The Thief of Bagdad (1924)

Film: The Thief of Bagdad (1924)

Stars: Douglas Fairbanks, Snitz Edwards, Charles Belcher, Julianne Johnston, Anna May Wong

Director: Raoul Walsh

Oscar History: Predates the Academy Awards

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 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 Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.: click here to learn more about Mr. Fairbanks (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We are back-sorry I missed last week.  Between throwing my back out (getting old sucks, y'all), and not really having any gumption last weekend, and the truly depressing monstrosities that the Trump administration is unleashing on my fellow Twin Cities residents, I was not in a writing mood last weekend (and while my back is getting better, Trump is worse than ever), and missed this.  My hope is still to get back into the swing of things and make up the missing film of Douglas Fairbanks in the next two weeks.  In the meantime, though, we are at least in a similar spot to where we were two weeks ago when we talked through The Mark of Zorro.  In 1924, Fairbanks was continuing to establish himself as the first true action star after a decade in comedy.  His marriage to Mary Pickford, which had started with a quite tawdry affair (Fairbanks was very much still married at the time to his first wife Anna Beth Sully), was now a storybook marriage for the country to gush over, the first true Hollywood super-couple emerging.  And with today's film, we get to the movie that is probably the most critically-remembered of Fairbanks' pictures, a gargantuan movie that is one of the most revered of the 1920's, and was during a small period where Fairbanks star could rival his wife's...though she was always #1 to his #2, something that would become increasingly a problem in the years ahead.

(Spoilers Ahead) Today's film is The Thief of Bagdad, the 1924 version (not to be confused with the Oscar-winning 1940 version starring Conrad Veidt of Casablanca fame).  It features Fairbanks as Ahmed, the thief of Bagdad, who is a rapscallion who has dreams of using a magic rope that he has stolen to pursue even greater fortune when he falls in love with a young princess (Johnston).  She is about to be wed, and he pursues her in disguise as a prince, but when she chooses to marry him, he reveals he is nothing but a commoner.  He is said to be tortured for his treachery, but he escapes, and intends to win the second contest for the princess's (who is now in love with him) hand, to bring back the greatest treasure.  This sets off a long battle with a Mongolian prince, but one that Ahmed will surely win when he gets both a magical carpet and a magical powder that can conjure anything he wishes.  The film ends with him having defeated the evil prince, and getting to marry the princess.

The Thief of Bagdad is renowned today for its incredible production design and groundbreaking trick photography, making items appear "as if from nowhere" and both of these things are, indeed, impressive.  The sets, without the advantage of CGI, recreate through both gigantic scale and in some cases convincing miniatures an Arabia worthy of 1001 nights, and if you just look at this movie for its visual splendor, you get why it's so well-loved.  It looks beautiful, and for audiences of the 1920's, even compared to some of the grand-scale epics that DW Griffith had wrought by then, this is really in a class by itself.

The story itself, though, is way too long, and insanely repetitive.  Fairbanks is fun (I don't know why I had this impression of him as being super stodgy onscreen, as just like Zorro he's very charismatic & sexy in this part as well), and a young Anna May Wong steals every scene she's in as a duplicitous maid, but the rest of the cast is a snore, and the action set-pieces lose some of their sparkle when you have to follow so much plot with surprisingly few title cards to keep you along the way.  The movie's inspiration on future film design (you can literally see how Disney borrowed from this with Aladdin in the castle design), has to count for something, but I'll own that I was bored and wished it had about 30 minutes less of its nearly 150-minute runtime...more adventure, less random asides with the princess and evil prince (that go nowhere).

The Mark of Zorro (1920)

Film: The Mark of Zorro (1920)

Stars: Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Marguerite de la Motte, Noah Beery, Robert McKim

Director: Fred Niblo

Oscar History: Predated the Oscars

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 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 Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.: click here to learn more about Mr. Fairbanks (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

It feels weird to start an assessment of Douglas Fairbanks with a movie he made when he was 37, particularly as we kick off a year focusing on movies starring action heroes (i.e. people in their physical prime).  But that's kind of appropriate for Fairbanks.  While he had had some success in the 1900's in Broadway shows, and had made movies (including The Lamb in 1915 which arguably was the first film to focus on Fairbanks' athletic prowess), The Mark of Zorro is really the picture that cemented Fairbanks as a proper leading man, and one of the biggest names in cinema in the 1920's.  It's also the first movie to really focus on him as an action star, rather than using him for comic effect, which of course leans into our theme, but also creates a fascinating juxtaposition that won't honestly be the case for any of the 11 actors we profile the remainder of the year: Douglas Fairbanks doesn't look like an action star.

(Spoilers Ahead) This was the first Zorro film, and it plays pretty close to the legend that you'd be familiar with if you are more used to Tyrone Power or Antonio Banderas playing this part.  We have the wimpy Don Diego Vega (Fairbanks), the foppish heir to a large ranch fortune, who is set to marry Lolita Pulido (de la Motte), a beautiful but unimpressed daughter of a nearby ranch who is struggling for money (and needs her to marry rich).  She, though, is madly in love with the dashing Zorro (also Fairbanks) who is trying to overthrow the colonial government and fights for her hand (and her kiss) with great honor.  The film has regular tangles that ensue, including the villain also trying to win over Lolita, before we get to the grand reveal, where Don Diego, out of mask, proves that he is willing to fight bravely for Lolita's honor, and unmasks himself in the shockingly graphic (there is a bloody Z carved on one of the villains' foreheads) finale, complete with her in love with both Don Diego AND Zorro, ready to save the day.

For fear of overwhelming you with punctuation, I will largely refer to our January Star as "Douglas Fairbanks" going forward rather than repeatedly using his post-nominal letters, but I do want to point out that, for those familiar with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., you'll notice that there's a stark difference between the two men aesthetically.  Junior, by pretty much any definition (including modern standards-of-beauty) is gorgeous in his prime.  With his pencil thin mustache, thick hair, giant ears, and piercing eyes, he looks like a really handsome cross between Clark Gable and William Powell.  His father, as a rule, was not hot by our modern standards.  37 in 1920 meant something a lot different than 37 today, and going into this movie, where Fairbanks was expected to play a sex symbol, I figured this would feel a bit comical.

So imagine my surprise that Fairbanks looks crazy great as Zorro.  He cuts a surprisingly athletic figure in the title role, and his action scenes are impressive.  This was in many ways the first major action-adventure movie, and it has all of the tropes of the genre (charming leading man, daring stunts, and a love story), and while it is stuck a little bit by being the prototype (i.e. other films had room to improve), it is aided by Fairbanks being a pleasantly good actor.  His Don Diego is unlikable, but his Zorro is palpitating-I'm curious if this continues, but this adds a level that the Power & Banderas films don't (i.e. those films it's hard to understand why the beautiful girl doesn't immediately fall for them alongside of Zorro...here there's an explanation).  Color me somewhat excited to get into the filmography of a man I have seen very little of this month after catching his star-making turn.

Sparrows (1926)

Film: Sparrows (1926)

Stars: Mary Pickford, Roy Stewart, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Charlotte Mineau

Director: William Beaudine

Oscar History: Predated the Oscars

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 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. Pickford (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

I apologize for anyone playing along (bless you if you are), but we missed last week's Mary Pickford movie, and I honestly don't have a good excuse (I barely remember last weekend, but I know I could've done better so I can't recall why I didn't get this seen).  Anyway, we are back this week, and I'll make a point in the next week to see both of our remaining Mary Pickford films so the woman who inspired the concept of America's Sweetheart gets her due on the blog.  Today we're going to look at the film that is considered by many to be Pickford's best work, and came at a crucial turning point in her career.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie stars Molly (Pickford), the eldest of a group of orphans (Pickford is the only one who is clearly an adult-the rest are actual children) who live in a type of indentured hiding in the back swamps of what I'm assuming is supposed to be Louisiana.  They are given this space by a cruel & greedy farmer named Mr. Grimes (von Seyffertitz) who at one point sells an orphan into slavery (or some version of it) when he is spotted by a neighboring farmer.  Mr. Grimes kidnaps the daughter of a wealthy man Mr. Wayne's (Stewart), and while initially he wants to hold her for ransom, he eventually thinks it might be easier if he just throws the baby into the swamp.  Molly protects her, and during a daring escape, she brings all of the children to safety (during that time, Mr. Grimes and his accomplices drown in the muddy swamp).  After returning Mr. Wayne's daughter, he decides to give all of the children a home in his palatial mansion, them finally having their prayers answered.

The film gets its title from the Bible (specifically Luke 12:7 where it's written "Don't be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows") as the film oftentimes compares the orphans to the sparrows, trying to be seen by God.  The film is really well-lensed, and the story is super compelling for a Silent Era drama.  The swamps are genuinely terrifying, and cinematographer Hal Mohr (who would win two Oscars during his lifetime) does a great job of highlighting this, lingering on dolls sinking into the mud to show how deep & unforgiving they are.  For a studio film in 1926, the use of German Expressionism is obvious and really warranted.  He also uses trick photography where Pickford and the orphans are seen onscreen with real-life alligators.  Pickford would claim later that this was done with her in the scene, but Mohr has said this is insane (no studio was going to risk America's Sweetheart getting eaten by a reptile), and restored versions of these scenes back him up, though my copy I couldn't tell.

It also has to be said that Pickford is superb in this movie.  This is the last film where she played a child, but she honestly works better as a teen mother figure, which is how she reads in Sparrows, younger than Grimes but clearly more nurturing than the children she's played opposite.  At the time, Pickford was the most powerful woman in Hollywood (and give or take Charlie Chaplin, the most powerful actor period in Tinseltown).  Seven years earlier, she'd founded United Artists, which produced this film and gave more power to the people actually making the movies (like Pickford, Chaplin, DW Griffith, and Douglas Fairbanks) than the studio chiefs.  This was a hugely lucrative time for her, regularly turning out films that made $1 million in box office receipts (huge at the time) like Pollyanna, Little Lord Fauntleroy, Rosita, and today's picture.  Pickford was even one of the producers of this film, unheard of for a woman in 1926.  At 34, Pickford was on top of the world...but The Jazz Singer was about to throw a giant anchor into her career.

The Poor Little Rich Girl (1917)

Film: The Poor Little Rich Girl (1917)

Stars: Mary Pickford, Madlaine Traverse, Charles Wellesley

Director: Maurice Tourneur

Oscar History: The film predated the Oscars

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. Pickford (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Mary Pickford wasn't born into a show business family, but it became one quickly after her father died when she was six-years-old.  After being widowed, her mother put her daughters (Mary was one of three siblings, along with sister Lottie and brother Jack) into stock theater company, which she worked in until her late teens, at which point she was discovered by DW Griffith, who signed her to Biograph.  Pickford's work ethic, which would be a marked characteristic throughout her career, meant she made over 50 films her first full-year in movies, which was smart as she started to become a known commodity.  This became even more apparent when, after Florence Lawrence, she became one of the first major stars of the early Hollywood years to get billed by her name, meaning she wasn't just a "Biograph Girl" but "Mary Pickford"-far more valuable and exchangeable amongst the studios.  In the 1910's, she was the most popular film star in America, only rivaled by Charlie Chaplin.  One of those massive hits was today's film, The Poor Little Rich Girl.

(Spoilers Ahead) Based on a stage play by Eleanor Gates, the movie is about Gwendolyn (Pickford), a poor little rich girl whose parents don't have time for her (her father works, her mother plans society luncheons), and has no playmates.  We see (this is a silent film, so there's no dialogue other than title cards, and a lot of the story is told in large brushstrokes) her life as being pretty empty, being taught as the only student in her school, her only playmates being snobby little children who are not as kind as Gwendolyn, and her literally being on a balcony overlooking poor people in the streets, whom she longs to play with.  Most of the first half of the film is Gwendolyn getting into antics, but after an accidental overdose of sleeping medication, she nearly dies, and during that near-death experience, she dreams of a bizarre forest world with creatures that she could play with, and is lured by Death to come and join him in eternal rest...but eventually Life wins, and she rejoins her family, now less consumed by greed and more focused on their daughter.

The movie features Pickford as a child, which was a common trope for her in her early years.  Pickford would've been 24 when this was released, and to modern audiences she would've been barely believable as a teenager, much less an 11-year-old, playing that age, but it works better than you'd expect in the film.  Pickford's short stature and youthful complexion helps, as does her over-exaggerated acting style & commitment to the bit.  I'll be totally honest when I say the only Mary Pickford movie I had seen before this month was Coquette, which has the ignoble stature of being one of the worst performances to win a Best Actress statue, but watching this-while I don't know if Pickford is a great actress yet, it's pretty clear to see she's magnetic, and why audiences loved her in movies like The Poor Little Rich Girl.  She has a presence, and with a limited plot, she knows how to milk most of the movie.

It also helps that the film's approach is quite inventive.  The filmmaking is fun (I love the distinctive way they get a title card of her shouting "I hate her" through a keyhole), and the last 15 minutes is genuinely a gas.  I expected Mary Pickford to be playing someone a decade younger than her in this movie-I did not expect her to go on an acid trip complete with human-like donkeys and the personification of death like she was in an Ingmar Bergman movie.  Silent films are an acquired taste, and to be honest I'm usually more partial to epics or comedies of the format than family dramas, but this works primarily because it's willing to take such a large swing late in the film, totally upending our expectations.

The Ring (1927)

Film: The Ring (1927)

Stars: Carl Brisson, Lillian Hall-Davis, Ian Hunter

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

(Throughout the year, in connection with our 'Saturdays with the Stars' series, I am watching every gap I have in Alfred Hitchcock's filmography in what we're calling 'Sunday Leftovers.'  Every two weeks, I'll be watching a Hitchcock film that I've never seen before as I spend 2021 completing his filmography)

We continue our series of "Sunday leftovers" with another Hitchcock film from his Silent Movie Era (we'll actually be here for quite a bit longer-Hitch made a handful of movies from 1927-29).  As I mentioned earlier this week, we won't be seeing The Mountain Eagle, Hitch's second feature-length film as it is the only one of his full-length movies considered "lost," and we'll actually be skipping The Lodger as well.  I'm only profiling films that I haven't seen before 2021, and The Lodger (a creepy, good film, probably his most celebrated of this era & one that would be a harbinger for much of his later work) was the only one of his movie's I'd seen from the 1920's.  So we move on now to The Ring, our next picture.  Technically The Ring was the fifth film that Hitchcock made, but it was released fourth so we're going with that (we'll get to the other film that would compete for this slot in two weeks).  The Ring, despite coming after The Lodger, deals with topics that Hitchcock didn't always put into his movies.  The film has no thriller or horror elements, and is in fact a relatively straight-forward boxing love triangle, one of the earliest pugilist films (inarguably the cinema's most-loved sport).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film, as I said above, is a love story, though an atypical one.  Jack (Brisson) is a circus boxer who is famous for being able to win any match in "one round," (he has that as his nickname), and is romancing Mabel (Hall-Davis) the ticket girl smitten with her he-man boyfriend.  When Bob Corby (Hunter) is able to beat Jack in the ring, it's a shock until his identity is revealed: he's the Australian heavyweight champion, and sees a lot of potential in Jack as his sparring partner.  Bob also sees potential in a romance with Mabel, and while Jack marries a reluctant Mabel early in the film (the wedding scene has the comic effect of a two-headed woman and the world's tallest man showing up in front of a bewildered priest...which is kind of hilarious & the sort of visual gag a cheeky Hitchcock would throw in later films), she continues her affair with Bob, which causes a rift in their marriage.  Eventually Jack decides the only way to win back Mabel is by beating Bob in the ring, which he does in the final scenes of the movie after working his way up the ranks of the boxing world, becoming the champion & officially taking Mabel's heart forever.

The Ring is quite distinct in that it's the only (credited) script that Alfred Hitchcock wrote from scratch (he'd adapt a few later, but always from books or plays), and you can tell he genuinely loves the story as for a silent movie it's quite detailed & legible as a plot.  You could add dialogue here & have to change very little.  The film's politics are problematic, both racially (the n-word shows up in a title card with a nonchalance that will make you wince), and sexually (Mabel is a one-dimensional trope, unusual for Hitchcock with female characters, who is only interested in whichever man comes out on top), but if you can move past that there's some good here.

After all, for a 90-minute (longer than most of Hitch's movies until this point) film it's brisk, and it's lensed well.  The boxing scenes at the end were clearly a template for future films, and there are great comic bits in an otherwise dramatic movie from side characters & visual cues at the circus.  I didn't love it (it's been a while since I've seen it, but I'd put The Lodger above this in Hitchcock's pantheon), but it's a reminder that a great director can do wonders with virtually any script, particularly his own, if he has a vision in mind.

Lost Films & Film List Competionism

This weekend, we will continue our "Sunday Leftovers" series with another silent film from Alfred Hitchcock's early filmography.  I'm excited to encounter this movie, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we're making our one true skip of the project.  The point of the series is to watch every single feature film in Hitchcock's filmography, but this is an action borne of failure, as while there are movies of his that are little-seen today, there is one movie that no one has seen.  Alfred Hitchcock's filmography has one gaping, nagging hole in it for any true fan who wants to say they've "seen them all": The Mountain Eagle.

The Mountain Eagle is arguably the most sought-after lost film of all-time.  Made in 1926, it's a romantic melodrama set in Kentucky, and was a troubled shoot.  Hitchcock was sick for much of the duration due to altitude sickness, and the reception to the film was mixed, at best.  It was only released widely in theaters in the United Kingdom because of the success of Hitchcock's The Lodger, and audiences weren't enthused by the project, and neither was Hitchcock.  The director would later say he was relieved the film appeared to be lost, and while stills of the film (as well as photographs of the shoot) still exist in some capacity, the movie itself has never been recovered, and is likely lost for all time (though photographs of the shoot were discovered as recently as 2012, so keep looking if you have a pile of memorabilia or are the grandchild of a 1920's theater owner).  The film gets its reputation as a "great lost film" not because of its contemporaneous reception, but because Hitchcock became so celebrated, this is the one missing puzzle piece in his filmography, and even if it's a monochromatic edge piece rather than a vibrant corner portion of the puzzle...people still want that jigsaw fulfilled.

I point this out not just because The Mountain Eagle deserves its due in a series about all of Hitchcock's movies, but also because film preservation is an issue near-and-dear to my heart, and because this isn't the only film completion project that I am undertaking.  I used to think that an article like this would be relatively niche (i.e. only a vanity article that I'm writing), but as I've delved into Film Twitter and other online cinephile communities, I realize that things like my Oscar Viewing Project are not only not specific-to-me, but also some people are way further in these projects than I am.

Because yes, the OVP is not ever going to be done, not in a true way.  By my count there are at least nine films that were definitely nominated for an Oscar category that would qualify under the OVP that are considered completely lost, and a tenth film (The Magic Flame) is probably lost though there are rumors a copy exists at the George Eastman House...and that's just based on a cursory bit of research I did a few years ago (there may be more).  Barring some sort of miracle, I won't finish this project in the truest sense.  This is true even if you just try to see the Best Picture nominees (The Patriot is considered completely missing), or if you try to see just the acting nominees (three of which, all early Best Actor nominees, are lost).

But the question becomes what happens when you expand beyond the films that are considered universally lost & go into the theoretical.  I was listening to the "Gilded Films" podcast the other day (highly recommend if you are an Oscars fan), and they were doing a series about 1934, and the inability to see The White Parade, which is a Best Picture nominee from that year starring Loretta Young that is not technically lost, but almost impossible to see.  There is a partial surviving print in the UCLA film archive, but it is considered in rough shape, and unless you can gain access to the UCLA film archive (which it seems a number of people have done based on a brief Twitter search, but most of them have academic credentials so I don't know how a lay fan like myself could do so), you can't see it.

The White Parade is not the only movie that is not available in any capacity other than through a film library (which means you have to navigate such a request).  Sorrell and Son, which was nominated for Best Director, is only available in the Academy Film Archive, while The Dove (a best Art Direction nominee), is partially available, but only if you visit the Library of Congress (and that's just based on rumor-I have not made it far enough in this project to start buying plane tickets to see movies).

The question here is obvious (if very niche)-what qualifies as completing seeing "all of Hitchcock's films" or "all of the Oscar nominees?"  This isn't an easy question to answer, because the definition of "lost film" changes based on how you discuss it.  There are movies that literally you need to have some age on you to have seen (for example the occasional 1960's or 1970's movie that was never released on home video in any fashion), and of course as we shift to streaming, technology becomes a factor in addition to access.  What happens when a movie is only available on a medium that doesn't exist anymore (like a VHS or a laserdisc) where players don't exist?  I don't have a great answer here, but it's one that as we eventually close out years in the OVP where I will have to hunt (and potentially hunt fruitlessly) for movies that are virtually impossible to see without some sort of luck or travel that I'm going to have to encounter & with which I'll have to come to grips.

All of this is to say that the Academy misses the boat by not investing more in its history.  Films like Sorrell and Son and The Dove, movies that are technically existing but near impossible to watch, deserve Academy releases or some sort of streaming capability through the new Oscars' museum.  Perhaps that will be something that the Academy allows-a way to view these movies at their new museum, buying tickets to screenings of long-forgotten prints.  It is sad, but lost and "lost" films are going to continue to mount in number the further we delve into streaming & start to only value the new on these platforms.  It'd be nice if the Academy remembered the films that it honored, rather than just letting only the most devoted (and wealthy) of film fans get the chance to watch them.

The Pleasure Garden (1925)

Film: The Pleasure Garden (1925)

Stars: Virginia Valli, Carmelita Geraghty, Miles Mander, John Stuart, Karl Falkenberg

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Oscar History: Pre-dated the Academy Awards

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

(Throughout the year, in connection with our 'Saturdays with the Stars' series, I am watching every gap I have in Alfred Hitchcock's filmography in what we're calling 'Sunday Leftovers.'  Every two weeks, I'll be watching a Hitchcock film that I've never seen before as I spend 2021 completing his filmography)

Welcome, my friends to our first installment of "Sunday Leftovers," a series that is a one-time(?) companion to our "Saturdays with the Stars" series.  Every other week throughout the remainder of 2021, I will be watching one Alfred Hitchcock movie (chronologically) that I've never seen before, with the goal being that by the end-of-2021 I will have seen every one of the Master of Suspense's feature films.  We'll only be watching films that I've never seen before, and we won't be duplicating any of our 'Saturdays' viewings (every month we're taking a look at the career of one of Hitch's leading ladies), so I'll call out if we're skipping any because I've already seen it, but this week we start at the very beginning, and I see, for the first time, the very first movie to have Hitchcock get credit behind the camera: The Pleasure Garden.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is part rags-to-riches, part melodrama, and part cautionary tale.  Like many future Hitchcock films, it features two women: Patsy (Valli) and Jill (Geraghty), both dancers in London who hope to find love & fame on the stage.  Jill is the more successful of the two dancers, and nearly doesn't get a job with Patsy in the show (Patsy takes care of her & gives her a room to stay in at the beginning of the movie), but she quickly gains fame & admirers, including Prince Ivan (Falkenberg), and in the process dismisses her noble fiancé Hugh (Stuart) and scorns Patsy, who marries a philanderer named Levet (Mander), who regularly cheats on her with a woman he meets in Africa.  The film's ending has a dark twist, with Jill largely successful in marrying the prince (though she continues to scorn Patsy), but Levet being killed after he murders his mistress (after she refuses to let him go back to his wife), and Hugh & Patsy living happily-ever-after, the only two morally upright characters in the picture.

The movie is his first, so it's not clear how much creative control he had, but there are hints of future scenes in his film's everywhere.  Particularly a sequence where a perverted older man uses opera glasses to get a better look at a young blond dancer reeks of Rear Window, and the two women (one good, one bad) competing against each other while also frenemies has hints of Stage Fright.  Also, leave it to Hitch to have a cute dog named Cuddles basically steal the whole movie.

The film's spirit is odd-but-works in the action-packed final third, as we get to see the murderous Levet haunted by an old mistress & his past betrayal (again, another Hitchcock motif), but the romance between Patsy & Hugh was rather bland.  Despite Valli being the bigger star at the time, it's Geraghty who gets the better part.  Jill is diabolical fun, and it's nice to be in the pre-Code where she's not punished for liking sex & money (though there's little closure with her character in the last act).  I saw the 60-minute version of this film (there appears to be a longer version, but I couldn't get a copy of it-anyone who has, let me know if we get more resolution with Jill's story arch).  Overall, it's a fun little movie-nothing super special compared to his later work, but a decent cautionary tale with hints of what Hitchcock would later produce.

The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920)

Film: The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920)
Stars: Albert Steinruck, Paul Wegener, Lyda Salmonova, Ernst Deutsch
Director: Paul Wegener & Carl Boese
Oscar History: Predated the Academy Awards
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 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're going to start this season's look at classic horror by truly going back into a different time, into the 1920's (horror was a commonplace genre throughout the Silent Era), but weirdly we're going to start with a different horror mainstay-the sequel.  The Golem: How He Came into the World is the full title of the film that is normally referred to as The Golem (or Der Golem), but it is actually part of a trilogy of movies starring & directed by Paul Wegener, a German expressionist filmmaker whose life we'll get into a little bit below.  The first two films, one called just The Golem and the other called The Golem and the Dancing Girl (supposedly a comedy spoof of the character), are considered lost, and therefore the only one of the three movies that can still be viewed readily is the third picture, which has de facto become "The Golem" by lack of access to its predecessors (which, obviously considering I was not born in the 1910's, I have not seen).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is something of an origin story about the Golem creature.  In it, Rabbi Loew (Steinruck) is the head of his city's Jewish citizens, and is trying to stave off eviction from the Holy Roman Emperor.  He and his assistant (Deutsch, whose character doesn't get a name so we'll refer to him as the assistant) decide to use a spell to summon Astaroth (a demon spirit) who will bring to life a creature that they have created in their laboratory.  The creature ends up being the Golem (Wegener), who at first protects the citizens by impressing the emperor, but eventually the Golem is reclaimed by Astaroth, and the Golem goes to capture Miriam (Salmonova), the daughter of the Rabbi and the unrequited love of the assistant.  In the end, the Rabbi is able to stop Astaroth, and a little girl removes the amulet that gives the Golem his power/life force, rendering him inert.  The film ends with the citizens able to stay in their city, and with them safe from both the emperor and the Golem.

First off, with a film like this, you pretty much instantly expect the worst when it comes to treatment of the Jewish people in the title roles, as anti-semitism was quite common in films of the 1920's & 30's, but while it's not great (this is not a film you could make today in the same capacity), it's not The Jazz Singer bad in terms of its treatment of its characters.  Yes, there's some romanticism about the Rabbi's religion and his "powers," but this is not a film that's aged particularly badly in the way that other films of its time frame have when it comes to the treatment of the Jewish characters.

As a result, you can enjoy a well-done horror film.  The movie is beautifully-shot, one of the best examples of this style of filmmaking (the most famous being The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) of this era.  I especially liked the upwards-looking shots of the building and bridges (haunting, and genuinely foreboding).  The Golem himself is kind of a dud compared to some other movie monsters (he's not particularly scary), but he is clearly the inspiration both physically and in the way he and the assistant are filmed the inspiration for the Frankenstein monster and Igor a decade later (the makeup and movements of the actors are nearly identical).

Wegener's personal history is complicated.  Only a handful of his films weren't lost, and The Golem is by-far the most famous.  He was frequently married (six times, in fact), and his contributions to the Nazi regime are difficult to suss out.  Based on a cursory look on the internet, there's clear evidence he kept working during the Nazi regime in Germany, appearing in a couple of Nazi propaganda films.  I cannot find evidence that he was a contributor to the resistance, and one wonders if there is any or if this is just wishful-thinking from fans of his work (it seems to be a rumor on most of the articles you'll find online about him, but there's no one who could provide corroboration).  It's clear based on the movies he made even into the beginning of Hitler's regime that he wasn't an obvious Nazi sympathizer (he made at least one movie that would be considered anti-fascist (titled ...just a Comedian), but without actual proof of his involvement with the resistance, Wegener's reputation is difficult to ascertain.

Past Horror Month Reviews (Listed Chronologically): The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, Freaks, 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

The Wind (1928)

Film: The Wind (1928)
Stars: Lillian Gish, Lars Hanson, Montagu Love, Dorothy Cumming, Edward Earle
Director: Victor Sjostrom
Oscar History: Early on with the Oscars, they were quite reluctant to nominate silent films past the first ceremony, and so it wasn't nominated despite it being considered a landmark film today.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

One of the great tragedies of The Jazz Singer coming along when it did was that the Silent Era arguably hit its creative peak around 1927-28.  While there had been classics made before, some of the movies we think of as the best films of the Silent Era (The Crowd, Sunrise, The Passion of Joan of Arc) all were released at the very end of the period, becoming relics but also examples of lost promise-an indication that we might have been in for more sweeping stories during the period.  One of the best examples of this, that I had not seen until Criterion called my cards (by taking it off their platform & making me finally get to the movie) is The Wind, the last major silent film released by MGM, and generally considered to be one of the studio's best.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about a poor woman named Letty (Gish), who moves from Virginia to live with her cousin Beverly (Earle) on his ranch in Sweetwater.  While she's going there, she meets a sneaky man named Wirt Roddy (Love), who flirts with her on the train and tells her about how the winds in Texas make women crazy.  When she gets there, Beverly is delighted to see her, but his wife Cora (Cumming) is jealous of their relationship and how Letty is more beloved by her children than Cora is, and she throws her out of the house in a rage.  She then is forced to marry one of her local suitors, and after she finds out Wirt is married, she goes for a sweet-but-simple neighbor, Lige (Hanson), who learns on their wedding night that she doesn't have any desire for him.  As the film progresses, the winds drive Letty more mad, and during one particular wind storm, where she resists Wirt but after she passes out he rapes her (this isn't said explicitly, but it's heavily implied), she kills him when he says they must run away together (insinuating that he thinks it was consensual).  She does kill him, and buries him, and then confesses what happened to Lige when he returns.  Magically the winds have disappeared the body (Lige says that they do this when a death was justified), and Letty realizes that she has loved him the whole time, falling into his arms & no longer fearing the winds.

The plot kind of sounds silly (cause it is a little silly), but it doesn't feel that way in the film.  The Wind is really good, and its best aspects are showing the cruelty of men when it comes to their attitudes toward women.  Letty goes through hell in this film, enduring indifference, cruelty, and ultimately sexual violence, and the film doesn't shy away from that, and neither does Gish's performance.  This is the sort of film that just a few years later would have surely been flagged by the Hays Code for its frank (for the 1920's) take on sexuality.  However, the performances, particularly Gish and Cumming (the sort of supporting role that Oscar might have noticed had the category existed at the 2nd Oscars), are astounding.  This is the best silent work that I've seen from Gish, and maybe her best work period, give-or-take Night of the Hunter.

The other thing I want to call out here is the score.  The film exists in multiple different prints, and I am going to insist if you're seeing this for the first time that you catch the one scored by Carl Davis (this appears to be the one most often shown on TCM).  The score is unreal-it's one of the best scores, possibly the best score, I've ever seen attributed to a silent movie, and it's so effective in the film.  It really captures the passion of the winds, the terror of them, and adds an element to Gish's performance that probably wasn't there initially, but is a sign of a great composer who can see a way to add an element to the movie that is beneficial.  I don't normally get in for a conversation of "you have to see the X cut of a movie" as I think films should stand on their own merits regardless of the cut (and if they can't, that cut shouldn't be available to the film-going public), but I'm making an exception here.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Film: The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Stars: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry, Arthur Edmund Carewe
Director: Rupert Julian
Oscar History: Predated the Oscars
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

This morning we go to the very beginning of our marathon, to Universal's original horror master: Lon Chaney, Sr.  Considered "the man of a thousand faces," Chaney was Universal's first real, bankable star and made some of the biggest horror film hits of the Silent Era.  Noted for his incredible ability with makeup (basically making himself unrecognizable from one role to the next), Chaney had a short (he died at the age of 47 from throat cancer) but incredibly memorable stint as a matinee idol (Joan Crawford once said she learned more about acting from Chaney than from anyone else in her career).  While I don't think we'll have time for both of his biggest films (I've got a lot of ground to cover in the next few days before we finish up this marathon this week, as I have a vision of how I want to end it, and there's at least two more major horror stars we haven't checked in on), I would be remiss if I didn't view to at least one, and so I decided to go with The Phantom of the Opera, one of the quintessential Universal horror movie monsters and Chaney's most famous role.

(Spoilers Ahead) Arguably the most loyal version of the Gaston Leroux's novel (though still with a different ending), the story is probably familiar to anyone who has hummed along to a Broadway cast recording.  The film is about Christine (Philbin), who is in love with the handsome Raoul (Kerry), but is drawn to a mysterious stranger in the night who is teaching her how to sing and is trying to make her the opera's diva, rather than the "less beautiful" Carlotta (side note from someone who has had the Andrew Lloyd Webber soundtrack memorized since he was ten-Carlotta really gets screwed during every iteration of this story as none of this is her fault except that she's not pretty enough for the Phantom to be obsessed with her).  However, mysterious things are happening in the opera house, including a series of stranglings of stage hands as people keep dying from a "phantom" (Chaney) behind the scenes of the opera.  Initially we are to suspect the fez-sporting Ledoux (Carewe), a shifty-eyed man who turns out to be a good-guy-detective, trying to uncover the Phantom, and we learn the Phantom is a grotesquely-faced man, hideous and obsessed with the lovely Christine, whom he wants to make his bride.  The film's back half features several chase scenes between the four main characters, as well as an angry mob out for blood against the Phantom after a kindly stage hand is killed by him once again.  The movie ends with the Phantom reluctantly saving Ledoux and Raoul from peril, and then getting beaten-and-drowned in the Seine by the angry mob.

The movie is really fun.  The movie is slower than it needs to be in the first half, as we all know what's coming from the Phantom (and Christine is not the most exhilarating of romantic heroines), but the chase sequences in the back half and Chaney's performance make this entirely worth two hours of your time.  The set pieces are extraordinary, as they march through the catacombs and sewers of Paris (it's always impressive to me to see how elaborate Silent Era sets were considering the cost at the time to construct such things), and there's even a sequence in Technicolor where the Phantom appears as Red Death, with a stunning cloak to match.  I loved the back half if you can throw out the gender politics (something you kind of have to do in general to enjoy any of this era's horror movies).

Chaney is terrific as the Phantom.  While none of the other actors are giving this kind of work (I thought for a minute Carewe might bring something special to Ledoux, but that's a bit of a letdown once we know he isn't actually one of Chaney's many creations), Chaney is fantastic, acting from every angle and truly letting his hideous makeup do the talking for him on the big screen.  I was struck by the differences in screen presence between he and his son, who has become our classroom dunce for this marathon, because the elder Chaney has so much of the screen charisma that his son lacks.  His Phantom is genuinely hideous and horrifying in a way even modern makeup artists would struggle to recreate.  The scene where he, atop the Paris Opera House, stands on a chariot moaning like a vampire, is thrilling and probably something every horror actor that succeeded him looked on with awe and while taking notes.  While the rest of the film pales in comparison, Chaney is a beast and a monster for the ages here, and there's a reason he got to be considered a legend that started the entire Universal Studios machine running nearly a century ago.

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, Mad Love, Son of Frankenstein, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Mummy, Freaks, The Ghost of Frankenstein, It Came from Outer Space, The House of Frankenstein

Oscar-Connected Lost Films, Part 2

Last week, we chronicled through the Top 10 missing Oscar-nominated films (the films that keep my OVP-loving heart up at night knowing that I'm doomed to failure even if I manage to hit most of the pictures).  Today, however, I decided to try a slightly different tack (one that includes a bit more of a list).  Here we have lost films starring Oscar-nominated actors or directed by Oscar-nominated directors.  While this list is far from complete, these stand out in my mind as some of the more important feature-length films that are hopefully still in someone's attic.

Note: While I couldn't include every missing feature-length film starring an Oscar nominee, I'm curious about which ones are on your "where is it?!?' list, so please share below in the comments!

12. Tenderloin (1928)

Directed by future Oscar winner Michael Curtiz and starring Dolores Costello and Conrad Nagel, the film is in a weird place in history as it's the second Vitaphone feature, and reportedly featured the first feature where actors actually spoke their lines (though the dialogue was so hammy people actually laughed when it first came out).  Considering its place in history, you'd think this would have hung on, but it's still considered lost.

11. Lilies of the Field (1924)

While it shares the name of an Oscar-winning film, it actually has no connection to the movie starring Sidney Poitier.  Instead, it gets its AMPAS connection through leading lady Corinne Griffith, who would be one of the first women ever to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress (in The Divine Lady).  The film sounds pretty messed up, and I'm curious to see how the sexual politics of the period play out, but like all of the other eleven films on this list, it's lost for now.

10. Red Sky at Morning (1944)

One of several missing films from the early career of future Oscar-winner Peter Finch, this one struck me as odd simply because of its late release date.  While portions of films from the 1940's and 50's are missing (most famously A Star is Born), this entire movie (about a sailor who falls in love with the wife of a captain) is completely gone, which is unusual for a film with a now recognizable star.

9. The Promise (1969)

By far the latest film on this list, and the only one that features a currently living Oscar nominee that I can find.  Sir Ian McKellen, very early in his career, made the first big-screen adaptation of an Aleksei Abuzov play, that is now considered lost.  Weirdly, it featured another actor who'd gained some fame the year previous (John Castle) for starring in an Oscar-winning film (The Lion in Winter) and was reusing Oscar-winning sets from the previous year's Best Picture winner Oliver!, so how this remains lost is also a mystery.

8. Men of Tomorrow (1932)

One of those films where you didn't know what you had until it was gone, the film actually stars Maurice Braddell and Joan Gardner, but it was the supporting cast that calls out a bit more ferociously, featuring Oscar-nominee Merle Oberon and future Oscar-winner Robert Donat in his film debut.  The film apparently was a bit salacious and had to be trimmed for re-distribution (and was dubiously marketed in the United States in 1935 because Oberon and Donat were headliners at that point, even though they weren't the stars of the picture).

7. White Man (1924)

One of the earliest films on this list, White Man would be a largely forgotten film starring Kenneth Harlan and Alice Joyce were it not for a bit part (that of Joyce's brother) played by one of the biggest leading men in Hollywood history: Clark Gable.  Yes, the future Oscar-winner made his film debut in a small role in this film, now largely lost (perhaps due to the fact that Gable wouldn't be a huge star for a bit longer after this).

6. Convention City (1933)

A plethora of big name actors are featured in this film, including Joan Blondell, Adolphe Menjeu, Dick Powell, and Mary Astor, 75% of which were Oscar nominees (Menjeu even was a nominee already at that point).  But what sets this film apart is that it is apparently quite scandalous, with a number of double entendres and Blondell's costume budget being smaller than Jack Warner wanted it to be.  As a result, it's one of those movies that you want to see more out of shock value than anything else.

5. The Forward Pass (1929)

This would be worthy of inclusion simply based on the premise alone: how many movies in cinematic history have ever been made about football, and turned into a musical?  Throw in Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and future Oscar-winner Loretta Young and the intrigue is factored up.  But it's a cameo by a 22-year-old John Wayne (in one of only a couple of his films that are considered lost) that makes me truly curious-what was John Wayne like at 22?!?

4. The Callahans and the Murphys (1927)

Toward the top more for the director of the film, and what he was able to do with his leading lady in other films.  George W. Hill, while never an Oscar nominee, managed to helm two major Oscar contenders early on in the Academy's history: The Big House, which was an early Best Picture nominee, and Min and Bill, which won Marie Dressler (who stars in Callahans and the Murphys) her only Oscar.

3. For the Love of Mike (1927)

Another film with a man who'd later bring his leading lady an Oscar, but here we have even bigger names than Hill and Dressler: Claudette Colbert and Frank Capra.  Seven years before both of them won Oscars for It Happened One Night, these two screen icons made a silent picture (Colbert's only one), which bombed and almost caused Colbert to quit the movies.  Thankfully she didn't and went on to make decades of classics, but this one is sadly not one that can be discovered by new film audiences.

2. Hollywood (1923)

What gets a film you've never heard of into the Top 2?  Well, it's that literally every major star of this era somehow managed to make it into the film!  Yes, while the leads are a pair of unknowns (Hope Drown and Luke Cosgrave), you have everyone from Will Rogers to Douglas Fairbanks Sr. to Baby Peggy, as well as six-Oscar nominated/winning entertainers (Gloria Swanson, Betty Compson, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Mary Astor, and Cecil B. DeMille), all made more impressive as the Oscars hadn't even happened when this came out.  Throw in one of the only screen appearances Fatty Arbuckle made after his arrest, and you have arguably the biggest curiosity on this list.

1. The Mountain Eagle (1927)
An easy choice for the list, as The Mountain Eagle is the only lost film of Alfred Hitchcock's extensive filmography.  Hitch reportedly hated the film (and the production was apparently a nightmare) and was glad it was gone, but for the legions of his fans (myself included) it remains a film that we most hope is discovered in someone's attic.  I mean, it's hard to really compare with finally getting the only missing feature-length film from Alfred Hitchcock.

The General (1927)

Film: The General (1927)

Stars: Buster Keaton, Marion Mack

Directors: Clyde Bruckman and Buster Keaton

Oscar History: Predated the Academy Awards

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Oh, the classics, in particular the Silent Era classics, have so much iconography in them the first time you catch the movie you can't help but feel like you've already seen the flick, and this is certainly true of The General.  The film, considered by many to be the greatest triumph of Buster Keaton's storied career, is a wonderful combination of incredible special effects (nothing can quite compare with the Silent Era in terms of "they actually did that!" awe) and great action-adventure sequences.  While the film lacks the obvious interest that something like Sherlock Jr. has for me, as a movie fan, I have to admit that I left The General even more enraptured in this particular picture and it is likely to become my favorite Keaton film-a wonderfully spry, occasionally heartfelt look at one man's quest to find relevance and win his lady's respect.

(Spoiler Alert) There really isn't a large need, quite frankly, for the spoiler alert here as this is a story as old as the movies itself and you know where it's headed pretty much from the beginning.  We have Johnnie (Keaton), a bumbling engineer who is in love with a girl named Annabelle (Mack).  We are on the eve of the Civil War, and after an attack on Fort Sumter, all of the young men of the village, including Johnnie, rush off to enlist.  Small caveat here-every single Civil War film I've ever seen, almost all of which are about the South for the record which I've always found quite strange considering they, well, lost, has every eligible young man in the village rushing off to war.  There had to have been at least one guy who thought "well, maybe I'll wait a week or two to see if this thing is really happening"-right?  Where is that guy's movie?

Anyway, Johnnie is rejected because it is thought that as a train engineer, he's more valuable for the Confederacy in his current job than in the army.  Due to a misunderstanding, Annabelle thinks Johnnie didn't sign up because he got rejected, but because he was a coward and refuses to speak to him again until he is in uniform.  The film unfolds with Johnnie eventually stopping an impending attack by the Union army and saving the day for the confederacy, finally being accepted into the army and winning Annabelle's love and respect.

The film's middle is of course where it gains its legend, particularly the incredible action set-pieces involving the General (which is the name for Johnnie's locomotive).  The film had the most expensive and elaborate stunt of the entire Silent Era in the back-half of the movie (and if you've seen a DW Griffith film, you know this is saying something), and it's unbelievable to think of how this happened.  You can see it here and I mandate you check it out, but it's the Texas (a locomotive) crashing into an actual river.  This is one of those "you only get one take" sorts of situations, something I'd have to think would never get approved in today's film budgets, and the engine itself actually stayed in the river until the 1940's when it was eventually cleaned up.  The film is filled with these sorts of classic sequences, chase scenes and gigantic shots of the trains going after each other, and while the comedy is really funny and I laughed-out-loud quite a few times, it's these technical pieces that really had me flummoxed and wowed.  Frequently I hate when people say "they don't make them like they used to," but this is true here.  We wouldn't want a train crashing into an actual river (we have enough environmental issues these days to not go adding pollution to the mix), but it's still thrilling and insane to watch it actually happen in these pre-CGI films.

That being said, I was a big fan and see the appeal here-do you?  Are you a fan of this, the penultimate film on the AFI list that I haven't seen (the last to go is unfortunately not on DVD but I'm looking into it for the next couple of weeks)?  Where does it rank compared to Sherlock Jr?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Film: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
Stars: Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Henry B. Walthal, Miriam Coper, Mary Alden
Director: DW Griffith
Oscar History: Predated the Oscars
Snap Judmgent Ranking: 2/5 stars

I have dreaded watching The Birth of a Nation for years.  Honestly, AFI, what were you thinking?  I mean, I get the historical nature of the film and it being pretty much the first major feature-length film, but what an arduous movie to put on your greatest films list (thankfully you rectified the situation on your tenth anniversary edition).  And yet, I'm a completist, and I decided to take the three-hour tour through one of the most controversial films of all-time in order to finally, eighteen years later, finish the list (I saved a better film we'll get to later this year for the final checkmark).

(Spoilers Ahead) For those of you who haven't read what is the equivalent of cinematic War and Peace (even though War and Peace is actually a pretty good book from what I can tell), The Birth of a Nation is the story of the American South, told from the perspective of a group of southern soldiers.  As the film was released over 100 years ago, you can tell where we're going with the cringe-worthiness, but first it's worth pointing out that while there is racism in the first half of the film, the movie isn't as bad as I was expecting during the Civil War portion of the movie.  The action scenes during this period of the film were pretty impressive.  In an era well, well before CGI, we see battle sequences with dozens and occasionally hundreds of extras involved in extended marches and combats, and it's sort of staggering considering that film was in its infancy how much of these methods would be copied by pretty much everyone that followed Griffith, including far more impressively by Griffith himself a year later with the superior Intolerance.  The movie's focus on the battle, rather than the silliness of some of the girls and the soldiers that fawn on them (though Lillian Gish, always wonderful, rises above her dutiful and admired Elsie better than almost anyone in the film, where the acting is pretty bad even for the day), is a smart move and I can see why audiences were astounded to such a degree by the movie during these parts.

However, once Lincoln is assassinated and Reconstruction hits, we are left with an appalling display.  Even in 1915 the glorification of the KKK (of which our main character is a leader and member) appears in horribly bad taste, offensively portraying black men as lazy and over-sexualized, particularly in regard to the white female main characters.  The film shows a character based on Sen. Thaddeus Stevens, publicly destroying the now relatively well-received congressman (whose reputation admittedly at the time was still badly-bruised, particularly for Southern sympathizers), and makes him out to be both calculating and imbecilic, allowing his underlings to create an army out to "destroy White America."  The film glorifies lynching in some cases, and makes vigilantism something to celebrate.  The movie's politics are difficult to believe, even if you take yourself out of the artistic aspect and just look at it as an historical document, as the racism feels particularly raw.  It's worth noting, though, from an artistic standpoint the story jumbles when it tries to insert its politics in this portion, frequently creating too many subplots and sort of glossing over portions of the main characters' arches.

In summation, then, I cannot say the film doesn't have some things worth acknowledging.  The effects, the staging of certain scenes is damn impressive both for the time, and quite frankly for all-time considering how much work it is to do what computers make us take for granted crowd shots.  The film, in its first half, while not excellent is at least cogent and is better-plotted than you would expect from such a film.  However, the second half is a travesty, making you want to break the DVD or fast forward to get to the end and cross it off your damn "I saw it" list.  As a result I'm going with a two star rating because it's too impressive in certain sequences to deserve just one, but I can't bring it to three where it seems like I was possibly recommending the movie.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  This is a very famous movie and you've almost certainly seen clips if not the whole thing-how do you stomach the politics of the film while still admitting certain technical aspects are impressive?  Share in the comments!

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

I just dropped a bowl and smashed it to smithereens in my kitchen, so I could probably deserve a link (Marmie Hart!).  I'm guessing so could you, so let's get started...

In Entertainment...

-The new Fantastic Four movie appears set to completely tank, with star Miles Teller and director Josh Trank off complaining about the movie already (though I don't see them handing back the gigantic wads of cash they received for making it), Rotten Tomatoes having it in the toilet, and Friday numbers being thoroughly disappointing.  I honestly don't know why studios can't get this franchise right-it's one of the rare Marvel comics that is actually supposed to be dramatic, it has such a cool origin story, and four complicated characters.  This was my favorite comic series growing up, so it disappoints me to no end that they can't figure it out-perhaps it's that they don't understand the actual characters?  Or that they keep hiring actresses of questionable talent to play Sue Storm (or actors who are way to young to play Reed Richards?).  Whatever the reason, this is surely the final nail in the coffin for the series' big-screen opportunities, so I will just have to console myself with a pile of comic books and at least knowing that Chris Evans and Michael B. Jordan got in spandex for the films (#silversurferlining).

-My love/hate relationship with Ryan Murphy and American Horror Story continued this week.  On the negative side there's Lady Gaga getting what clearly is the central role, playing a wealthy socialite who has an evil plan, a role that feels written for Jessica Lange, and probably would be better played by her.  I don't mind pop stars who cross over to movies (Cher, for example, proved to be an excellent actor and a great addition to the cinema firmament), but Gaga is too earnest and doesn't have any edge, she's just very good at creating catchy pop-I doubt that will change when she gets into acting.  Yet, I loved Finn Wittrock last season and he apparently is playing a coked-out male model, which seems really up my alley in a way I should probably discuss with a therapist, and now he's announced my beloved Darren Criss will be in the show, which I see pretty much everything he is in...ugh, I can't decide-in the comments share if you're a waning AHS fan and if you're coming back to the Hotel.

-I had never heard of this before, but now desperately want to go.  The 'Mostly Lost' Film Festival took place recently at the Library of Congress' Packard campus, where film fans look through fragments of films that historians and critics haven't been able to deduce who the stars are or what the film is.  The attendees shout out clues in the middle of the film to try to figure out through old databases, magazines, and records what the film is to identify it for the library.  If that doesn't sound like the best date idea anyone has ever had, I don't know what does (if you're trying to woo me, get me tickets to this and I'll go).

In Politics...

-Really has there been a politician who had a bigger week than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)?  The presumed next Democratic Leader of the Senate started off with a huge moment for the left, kicking off a new push for gun control legislation in the wake of the shootings in Lafeyette, LA.  He even got his famous cousin Amy to help with getting some press for it on Twitter (Ms. Schumer's film Trainwreck was playing at the time of the shooting).  While Democrats were all abuzz about this new push, Schumer sort of derailed his positive press by going against President Obama on the Iran Nuclear Deal. Both sides were livid, as the White house was hoping to have Schumer delay his announcement as the Obama camp is trying to find as many Democrats as possible in the House and Senate to ensure that the GOP cannot override the veto, while Schumer said it was Obama who leaked his vote to the press.  White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest seemed to think this could jeopardize Schumer's position as leader, and while I don't think it will (Schumer is more popular in the caucus than Obama, thanks in large part to the number of freshmen he helped elect like Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and Al Franken when he headed the DSCC), but I think it should, quite honestly.  This is a huge moment for the Democrats and it couples Schumer not wanting to press for Obamacare a few years ago-his vision for the party isn't grand enough, particularly considering how ambitious the Right has been on their platform.  Dick Durbin has already announced his support of the deal, and Patty Murray is still on the fence but you have to believe will probably go for it.  Both of them should be reconsidered for the top spot in my playbook after Schumer completely rejected such a crucial part of the Democratic agenda.

-I haven't weighed in on the debates because quite frankly I didn't watch them.  The idea of watching FOX News host a bunch of Republicans hyperboling over themselves seemed like about the worst way to spend an evening that I could think of-throw in Donald Trump and I just couldn't.  I will say, though, reading both transcripts and watching clips from the next day, three things.  One, it does appear that FOX News did have a bit of an agenda to knock Donald Trump down a peg.  I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories and Trump clearly went overboard in the days since with his ridiculousness against Megyn Kelly (perhaps one of the few GOP powerhouses in the country he won't be able to take down), but I do think Roger Ailes told the moderators to give him a rougher go than the other candidates.  Secondly, John Kasich's stance on gay marriage is nothing to applaud.  Yes, he may have been the most moderate voice on the subject on that stage, but really-if the best the GOP can do is "I tolerate them with my whole heart" (bravo Tina Fey), then the party is still pretty damn pathetic on gay rights and this should not be accepted.  Rob Murray, Susan Collins, Ilena Ros-Lehtinen-these can be candidates who can be held up as strong examples of gay allies on the Right-not Kasich.  Lastly, the media has gone all over itself congratulating Carly Fiorina on her great performance, but I looked at this and her answers were all style and there wasn't anything particularly strong in her actual stances or remarkable in them.  This seems a bit ridiculous to me-every CEO of a Fortune 500 company could do what she just did-it doesn't mean that she should be president.  When your track record is only that you tanked at Hewlett-Packard and that you bombed in your Senate race (in 2010, no less!), you shouldn't be considered for a White House nomination, period.

-Moody's has accurately predicted every presidential election since 1980, and it came out that they are predicting that the Democrats will win, but only by two electoral college points.  While I do agree this is going to be a nailbiter, and I do think that the Democrats have the slightest of edges still (based on President Obama's popularity, the advantages they have in the Electoral College, and the uncertainty surrounding the GOP's eventual nominee), I do quibble on which states are the "most at risk to switch" list.  I'll buy that Ohio and Florida could both go GOP, but there's no way in hell that Nevada is more at risk than Iowa for the Democrats to lose, or that Minnesota is more likely to switch than Wisconsin or even Michigan.  Plus, New Mexico has consistently been blue in almost every election except governor, which is likely to go Dem in 2020, so again it shouldn't be ahead of Wisconsin, which nearly went for Bush in 2004 and with Scott Walker potentially on the ticket.  Still, good news for the Democrats nonetheless.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-The famed Jon Groff/Sutton Foster stage door photo is everything I always dreamed it would be.


YouTube Video of the Week...

-My single favorite recurring series on YouTube is back: Auguest!  Tyler Oakley's month-long series of collabs started out with the most perfect of guests, Ms. Grace Helbig (see the video below) and has continued with Zoe, Tanya, Joey, Ingrid, and Jenna.  Can't want for next week (and hopefully Marcus & Mamrie!), and am seriously hoping considering the amount of shade that Tyler is getting from Pewdiepie that they end up teaming up (weirdly Tyler hasn't commented yet on Twitter about the videos):

Just One More...

-My new obsession (NASA photos) came out with a doozy this past week, with a random 6000 meter pyramid that is randomly on the side of Ceres.  This is odd principally because it's the only mountain of its kind on Ceres, a dwarf planet between Mars and Jupiter, and there's no early explanation as to why it exists.  Stay tuned...

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

It's that time of the week where we round up all of the stories from the internet that have fascinated me and we haven't discussed yet (or hopefully a few that you weren't even aware of) in "Everybody's Linking for the Weekend!"  Shall we?

On Entertainment...

Michelle Pfeiffer

-In one of the bigger pieces of news this week that I almost missed, Oscar-nominated actress Michelle Pfeiffer will be returning to television after decades away from it, or at least that's what she, Katie Couric, and Diane English (the masterminds behind the show) are hoping.  Nathaniel over at the Film Experience of course had two cents or so on this subject (Pfeiffer being his favorite actress) and I tend to agree with him-why not just go back to making movies?  Pfeiffer is notoriously stingy with her cinematic output, and unless this is a TV movie or miniseries, why would she make a giant return to acting only for it be on the small screen?  She's only done one lead role this decade, which is insanity (plus, it was in that horrible-looking The Family with Robert de Niro).  Go back to your roots and make some big screen magic instead.

-Proving that Maleficent and Cinderella were just the tips of the iceberg, Disney is now planning a live-action film of Mulan.  This comes off of production news that most of the cast of Beauty and the Beast is set (including my beloved Audra McDonald as a side character).  While I think this constantly mining the same well is eventually going to hurt Disney, they've still got quite a few classics to go before that happens ($20 says The Little Mermaid is announced by year's end).  I actually think this could be interesting as Mulan has a lot of battle sequences, but please for the love of God don't have a white-washing incident with this film where they cast a white actor to play a part intended for an Asian.  You think I'm kidding, but it still happens in 2015 (just look at Rooney Mara and Princess Tiger Lily in Pan).

-Manoel de Oliveira, the world's oldest filmmaker and one of the last stars of a Silent Era movie, has passed away at the age of 106.

On Politics...

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)

-Minnesota politicians (my home state) seem to be continually in the news this week.  Probably the funniest and most pleasant story of the bunch was Sen. Franken on Letterman this past week, who amidst a conversation about the disastrous religious freedom bill in Indiana, said that Letterman should consider a run for the US Senate in the Hoosier State.  While I think certain things in Dave's past would preclude him from winning, I said the same thing about Al and I could not have been more wrong (I have grown extremely fond of him, particularly the way he handles politics in a way similar to Bill Clinton, frequently trying to make it through without cheap political points or soundbytes, a truly odd trait from a man whose forte was in comedy and radio).  His fellow senator Amy Klobuchar is giving back her donations from Bob Menendez, whom we profiled earlier this week, and appears to be Senator 1 in the indictments against Menendez (for the record, Senator 1 is not accused of any criminal wrongdoing).  It'll be interesting to see if any other Democrats return their contributions from Menendez's PAC, though Klobuchar, who announced that she's releasing a memoir just in-time for the Iowa Straw Poll, may have other ideas in mind and want to avoid a scandal entirely.  I could also chronicle the ridiculousness of Michele Bachmann, but thankfully she doesn't hold office in the state anymore so I won't bother with her.

-Roll Call took a look at 2016, which they are already dubbing the Year of the Rematch, which is something that's hard to disagree with considering the number of candidates seeking out another bout.  While it's not usually advisable to go with someone whom the district already rejected (they're a proven loser, as unkind as that is to say), these are some pretty quality candidates all-around and most of them probably would have won in better cycles than 2010 and 2014.  I do always find it funny that each party has the same reaction to these sorts of situations, with the repeat challenger being tagged a "proven vote-getter" and the incumbent tagging them a "rejected loser."  This is particularly funny from the Republicans, who have people like Pat Toomey, Bob Dold, and Frank Guinta potentially running in these races, all of whom were rejected by voters before they held office.  Politics: land of a thousand inane talking points.

-Everyone in the Senate is trying to guess what Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) is up to, and what her intentions are in the wake of Sen. Chuck Schumer's move to be Democratic leader come 2017.  Like I suspect Sen. Murray is, I'm torn on what direction she should go.  Part of me wants her to run for the spot; Sen. Durbin has been in office forever and quite frankly it's time to get some new blood in leadership, particularly in the Senate where senators like Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin seem restless, a critical issue since they're vitally important to getting to 51 seats for the Democrats.  The other part of me wonders if it's a great idea for us to completely roll-over Dick Durbin, who has done a decent job as Whip and with keeping a very coordinated caucus for the past decade or so.  If I had to pick right at this second, I'd say Murray should go for it but I might change my mind tomorrow.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

I get into the real appeal of Snapchat.

YouTube Video of the Week...

I love that the official Oscars channel on YouTube has put the Streaker video on the channel!  Even if you've seen David Niven and Elizabeth Taylor's reactions a thousand times, it's still worth catching (Linda Blair's reaction to Niven's famous "shortcomings" joke is awesomely robust).

Just One More...

-This could technically qualify under the entertainment bucket, but it felt more like news of the world and art news specifically.  Robert Schoenberg, who is played by Ryan Reynolds in the new film Women in Gold, recounts several different artworks that are still in court over their rightful owners after being stolen during World War II by the Nazis.  One of the paintings you will remember famously from the opening credits of Desperate Housewives.