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.

OVP: Three Comrades (1938)

Film: Three Comrades (1938)

Stars: Robert Taylor, Margaret Sullavan, Franchot Tone, Robert Young

Director: Frank Borzage

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Margaret Sullavan)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Hey there!  First off, I want to say sorry about the relatively scant offerings on the blog over the past two weeks.  A combination of events both expected (and welcomed) and unexpected (and less welcomed) kept me busy with real world events, and as a result, I've been unable to do much writing beyond our Saturdays with the Stars series.  I am hopeful that we'll be able to get some semblance of normal, though in the next week or two we'll likely be a bit more sporadic before we settle back into our daily routine.  Today, we're going to get back into at least something of a groove by looking at another film from 1938 (I'm not sure of the exact date of when I can reveal why we've been focusing so much on 1938 lately, but there is a reason & I'm hopeful I'll be able to share it by the end of the month) and with a unique film not because of its actors or its director, but because of its writer.  Three Comrades is the only film to ever be written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, one of the most influential novelists of the 20th Century.  I enjoy Fitzgerald's look at the anguish of modern life, and have a particular sense of pride that he's from my home state, so I was curious what a man who has written a lot of novelists that are basically pronounced as "unfilmable" would do with his sole cinematic output.

(Spoilers Ahead) Three Comrades is the story of three soldiers, Erich (Taylor), Otto (Tone), and Gottfried (Young) and their time in the years coming up toward World War II (though obviously made in 1938, they don't know that's about to break out, neither character nor actor).  The movie largely focuses on their movements as they try to battle fascism in Germany, while also each of them being drawn to a young woman named Patricia (Sullavan), who ultimately lands on Erich (Robert Taylor is the lead for a reason) as her primary love interest, but there's a catch: Patricia is dying from tuberculosis, and as a result their romance has a tragic sell-by date.  Still, they continue on, and we see their struggles to keep their romance alive while also seeing the cost of fighting against the Nazis & the toll it takes on the friendship (it won't be just Patricia who dies in this movie) before the film comes to its inevitable, melancholy fate.

The film is quite melodramatic, and the direction initially is off-putting.  All of the figures are meant to be playing Germans, set against the rise of fascism in World War II, but all of the main actors are American, and none of them attempt an accent.  This is particularly galling for Taylor, who speaks in a deeply Midwestern intonation and is an odd fit for this story (which is weird, because Robert Taylor with his curt demeanor and intense handsomeness, was always at-home in melodramas).  The film's politics (all taking place on the eve of World War II) also feel strange in how insightful they are, showing the growing discord ravaging the European continent.

But the film works-I liked it.  Fitzgerald knows story structure, and isn't afraid to have his characters dying to serve the story (note the plural-as I mentioned above several characters die here), and Sullavan's work is strangely effective.  Other than Shop Around the Corner I didn't know a lot about her as a performer, and I found her deeply-affected work here quite transportive.  She plays Patricia as a woman who knows she's doomed, but has fallen in love anyway (perhaps with all three men in her way).  This sort of romantic figure could be frustrating, but I think she gives her a wide-eyed pessimism that I liked.  Patricia in her hands is less a victim of circumstance and more someone who doesn't want to be a saint.  In a different life she was the gay life force of a party, not the woman stuck in a disease that will claim her...and she knows that the illness has affected her ability to be that person, forcing her to choose the life of a martyr.  It's delicate stuff, and sometimes too much (the death scene is overly dramatic, and perhaps too indulgent though it worked on me), but Three Comrades is a great time, and she bolsters it.

OVP: Camille (1937)

Film: Camille (1937)

Stars: Greta Garbo, Robert Taylor, Lionel Barrymore, Elizabeth Allan, Jessie Ralph, Henry Daniell

Director: George Cukor

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Greta Garbo)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Today is my little brother's birthday, and as we are in a pandemic (and as I am 27 days away from being outside of my vaccine window-get your shot as soon as you can, wait your time frame, & remember that Covid is still deadly even if the weather is nicer so don't lose the race minutes before the finish line) I cannot spend it with him.  But he is a devoted reader of this blog, and one of my favorite people to talk about movies with, and so we will be celebrating him (long distance) today with his favorite Oscar category.  He has seen most of the Best Actress nominees, and as a result I thought it would be fun for us to do two Best Actress reviews to close out the week (that I recently saw), and since it's a special occasion, we're going to start with arguably the most famous Best Actress-nominated performance I had never seen, Greta Garbo's beautiful, tragic Camille.

(Spoilers Ahead) Based on the novel by Alexander Dumas fils (which would inspire not only countless movies but also the famed opera La traviata), the film is about Marguerite Gautier (Garbo), a courtesan who has no money to her name, and instead gets by through benefactors, many of whom dote on her beauty.  In the opening scenes she mistakes Armand Duval (Taylor) for the Baron de Varville (Daniell).  The Baron is wealthy, while Armand is of a good family (but of little money), and while the Baron makes more sense for her, she falls passionately in love with Armand.  The film continually milks this love triangle for all it's worth, with the Baron clearly the loser but still batting because he's bring much-needed cash to the table.  The film has a ticking clock as Marguerite's lavish lifestyle is exacerbating her consumption, and she will surely die if she doesn't change her ways...which she does in the end, in the arms of Armand as they realize they will always love each other.

The film doesn't have a lot going for it.  Taylor & Garbo are both sizzling (and weirdly gorgeous-one of the most attractive screen pairings in film history), but the plot isn't there.  The film constantly just keeps barking between the three legs of the love triangle, but the Baron is obviously meant to be such a villain (and Taylor so dashing) that it's not a fair fight in the world of the cinema. It's clear that Garbo must die, as she's too beautiful to grow old & too tragic to get a happy ending.  But as a result, the movie is forever repetitive.

However, you're not going to care.  This is really stylized acting, but the movie is eminently watchable (it is a guilty pleasure that clicked for me).  It's a grand picture, one with a lot of swoonworthy kisses & embraces, and you'll fall into it like thick molasses.  Did Garbo deserve an Oscar for the performance?  Probably not...there are better performances that came out in 1937 we could cling to.  But this isn't necessarily an "Oscar first" kind of performance...it's more a "swing for the rafters, land among the stars" piece of work, and in that way it's more than successful.  Oscars may be about honoring the best movies of the year, but Garbo's legendary work here has its eyes on something far more spectacular: cinematic immortality.  As perhaps the defining performance of one of the screen's most lasting stars, it gets that.

OVP: When Ladies Meet (1941)

Film: When Ladies Meet (1941)

Stars: Joan Crawford, Robert Taylor, Greer Garson, Herbert Marshall, Spring Byington, Rafael Storm

Director: Robert Z. Leonard

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Art Direction)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

One of the things that I miss about Classical Hollywood (a nostalgia that requires time travel, since while I'm getting older, I am not quite old enough to have lived through Classical Hollywood cinema when it was being released), is the way that it makes a point of having major film actresses of the era play opposite each other.  While this is getting (somewhat) better, it's rare that modern films put two major female stars as the leads of a movie.  Oftentimes women are paired (usually romantically) with male stars of the era, and so it's a treat when we have a movie like When Ladies Meet (see, it's right there in the title) that puts together two of the biggest stars of the era, Joan Crawford & Greer Garson (Robert Taylor is just along for the ride) on the screen at the same time. And adding to this excitement is the fact that the two of them (despite big stylistic differences in their onscreen approach) are dynamite when teamed up.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about Mary Howard (Crawford), a novelist (how often did Crawford play a writer-this seems like a theme?) who writes frequently about marriage & love, but hasn't quite experienced it until the opening of the film, when it's revealed she's in love with her married publisher Rogers (Marshall).  Mary's pal Jimmy (Taylor) has been wild about her for years, but knows that she could slip away here, so he decides to play a trick on her by having her meet (through circumstance) Rogers' wife Claire (Garson), in a decadent country home owned by their mutual friend Bridgie (Byington).  Once there, Mary & Claire become friends, until it's evident that Claire knows who Mary is, and that while she's become aware of Rogers affairs, she cannot stand the site of Mary with him, understanding that their marriage is effectively over (though the film ends with Rogers, perhaps understanding the error of his ways, pursuing Claire after Mary also dumps him, knowing that she'd always worry about his cheating ways). The film ends with Jimmy & Mary finally realizing they are perfect for each other, as Bridgie beamingly cheers them on.

I quite liked this movie, even though I knew nothing about it.  Obviously at this point all three stars were at different points in their careers.  Crawford just a few years previously had been proclaimed "box office poison" (we were several years away from her creative comeback in Mildred Pierce), while Garson was on the upswing & Taylor was a major star.  Still, Crawford got top billing and (on-paper) the best part as the "other woman" who must choose between her own happiness & destroying Garson's scorned wife.  However, it's Garson who is the best of the three, totally charming & witty in the third lead (or is it a top supporting...a category fraud discussion for another day), who also has to be terribly tragic when she realizes that Crawford's Mary is not like the other girls, and isn't a flight-of-fancy.  Spring Byington is also delicious as a fool (or is she?) who is clearly having an affair with a younger man & is very into the wicked escapades happening around her (Byington's silly nods give you a lot more innuendo than a post-Code film like this should be able to do).

The film was nominated for one Academy Award, and it's one of the weirder nominations you'll ever have.  While in recent years designers like Stuart Craig or Dan Henneh have been nominated for different installments of movie series, they are still different parts of the same series-an extended sequel & stories.  Here, however, Cedric Gibbons had actually done the art direction on the original When Ladies Meet from 1933 with Ann Harding & Myrna Loy, and he was also nominated for that, making this one of the few (probably only?) times someone has been nominated for the same craft for the same story.  The art direction initially seems like an odd citation (it's just a series of drawing rooms), until we get to Byington's Bridgie's house.  In the film it's intended to be a renovated barn, and honestly it's beautiful-it's the kind of thing that would arguably be more fashionable now than it is then (Joanna Gaines would love this place if you want an idea of what it's like), and I couldn't get enough of the way it felt like an actual home & not just a continuous set.  I haven't seen the 1933 film (yet), so I don't know how similar the two are (and if Gibbons essentially cheated giving us the same idea twice), but I thought it was great-very cool, modern design that adds an almost maze-like ambience to the film's many love triangles.

OVP: Above and Beyond (1952)

Film: Above and Beyond (1952)
Stars: Robert Taylor, Eleanor Parker, James Whitmore, Larry Keating
Director: Melvin Frank & Norman Panama
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Motion Picture Story, Score...though for some reason the nominations were for 1953 even though the film was released in November 1952, hence the tag below)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

One of the unusual aspects of films based on real-life, living figures is that while we assume the chapters of that person's life that are important are over if they have a movie being made about them, that's not technically the case, and is weirdly not the case for Above and Beyond, the second in our weeklong look at Oscar nominees for the writing categories.  This film, made in 1952, hosted recent history as its subject (the Manhattan Project and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan), had only happened seven years prior.  As a result, the characters played in the film by Robert Taylor, Eleanor Parker, and James Whitmore were all alive in real life, and in the case of two of them, still making major decisions in their lives that would make this movie complicated in the years that follow.  First, though, let's ground ourselves in the plot.

(Spoilers Ahead) As I mentioned, the film is about the top secret Manhattan Project, the codename for the military mission that planned the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II.  The military leader in charge of the operation is Col. Paul Tibbets (Taylor), a serious man who is chosen for his disciplined approach, and who is advised by his friend Maj. Bill Uanna (Whitmore), someone even more somber than Tibbets.  Tibbets has a young family, including a wife Lucy (Parker) and two sons, one who is only an infant.  In order to keep the secrecy of the mission, all of the military men's families are moved onto the base, and as a result, Lucy is in close quarters with her husband & children, but struggles to understand why Paul is so strict with everyone, and so secretive with her.  As the film progresses, their marriage becomes strained, to the point where she actually leaves him right before the bombing.  After the successful attacks in Japan, the couple is reunited, their past squabbles discarded...

...or so we think.  In real life, Paul & Lucy Tibbets did reconcile after a rough patch in their marriage during the planning of the Hiroshima attacks, but that didn't stick.  Paul's devotion to his career was something that Lucy couldn't ignore, and they eventually truly divorced in 1955, and Paul remarried the next year to a French woman, with whom he had a third son (I can't find anything about whether or not Lucy remarried).  As a result, this is one of the only films I can think of where the couple centered in the love story ended up breaking up after the movie was made (unlike something like First Man where we know that they'll breakup in real life but they just didn't show that onscreen).

If only the actual film was as interesting as this strange tidbit.  Above and Beyond is a boring, sloppy movie.  The film's story getting nominated is a joke, because it's arguably the picture's least successful element.  The entire romance plotline is repetitive & ridiculous (the military and bombing sequences are much better).  Parker is given a flighty, underwritten woman to play, and she fails miserably in grounding Lucy.  Every scene Lucy seems to have no rational concept as to why her husband might keep the military secrets from her, and is upset at every little inconvenience in her marriage despite begging Paul to have her come to stay with him.  This apparently is a little true to real life according to reports I found online, but it makes the Lucy character ridiculous, and you understand that their marriage is not the kind that could support a military career as it's too clingy & needy.  There's really no saving the film, though, from the Lucy character, and Parker doesn't even try to keep her grounded.  The film's score was also nominated, but it's a snore-it's just commonplace war movie cliche (drums, brass, and musical cues that are completely unoriginal to a war movie).