fired in the theater, and on his way out Hannay meets Annabella Smith (Mannheim) whom he convinces to come back to his apartment, and there she says she's a spy, and is trying to protect British intelligence, alluding to the enigmatic "39 Steps."  After she is found dead the next day, the police assume Hannay to be the murderer, and he becomes a fugitive to prove his innocence.  Along the way he meets Pamela (Carroll), a beautiful woman whom he becomes handcuffed to at one point, and who doesn't trust him, but because they're thrown together they have to work together to prove what the 39 Steps is, as both are in real danger if its secret is not discovered.

The movie is good up until the last moments, when it becomes truly great.  The film is prototypical Hitchcock in the ways that it takes an ordinary man (Donat here, but you see shades of later leading men like Jimmy Stewart & Cary Grant in his work), puts him in an extraordinary situation, and sees how he handles it.  But the climactic scene is shocking & delicious.  Hannay suddenly realizes that the code is hidden not on paper, but instead Mr. Memory himself has memorized them & will be used to smuggle the secrets out of the country.  He confronts him onstage, thus spoiling the men's plans, with Mr. Memory dying as he compulsively tells the men his secrets.  It's a brilliantly-constructed thriller move, one with a great "aha" moment (I'll admit-I hadn't figure out this was where the story was headed even though it's obvious in retrospect), and literally I got goosebumps.  Honestly, the only real complaint I had about the movie is that it was too rushed-Hitch a few years later would've been able to add more tension to the story, and made the remainder of the pacing worthy of his magnificent climax.

Madeleine Carroll is fun, if perhaps slightly wrong for the tone of the film.  There are moments in the middle of the movie where it almost feels like we're watching It Happened One Night with rich banter between Donat & Carroll, but it takes you out of the picture as it feels tonally wrong.  The two have great chemistry, though, and she looks like a Hitchcock leading lady.  This movie made her a star, though not without some caveats.  This year with Hitchcock we take the good with the bad, but we don't hide the latter, and the director, notorious for putting his leading ladies through the ringer, at one point literally handcuffed Donat & Carroll together (lying about whether or not he still had the key) so that they could understand better what their characters went through.  As a result, you can actually see real welts on Carroll's wrists in the film that weren't makeup-that was a result of Hitchcock's "prank."  This wasn't enough, though, to make Carroll not work with him again, and next week we'll take a look at their second pairing.

Werewolf of London (1935)

Film: Werewolf of London (1935)
Stars: Henry Hull, Warner Oland, Valerie Hobson, Lester Matthews, Spring Byington
Director: Stuart Walker
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

This month we are devoting all of our classic film reviews to Golden Age Horror films that I saw for the first time this year.  If you want to take a look at past titles (from this and other seasons of this series), look at the bottom of the page for links.

We continue on with our month devoted to classic Hollywood horror with a move into some of the deeper cuts of the Universal Monster canon; while we'll interject other classic horror throughout the next few weeks (and move away from this motif into 1950's horror in the last week leading up to Halloween), this is where we're going to stay with the series for the next two weeks, entrenched in the Universal Monster movies of the 1930's & 40's, and here we're going to investigate a strange flick.  One of the most iconic universal horror films was The Wolf Man, with Lon Chaney, Jr. as the title character, but this wasn't the first foray that Universal did into werewolves.  While other films had used werewolves dating as far back as 1913, Werewolf of London is considered to be the first major motion-picture from a Hollywood studio to feature a werewolf, and as we'll see below, was highly influential in the 80 years that followed on what would become a staple of horror cinema.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is prototypical of the werewolf genre.  We have Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Hull), who is a brilliant-but-distant botanist who is visiting Tibet in search of a rare plant that flowers due to moonlight.  While there, he is bitten by a creature who turns out to be a werewolf, and he also when he returns meets a strange man named Dr. Yogami (Oland), who claims to have met him in Tibet (which we learn later is because Dr. Yogami was the man who bit him).  Both men are werewolves, and Glendon starts to terrorize & murder young women around London.  He tries to put distance between himself and his wife Lisa (Hobson), as he is told that a werewolf will hunt the one he loves the most, which of course is his wife.  The film progresses to Glendon eventually running out of cures (Yogami steals the flowers that are supposedly the anecdote), and before he can kill Lisa, is shot by a police officer, thus stopping him and turning him back into a man, as Lisa looks on in grief.

The movie is hard to gage in some respects because it would become so prototypical of the werewolf genre-the more successful The Wolf Man would borrow heavily from this film, even using the same makeup artist.  Hull is not that impressive as the creature (originally Boris Karloff was supposed to be paired with Bela Lugosi as Dr. Yogami for this film, but scheduling precluded both men from appearing in the film), and you get why this film was kind of a dud at the box office-its lead is boring, and the only really good performance in it is by Spring Byington, taking on the role of a wealthy, wisecracking aunt (she would have made a far more fascinating werewolf).

That being said, the film, along with The Wolf Man and some of Universal's other horror movies, basically defined the rules to what we normally assign to "werewolves."  Before the Universal monster movies, werewolves were a part of folklore, but they were more associated with witchcraft, specifically that you became a full wolf and could do so through magic.  Here, though, the tropes of a werewolf becoming a werewolf through biting another person (adding a tragic twist to the process), that they are triggered by full moons, and that they are not full wolves but human hybrids are all became established as horror movie canon.  As a result, while this movie isn't that good, it's deeply influential on future horror films, including several we'll see later this month.

Past Horror Month Reviews (Listed Chronologically): The Golem, The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, Freaks, The Mummy, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, The Black Cat, The Bride of Frankenstein, Mad Love, Son of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Ghost of Frankenstein, The House of Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, It Came from Outer Space, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Masque of the Red Death

Mad Love (1935)

Film: Mad Love (1935)
Stars: Peter Lorre, Frances Drake, Colin Clive, Edward Brophy
Director: Karl Freund
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

We continue on our month of classic horror with something of a cheat, as I technically saw Mad Love last month, rather than this month, but it fits so well into our theme that I'm going to include this movie along with the other classic horror films of the Golden Age of Hollywood, as it stars an actor I don't believe we'll have time for otherwise who was pivotal to this period: Peter Lorre.  Known best to modern audiences for his supporting roles in The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca (and for being an easy target for cartoon parody in Looney Tunes or The Simpsons), Lorre enjoyed a decade's run as a leading actor in B-Grade horror movies like Mad Love, an MGM picture that performed poorly at the Box Office but has had something of a cult following since then.  I recently caught this as part of a Lorre retrospective (am I the only person who goes to retrospectives mostly so I can start sentences "I recently caught this as part of a retrospective"?), and was enthralled at how well acted the film is (at least by Lorre), and that it was creepier than I would have anticipated from a film of its era.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film itself is short, sweet, and doesn't have much time for B-plot.  Lorre's Dr. Gogol is madly in love with an actress named Yvonne Orlac (Drake), who is the leading actress in a Grand Guignol-style show where she is seen by Dr. Gogol every single night.  She's quitting the show, though, to get married to her husband Stephen Orlac (Clive), a famous pianist.  Orlac is on a train headed to Paris when he meets the famous murderer Rollo (Brophy), a knife thrower who is headed to death row.  After a train accident, Stephen's hands are destroyed, and Yvonne begs Dr. Gogol to fix his hands, which he does with Rollo's hands after he is executed.  Orlac begins to feel like he is being possessed by Rollo's hands, now unable to play the piano but suddenly a skilled knife-fighter, and is worried that the hands are making him kill.  His distant father is found dead, and Orlac worries that he is possessed by Rollo's need to kill, but in fact it's psychosomatic, and in fact Dr. Gogol is gaslighting Orlac, as he is the mad murderer.  The ending of the film finds Gogol trying to kill Yvonne after she reveals that she'll never be his, and Gogol then being killed by Orlac by a tossed knife, with a happy ending (or as happy as a clearly cursed pair of hands can be) for Orlac and Yvonne.

The film is as ridiculous as that plot suggests, but that doesn't mean it can't be a good movie.  I was asked by my date to the picture whether or not I cared when people laugh at scenes that once were supposed to be terrifying (as happened several times during the screening), and I said "you can't control these things, but I wasn't a fan" as it's not particularly funny, even at its most ludicrous.  That works best in a scene where a maniacal Lorre, dressed as a deformed Rollo, tries to convince Orlac that Rollo is still alive and has a head transplant onto another body.  It's a petrifying scene, and one where I genuinely didn't put together right away that it was Lorre who was in disguise.

Easily the best moments of the film involve the horror actor, giddily eating up the scenery and making the most of his nasty, villainous doctor.  Lorre is too good of an actor to phone this in, and he makes his obsession mesmerizing, in part almost making everyone else look terrible by comparison (Frances Drake is good too, though the less said of Colin Clive the better).  That great scene where he dresses as Rollo is one of the best I've seen in a 1930's horror movie, and worth the price of a ticket in general.  If you can get past the thick line readings and occasionally ridiculous plot, this is well worth your time and a gem I'm glad I uncovered (...when I was recently at a retrospective).

This Month We Are Seeing As Many Classic Horror Movies from the Pre-1970 Era as Possible.  If you want to check out some of our past reviews, here they are:

Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, Dracula

OVP: The Informer (1935)

Film: The Informer (1935)
Stars: Victor McLaglen, Heather Angel, Preston Foster, Margot Grahame, Una O'Connor
Director: John Ford
Oscar History: 6 nominations/4 wins (Best Picture, Director*, Actor-Victor McLaglen*, Adapted Screenplay*, Score*, Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

My brother and I used to, when we were little, play a game.  In the era before IMDB or Wikipedia, before even we had a secret Oscars handbook that I hid from my parents as they thought I talked about the Oscars too much, we had an almanac that listed out the winners in the Big 6 categories and we would recite them over-and-over to see who had seen the most.  As a result, there's a weird place in my heart for when I, some twenty years later, will change the answer to a question I've said "no" to most of my life to a "yes."  That was the case with The Informer which I just saw for the first time, a movie that took home two of the big Oscars in a year that I have now officially seen all of the big winners (11-year-old John is high-fiving me through time right now).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is surprisingly short, and takes place all in one night.  The movie follows Gypo Nolan (McLaglen), a down-on-his-luck drunk who has been kicked out of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence because he refused to kill a black-and-tan.  With his girlfriend Katie (Grahame) begging him to get her passage to America, and lamenting the lack of a 10-pound note, Gypo finds an opportunity to turn his best friend Frankie in to the police, as a result gaining passage for both he and Katie to America.  However, Frankie dies during a police chase and Gypo, overcome with grief, begins spiraling and spending his money all across town, eventually getting caught by the IRA for snitching, and is gunned down in a fight, but gains forgiveness for his sins from Frankie's mother before he dies.

The film may be over 80 years old, but like most of John Ford's finest films, you don't feel that age much as it progresses.  The movie's universal themes of truth, trust, poverty, and sacrifice surely resonate today, particularly that line between doing what's best for one's self and one's brothers.  It's easy to see parallels to the Holocaust or the Red Scare or Civil Rights or modern-day immigration laws in what he's trying to tell, and does the impossible for an issues film-it actually feels more relevant even outside of the confines of its particular time-and-place.

Part of that is the direction and writing, which is masterful-Ford focuses on universal truths here, on the haves and have-nots of society, and particularly how greed doesn't always come from a bad place.  Here we have Gypo trying to provide a life for his love that he can't provide otherwise, and while we are meant to see the parallels between him and other evil figures of history (there's a quote about Judas in the opening credits), Ford clearly sees Gypo as a sympathetic figure, and rightly so-there are no true villains here, only men trying to find their place in the world.  It's a compelling case for a movie, and in my opinion one of Ford's finest.

The film's central performance won something of a surprise Oscar in 1935, with McLaglen besting two of the era's biggest stars (Charles Laughton and Clark Gable, and in an unknowing twist a third one with Paul Muni getting a write-in nomination).  While vote-splitting could probably be attributed as to why, the reality is that McLaglen nails this performance in a way that not even Laughton does with Bligh.  It's a towering achievement like few I've seen from this era-a piece-of-work that is set apart by his sympathy for his character, showing his weaknesses despite a lumbering physical strength.  Look at the way he throws money away, trying to buy back his sins, and how he truly does all of this for one woman.  McLaglen would later be more famous as comic relief for John Wayne and Cary Grant, but I've never seen him more naturalistic and superb as he is here as a leading man, someone bereft of humanity, who cannot find an escape even after he sold his soul to achieve one.

Those are my thoughts-what about yours?  I weighed in on four of the Oscar nods (the editing is also strong, though the scoring probably doesn't soar as much as you'd expect from a work of this era, though it's Max Steiner so it's hardly lacking in quality), but how many do you think the film deserved?  Is this one of your favorite John Ford movies, because I'm shocked at how excellent this is and it probably joins that position for me.  Share your comments below, particularly those of you who have seen this and Mutiny on the Bounty.

OVP: Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

Film: Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
Stars: Charles Laughton, Clark Gable, Franchot Tone, Herbert Mundin, Eddie Quillan, Movita Castaneda
Director: Frank Lloyd
Oscar History: 8 nominations/1 win (Best Picture*, Director, Film Editing, Score, Adapted Screenplay, Actor-Clark Gable, Actor-Charles Laughton, Actor-Franchot Tone)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It's rare that I get to see a Best Picture winner for the first time and know that it's a Best Picture winner.  After all, I almost always see the current one before it is crowned and the list of past ones are fleeting that I haven't viewed.  So perhaps the most significant Best Picture winner left on my To Do list was this seafaring epic starring Charles Laughton and Clark Gable, the film that famously created the supporting categories at the Oscars after Franchot Tone joined his fellow nominees in the Best Actor race (you read that right up top-there are three lead nominees in the same category here, something you can't even pull off with two in the same category anymore).  The film chronicles the merciless attacks of one Captain Bligh in a historically-questionable but still riveting tale of the sea.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows the Bounty and its voyage to Tahiti, focusing principally on a tyrannical Captain Bligh (Laughton), his lieutenant Fletcher Christian (Gable), and a young midshipman named Byam (Tone) who is of a more sheltered background but wants to go and create a dictionary of the Tahitian people.  The voyage to Tahiti, to try and get breadfruit, is fraught with peril and becomes all the worse under Bligh's greed and sadism, frequently finding ways to unjustly torture and demean the men on board, even resorting to keelhauling and beating a dead man.  By the time the crew are returning from Tahiti, they've had enough and assume that they may starve to death aboard the Bounty, so they throw Bligh overboard and he has to navigate the waters for 3000 miles and eventually makes his way back to England.  Byam does as well, and almost dies in a trial until we see that Bligh's viciousness was worth the uprising, and Fletcher Christian stays in Tahiti and colonizes an island called Piticairn where he and the men live forever, seemingly in paradise.

The film's historical accuracy is quite questionable (in real life Bligh wasn't nearly as bad as depicted here, and Fletcher Christian's end wasn't nearly as noble or as peaceful as he was likely murdered soon after the mutiny), but the two lead actors are riveting in the roles.  Admittedly Clark Gable occasionally feels a little miscast, as his 1930's rogue doesn't quite seem to leave him in this film, and occasionally you wonder if he should be aboard a ship that is entirely made up of Englishmen, but Gable has a movie star's tenacity and that's always enjoyable.  Better, but also only if you love his brand of bombast, is Laughton, who eats the scenery whole in his role as Captain Bligh, but he's insanely watchable.  There's absolutely no scene he's out there where you aren't wondering what's next, what terrible evil will come up from those bulbous eyes.  He is, of course, a one-dimensional cartoon but something worth watching, for sure.  As for Franchot Tone, it's easily a supporting role, one that it's hard to imagine making it in lead today and quite frankly it's hard to realize why then, as it's the sort of naive young man that you'd normally expect to be forgotten, except of course Tone was becoming a bit of a star at the time and this was probably a way to acknowledge that.  Still the acting is solid.

The best part of the film, though, may be the direction.  Frank Lloyd's ability to keep every scene compelling, particularly with a two-hour epic that has a narrative that even at the time most people would have been familiar with, is excellent.  The pace is sharp, the film's action sequences pop and hold-up well, and while the film has moments of racism on the island, we're not talking about Gone with the Wind-levels of cringe-worthiness.  I would have lightened up on the beginning and the end of the film, where Tone's naivete becomes obnoxiously plot-serving, but the middle, and particularly the showdown between Bligh and Christian are well worth the praise this film long ago acquired.

Someday (probably in a number of years) we'll get to the OVP for 1935 so if you have thoughts on Mutiny on the Bounty now is the time to share them.  Do you like this particularly noted film of the 1930's, or it is one of those AFI flicks you never got around to?  Who is your favorite of the three leading actors?  And what film actually deserved three Best Actor or Actress nominations other than Mutiny on the Bounty?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Ruggles of Red Gap (1935)

Film: Ruggles of Red Gap (1935)
Stars: Charles Laughton, Mary Boland, Charlie Ruggles, ZaSu Pitts, Roland Young
Director: Leo McCarey
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Picture)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

It's not often that a film that's nearly eighty years old gets a new honor, so when the Library of Congress decided this past week that Ruggles of Red Gap would be one of the 25 films entered into the National Film Registry, I figured it was appropriate to make that our next OVP film.  In a lovely coincidence, we've actually investigated films from both Charles Laughton and Roland Young this past week, so it's a perfect way to tie the whole thing together.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film stars Laughton as Marmaduke Ruggles (the best moniker ever), a butler who has been lost by his stuffy and oblivious employer the Earl of Burnstead (Young) in a game of poker to a crass "new money" style pair of millionaires that live in a Western boomtown (Boland and Charlie Ruggles, whose name is a wonderful coincidence since this is based on a novel by Harry Leon Wilson).  The film follows Laughton's Ruggles, all manner and no feeling, as he makes a trek to the Old West, and must come to terms with his new employers and their ideas of what it is to be a servant.

The film works well because it's terribly silly.  The film has strong comedic supporting players in Boland, Ruggles, and Pitts, but Laughton would seemingly be miscast in a comedy.  After all, he was one of the great dramatic actors of his era.  This isn't the case though-Laughton makes a superb straight man and as a result lands all of his comedy.  It helps that Laughton had a distinguished air to begin with (he made a point of playing kings and doing Shakespeare and all that), and so not only are we seeing Marmaduke Ruggles completely out of place, we get to see Laughton himself feel out of place.  The movie consistently has him learning from his new friends, but also them learning a thing or two from him, particularly about being open-minded.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the film is the ridiculous lengths the supporting players will go to get a laugh.  I personally adored Mary Boland as a social-climbing woman who clearly loves her husband but has gotten so set on how things are supposed to be that she can't always remember why she's getting there (it says something about this film that the later scenes don't feel like she's conceded, but merely found a way to compromise her vision with her husband's, which is a nice change of pace from all of the "women give up their careers for a man" pictures I've seen in the past month).  Roland Young is hilarious as a man who clearly hasn't had to work a traditional day in his life, living off of his inheritance and having a family of butlers taking care of him so long he doesn't realize how much he relies upon them.

The best part of the film, though, is Laughton as Ruggles.  His dry wit and comedic shock at his employers and the town are marvelous, and his use of the Gettysburg Address as a way to transform his character from one who serves others to one that serves himself is deeply patriotic and a bit cliche, but actually works with Laughton's theatricality.  1935 was really a high point in Laughton's career.  Not only was he starring in this, but he managed to have a leading role in two other Best Picture nominees, Les Miserables and Mutiny on the Bounty, the latter of which won the top prize and landed Laughton his second Best Actor nomination.  For an actor that I've always known about but never really studied, this is the first time I'm really excited about where his career will take me in the OVP (as he's got a LOT of nominated films).

Those are my thoughts on this movie-what about yours?  Is anyone else excited that the film might get a bit more press with its inclusion in the National Registry?  Where does it rank in your Best Picture lineup of 1935 (while I'm missing a few citations, I have to admit that it's very close to Top Hat in my estimation)?  And what do you think of Charles Laughton as a comedian?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Film: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Stars: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester
Director: James Whale
Oscar History: 1 nominations (Best Sound)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Following Whale's previous film, it took a surprisingly long time for Universal to follow-up with a sequel(considering how frequently the studios churned out film series in the 1930's thanks to the studio system, I find it odd that they had to wait four years to get a second film on the docket).  The sequel, far more comedic and generally considered the better of the two films, was the true film I was hoping to catch in the Frankenstein series.  Shall we see if I liked it better?

(Spoilers throughout) The movie shows us the moments immediately following the harrowing "death" of the monster in the last film, but quite instantly you can tell that the movie has switched its tone.  Gone is the heavy-handed attitude of Dr. Frankenstein and his persecuted science, and instead you are greeted with a batty old woman who embraces the Monster's death, and the parents of the young girl, who want to go in for a closer look and end up making it a three-for-one deal at the village cemetery.  The Monster has in fact survived the windmill attack, and goes on rampaging throughout the city.

Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein has recovered from what was initially assumed to be death and wants no more of his violent creation, but is forced back into the world of the undead when Dr. Pretorious (the campy Ernest Thesiger), shows him that he has created a series of homunculi (including a miniature King Henry VII, a mermaid, and a devil), and coerces him into creating a mate for the Monster.

The Monster spends this time becoming a bit more "cosmopolitan," aided by a kind blind man who cannot tell that he is a monster (am I the only one who expects Gene Hackman to be playing the character, despite it being forty years too soon?), giving him a penchant for cigars and drink, and this could have worked splendidly if two passersby didn't point out that the Monster was who he was.

The film concludes with the climactic title sequence, when Elsa Lanchester, who had played Mary Shelley in an earlier scene, appears as the intended for Frankenstein's Monster, but instead shrieks and recoils from him in horror.  Dr. Frankenstein and his bride (anyone know why Valerie Hobson played this part instead of Mae Clarke-share in the comments!) are allowed to escape, but the Monster, his bride-to-be, and Dr. Pretorious all supposedly perish in fire.

The movie is a treat, particularly the comedic flourishes Whale takes with the film.  Much has been made about the gay-themed content, due largely to Whale's real-life homosexuality and the campy band of characters, principally Dr Pretorious, but I have to admit that while I acknowledged it, I thought people might be reading into things a bit to see a larger gay-metaphor.  I loved the character choices that Elsa Lanchester made in the film, practically winking to the audience during the opening scene where she's being doted upon by Byron and her husband (...I'll be back!) and then going to the rafters with her Marge Simpson hair and exaggerated arm gestures.  They didn't have a Best Supporting Actress trophy in 1935, but if they had, I think that it would have made a fine addition to the Sound nomination the film received.

So yes, I did like this film better, though they aren't really in the same style to compare the two (comparing the film to Young Frankenstein may be more appropriate).  However, I'd love your thoughts on this classic film.  What did you think of our second outing with Frankenstein?  Did you like the comedic elements better, or do you prefer them to stick to Shelley's original work?  And what Universal Monster do you think we should conquer next?

OVP: Naughty Marietta (1935)

Film: Naughty Marietta (1935)
Stars: Jeanette MacDonald, Nelson Eddy, Frank Morgan, Elsa Lanchester
Directors (according to IMDB they are uncredited): Robert Z. Leonard & W.S. van Dyke
Oscar History: 2 nods/1 win (Best Picture, Best Sound Recording*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Ahh, sweet mystery of life I've found you...growing up, my Grandpa's favorite actress was Jeanette MacDonald, and my mother was not a fan.  I never actually had seen one of her movies, but Grandpa presumably liked the wholesome aspects of Ms. MacDonald's films, and my mother thought that they were a bit saccharine.  Many years later, I decided tonight was the perfect night to give her a shot (not coincidentally, but I did chase the RNC with a bunch of famously GOP actors and their films: Loretta Young, June Allyson, Gary Cooper, along with MacDonald and her partner Nelson Eddy-who said I can't handle a lot of Republicans?).  This was partially because I desperately need room in the TiVo for tomorrow's 4.5 hour taping of Greed, and also because I have a bevy of MacDonald films filling up my TiVo, but I digress. I decided of all of the films that Naughty Marietta, a Best Picture nominee (my 277th) would be the perfect choice.

Like I said-I was wrestling with saccharine and wholesome going into the film, and I came away feeling both, and that may be a good thing.  For starters, MacDonald can act, which was something I was a bit nervous about, as I'd heard not great things (her onscreen costar we'll get to in a moment, but he lived up to, or down to, the hype).  She's very beautiful, and her lyric soprano could steal every woodland creature away from Snow White.  She also has a Jean Arthur spunk about her that I liked, and while her saintliness could hypothetically get grading, I never found myself saying "move it along," to her while she was onscreen.  Additionally, I rather loved her interactions on the boat, and her comic timing was solid.  In fact, aside from the fact that she was clearly a girl of the 1930's and not the 1700's, I have nothing bad to say about her.  Not a Garbo style thespian, but definitely a star.

The plot of the film, on the other hand, is a bit weak even for a musical (which notoriously have flimsy plots, let's be honest).  She's a French princess on the run from a wedding to a man she doesn't love, so she impersonates one of her servants and boards a boat to New Orleans full of women that are going to get married to men that they've never met (clearly, she didn't read the pamphlet).  Once she arrives in the New World, she comes across a handsome army captain (Eddy) whom she falls in love with, despite his macho and egotistical ways.  I could fill you in on the rest of the film, but you already know what's going to happen-the fun is in the music and the undeniable chemistry that MacDonald brings to all of her onscreen partners, including Eddy.  Eddy is a brilliant baritone, but when he's attempting to act, he brings a woodiness that's undeniable.  He's got a connection with MacDonald, but it's clear she's doing the heavy-lifting, and I'm excited to see her in a film like San Francisco, where she's paired with a charmer like Clark Gable as her screen partner.  The film also boasts two terribly fun supporting performances-Frank Morgan, the Wizard of Oz himself, as the Governor of the New Orleans colony, and a bumbling fool of a man he is, as well as Elsa Lanchester as his domineering, comedically sharp wife.  The music is sensational, and very operatic (to be fair, the film is based on an operetta by Victor Herbert), and the most famous number, "Ahh, Sweet Mystery of Life, I've Found You,"is a show-stopper.  It's plain to see why this film won a Best Sound Recording Oscar-the cast are soaring in their respective choral pieces, and the two leads fill the entire screen beautifully with each serenade.  While it doesn't bring the technical virtuosity that, say, Top Hat did in the Best Picture category, it's still a fun way to spend a Sunday night.

And in hopes of spurring conversation, have you seen Naughty Marietta?  Are you a fan of MacDonald's and/or Nelson Eddy's?  Do you have a favorite Best Picture nominee of 1935?  And, putting your own politics aside, do you ever find yourself becoming a fan of entertainers of the opposite party?

OVP: The Dark Angel (1935)

Film: The Dark Angel (1935)
Stars: Fredric March, Merle Oberon, Herbert Marshall
Director: Sidney Franklin
Oscar History: 3 nominations, 1 win (Actress-Merle Oberon, Art Direction*, Sound-Recording)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

After a few days off from movie-viewing, I have returned to what will hopefully be a long weekend of Oscar-watching (my TiVo is fuller than Chris Christie at the moment, and I make that joke not because he's overweight, but because of the inordinately high amount of hot air he seems to be constantly spouting).  So I decided to get back into the groove with one of those early 1930's films that the Academy seemed to so love at the beginning of its inception-a long, tender, occasionally overwrought melodrama called The Dark Angel.

Written by Lillian Hellman, which should be indicative of exactly what direction we're about to take, the film is the story of a woman (Oberon) drawn to two men, one strong and silent (Marshall), the other literary and debonair (March).  In later years, when movies were made more formulaic, the strong and silent Marshall would have gotten the girl, but it doesn't take much of a spoiler to tell you that 2-time Oscar winner and movie star par excellence Fredric March is going to end up with Oberon, which is apparent from the beginning scenes, with Oberon as a little girl tormenting him into marrying her.

The film drags quite a bit at the beginning, before World War I comes, and without the charm of March to carry it through its slower, "do you love me?" sorts of scenes, it would likely fall on its face.  However, March shows both his serious and playful sides throughout the film, and this gets you to the best parts of the film, the tough war scenes.  It's always puzzled me that filmmakers in the latter half of the century have found most of their wartime inspiration in World War II, when World War I with its iconic trenches and its start-of-war naivete is more suited to the silver screen.  Luckily, Richard Day, who won a stunning seven Oscars for Art Direction, knows a thing or two about design and makes a deeply intimate trench that adds a claustrophobic element to the film's middle.  It is in this part, that Marshall, angry because he believed that March had had an affair after announcing his engagement to Oberon's Kitty Vane (what a moniker!) sends March off to a seemingly impossible mission, and March's character is assumed dead, though is really just blind and taken to enemy camps.

I don't need to tell you the rest, because you already know it (story short: March's character is ashamed of his disability, doesn't return home, Oberon mourns but then becomes engaged to Marshall, the day before the wedding they discover that March is really still alive, and Oberon comes running back into his arms).  I toyed with a 2-star rating, but couldn't quite bring myself there-the art direction is terrific, though not quite up to the Art Deco that Top Hat also brought that year, and the Sound work, especially in the stilled night silences, is also top rate, and I personally loved some of the cinematography.  March didn't receive an Oscar nomination, and considering who did that year (basically all of the Bounty sailors), it's easy to see why, but he's a weirdly underrated actor, and it seems odd that his star has gotten so horribly lost considering his career longevity and his place at the head of one of the great American classics, The Best Years of Our Lives.  Oberon did, however, get nominated, her first and only nomination, and while she's terribly beautiful, she doesn't add the layers that say, Vivien Leigh would do in Sidney Franklin's later melodrama (and a personal favorite), Waterloo Bridge.  Oberon would be considerably better, though not nominated, four years later for her most iconic of roles, Catherine Earnshaw, in Wuthering Heights.

What about you-do you find the works of Lillian Hellman captivating or plodding (or perhaps a little bit of both)?  Do you think that Oberon deserved the Oscar over Bette Davis this year (or are you in the camp of say Katherine Hepburn in Alice Adams?) And what of Fredric March-why is it that he never became the iconic Hollywood star that his peers, the likes of Gable and Bogart did?