1930s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

[knives]

The Spanish movie was shot on the same set, but at night and used a translated version of the script. It's van Sant Psycho level of interest for a contrast and compare.

[Mr Sausage]

It's also a good thirty minutes longer, and includes material and subplots that were cut from the American version.

The Spanish version is better crafted, for sure, but it also shows just how necessary Lugosi's performance was to Dracula's success. Carlos Villarias' performance is full of grinning and eye bulging; he plays Dracula as a conventional monster. The movie is less effective as a result. It's too bad they didn't just have Karl Freund direct Dracula (or at least have gotten Browning to show some interest).

[matrixschmatrix]

The commentary suggests that a lot of the talkier scenes practically weren't directed at all- I think it said the actor who played Harker claimed never to have had worked with Browning on set, and everything for about 40 minutes after the movie gets to England feels like both Browning and Freund just plunked the camera down and then went off to have a smoke (specifically, there's a scene with a piece of cardboard blocking a lamp that was obviously intended for a lighting effect, and which should never have been visible. Normally I think getting excited about continuity gaffes and such is silly, but this thing is on screen for like two full minutes, in three or four different shots- it's less a mistake and more an indication that nobody really gave a shit.)

There are a few shots where Freund was obviously given some leeway, but overall it's definitely a 'historical interest' movie- it's hard to see why people were so taken with it, but given what that led to I'm glad they were.

I'm excited to watch The Mummy now, as every reminder I get of what Freund could do makes me want to see more of his work.

[knives]

The Mummy is fantastic and it's basically what would've happened if more than Lugosi and Frye cared about Dracula. It's also the first of the horror films to give Karloff, who's great, a speaking role. Don't forget to try to get to the sequels for most of these films though. Especially in the case of Dracula that's where things shine.

[colinr0380]

Ah yes, then we can discuss the lesbian (sub)text of Dracula's Daughter!

[knives]

When it's as unsubtle as that I don't think you need the (sub).

[Tommaso]

Thanks for the France round-up, Lubitsch. While I do like many of the films/directors you dismiss, I actually also like a lot of those you recommend.

And since we are at obscure features I'd like to mention the few emigre features I thought are really good though Siodmak's Pieges features a radiant Marie Dea and would belong in this lineup, too. They are Fejös' Marie legende hongroise (technically a Hungarian film), Litvak's Mayerling and Otsep's Amok and towering above all of them Ophüls' Werther. Fejös and Otsep display a deliciously sensual texture being masters of the silents soaking their films in Sternbergesque atmosphere. Mayerling is a surprisingly touchingly film not the least thanks to Danielle Darrieux' quietly forceful performance. Werther is finally a really briliant adaptation of Goethe's novel, subtly enhancing its strengths with camera and decor, but also with simple changes, e.g. in the novel Werther shoots himself in his house while Ophüls shifts the place logically out into nature which Werther loves so much.

I already praised Fejös' Marie legende hongroise in this thread, I think, though I may have used the international title Spring Shower. EDIT: Yes, I did. In any case, this is currently #15 on my list, and I still think it's a truly striking, semi-hypnotic film that has about 20 lines of dialogue all in all, so this is basically a silent and can be enjoyed by anyone (just because there are no subs around). Mayerling is also on my list, while Amok is still on the kevyip. But I've just finished watching Werther, and can only add to the praise. It does away with all the kitschy romanticism this story easily invites and still is emotionally very captivating; Pierre-Richard Wilm's performance in the title role and even more so Annie Vernay's as Charlotte are entirely convincing. And visually this is great; especially the outdoor scenes are strikingly photographed. Couldn't help thinking of Powell occasionally... Also, Werther reminded me a lot of the best German films of the time with a historical setting (needless to say, I share the praise for Robison's version of Der Student von Prag ), but Ophuls' truly masterly direction - without obvious 'flourishes', but he just does everything perfectly right - adds yet another quality here. Definitely by far the greatest of all the French Ophuls films of the 30s, now that "Sans Lendemain" is no longer eligible. And the only question it poses is which of the films on my already so nicely formed list I should drop to include this one...

[Mr Sausage]

Ah yes, then we can discuss the lesbian (sub)text of Dracula's Daughter!

I'm surprised this one hasn't got much attention yet. Second best lesbian vampire movie ever made.

[matrixschmatrix]

So, I'm watching Happiness, and I think I'm going to vote for it on the general principle of "anything that gives me nightmares is worth voting for", but- I don't know what kind of a thing I'm looking at. If you took the social critique of Chaplin, left out the pathos, and heightened everything until the eternal logic hung together by a thread, you'd be close- the satire on capitalism beats you over the head so thoroughly that it turns on itself and begins to mean almost nothing.

I don't consistently know where the movie is being symbolic and where it's just being strange- particularly, I don't know if Anna's superhuman strength is meant to represent Russian women generally, some kind of abstract concept, a way of emasculating Khmyr, or just an odd joke, and the movie's whole viewpoint gets less readable once we get to the collective farm- there seems to be some kind of critique going on, but damned if I can read it (Khmyr has been broken by the shittiness of way he was treated by the tsarist system, and needs to be reintegrated? The remnants of the old system are at fault for everything that goes wrong, and have to be rooted out? People who aren't led by kickass Anna are pretty much 100% awful?) and but it's interesting that our peasant stand-in has such a difficult time adapting to collectivism, and remains kind of a loser to the end. In any case, it seems silly to worry too much about it, as I think the message is largely an excuse for the insane images.

And yeah, the baby soldiers are freaky as hell.

[masterofoneinchpunch]

I watched Smart Money (1931) last night which is the only apparent costarring of Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney and it reminded me that I wrote something on a later Cagney film that I liked much more (and I didn't find anything written about it in this thread):

Lady Killer (1933: Roy Del Ruth):

Few films deserve the moniker “underrated” as usually there is a following of everything from the sublime to the ridiculous. It certainly was a very good year for James Cagney who also starred in Footlight Parade (another film I would put in my top 50) before starring in this gangster comedy. I think The Public Enemy is overall a greater film, but this film seems to not have some of the issues with performance (especially speaking) that film had trouble with (with a big exception that Leslie Fenton had a better performance in the older film; though here he is playing a stock character).

Cagney plays Dan Quigley an Irish reprobate who first gets fired as a movie usher (the opening scene looks quite similar to an opening one in The Bellboy, though with less Jerry Lewis), joins a gang in New York as an unofficial leader, gets into trouble and finds himself in Los Angeles and eventually into the movies. With his new founded success he finds himself the target of his old hoodlum friends. For a movie that clocks in at 75 minutes a lot happens and I won’t spoil the plot here (I’ll wait to do that if I write a more proper review).

Pre-code behavior is in full effect in this film. The violence against Mae Clark here including the great hair pulling scene makes the grapefruit scene in The Public Enemy look quite a bit tamer (which also happened to Clark; there is an in joke to this as well). The low cut dresses would not be shown again for a few decades as well. Then there is the breast kiss which surprised me as well.

The direction of Roy Del Ruth is quite good, but it was not too surprising. I thought he did quite a good job with the original The Maltese Falcon (1931) and Gold Diggers of Broadway (1929). The acting in this is good even though it is neither a straight comedy nor a straight gangster picture. It works well as a hybrid though I think that has confused a few reviewers on how to approach this film.

If all you have seen of Cagney is his serious gangster roles, I think you will get a kick out of this.

I have to recommend a few other early films that deal with Hollywood. Watch these and think of any similarities to Lady Killer. Movie Crazy (1932) is not only my favorite Harold Lloyd talkie but one of my favorite comedies of the 1930s. Also since I’m a W.C. Fields fans I recommend Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941) which is a great spoof on all of the talking pictures.

[domino harvey]

However, how else can you describe Lady Killer?

"Horrible"? I can't share your enthusiasm for the film as a whole, but the opening sections showing the geography of the old movie palaces admittedly hold some interest

[Tommaso]

Thanks to the tireless efforts of imdb, we have a brand new 1932 Marlene Dietrich effort eligible for this list: Gefahren der Brautzeit, directed by Fred Sauer and co-starring Willi Forst. But hey: didn't she go to the US in 1930 and made all her films of the time with a certain Josef von Sternberg? So if you wonder why you've never heard of it and even more why it's silent, have a guess....

Spoiler

of course it's a 1929 film, and it's not bad at all.

[knives]

I have a sneaking suspicion that if I had seen more French comedies this round that's all that my list would be. While not as good as Le Schpountz Bernard's Anne-Marie is still a wonderful and great experience. It has an immense heart and well everything I have said about the former film.

The one thing that makes this film standout is it's bizarre sort of proto-feminism. I suppose that's inherent to any story involving a female engineer learning to fly so that she can beat a distance record. The male characters (none of which have names) are so stupid and casual in their misogyny that their moments of positive action, which is the catalyst for the plot, all the more sincere. For instance in one scene one of the pilot's is baby talking to her and flirting so she bluntly reminds him of her occupation which causes him to pause and think for a few seconds before returning.

[matrixschmatrix]

So the Bride of Frankenstein is kind of weirdly all over the place for most of the beginning- the characterization of the creature is really inconsistent, going from showing him in a sympathetic light were he does evil things by accident to him killing people for no reason whatsoever (or even offscreen), the plot tosses in some really strange elements (the doll people), Frankenstein himself does a borderline Stan Daniels turn in rushing to go back to mad science ("I won't! It was evil! I won't! Oh, ok.") and the whole thing feels like it's acknowledging the fact that a sequel to Frankenstein doesn't actually make a lot of sense.

It started to turn around in the scene with the old man in the cottage- the monster finally gets at least a little of the self-motivation and intelligence he had in the book (and Karloff's little sitting dance is awesome), his characterization gets straightened out, and the plot begins to cohere. The visuals come alive, and everything rushes together, until get to the lab at the end, where we're in Metropolis territory, just an orgy of strange set design, canted angles, extreme shadows, and great sound design. The ending is a little weak- the monster should never forgive Frankenstein- but the "we belong dead" line is fantastic, and makes up for it nicely.

There seemed to be something really strange in the characterization of Pretorious- was he supposed to be a necrophile, or what?

[knives]

I think he's just strange. The movie's mostly a really campy comedy with a weird heart at it's center too. It's kind of like a John Waters film with a slight dramatic bent.

[matrixschmatrix]

Ok, well I'm glad I'm not the only one to find it funny- it certainly made pretty much everyone from the original look like a jackass.

I actually did find the part in the beginning with Una O'Connor talking about the fire as though she were in a movie audience really gratifying- not only was it an interesting piece of metafiction to go along with the (deeply strange) "Mary Shelly changes the story" prologue, but reaffirms that we're not supposed to be on the torch mob's side in the first movie. I get the feeling that in the first one, Whale saw that scene as being pretty fucked up too (the comparisons to a lynch mob are unavoidable) but didn't have a lot of influence over the script- Bride feels like it has a lot more personality.

[knives]

Bride was Whale being given cate-blanche to do whatever he wanted as long as they could sell Fankenstein and it was just him getting his theatrical friends together to goof off. I suppose you could say it is the Ocean's 12 of it's day. Those meta bits you picked up are sprinkled throughout the movie which also seems to have a duplicity complex. Not only does the wonderful Elsa Lanchester play both Mary Shelly and the Bride, but the murdered in the first movie Dwight Frye returns as a completely unrelated character.

Along with those and other odd story flourishes it's simply and unbelievably gorgeous with great gothic design and bizarre lighting. I'm reminded of Edvard Munch with the look of the film which probably also ties into it's half joking religious poking. The reason I call it half joking is that all this christian symbolism seems like just an other element to the look. It doesn't serve the story or any of the themes, but it makes the scenes pop.

[matrixschmatrix]

Is Frye the assistant the monster hucks off the tower for no particular reason, or does he live through this one?

I noticed that it was Shelly playing the Bride- I wasn't sure if that was meant to be some kind of a comment about the actual Mary Shelly or if it was just more fucking around- but her little bit at the end pretty well lived up to the hype you get throughout. I enjoyed that her famous fright wig is a.) totally unmotivated and b.) clearly couldn't possibly fit under the bandages that had been wrapped around her head. All the science stuff is much less purposeful in this one, too, and it's much clearer that the movie considers it all pretty much magic in any case. I loved the bit with the magical talking over distances device- I should have realized at that point that the whole thing was kind of a lark.

It's funny that this was a lot of fun (once I got on to its wavelength) but I really can't fucking take Ocean's 12. Maybe it'll seem funny 70 years from now.

[knives]

That's him. Frye just can't live to the end of a movie. My favorite part to a lot of these old movies is how they'll think of something, say fuck it, and just throw it in. Not only is science magic here, but so is logic.

[Mr Sausage]

So the Bride of Frankenstein is kind of weirdly all over the place for most of the beginning- the characterization of the creature is really inconsistent, going from showing him in a sympathetic light were he does evil things by accident to him killing people for no reason whatsoever (or even offscreen)

This is actually the result of cuts by the studio. Those people dead in the house were originally to have been killed by the Dwight Frye character, who blames theirs deaths on the monster to get away with it. This subplot was cut out and you're left to assume the monster actually did it.

[matrixschmatrix]

Ah, that actually makes a lot of sense. Although the old man and woman the monster kills at the beginning still seem kind of inexplicable (the reveal of him sitting in the water below the burned tower is amazing, though.)

[Mr Sausage]

Ah, that actually makes a lot of sense. Although the old man and woman the monster kills at the beginning still seem kind of inexplicable (the reveal of him sitting in the water below the burned tower is amazing, though.)

In what way? They were just part of a mob that had tried to kill the monster by burning him to death (and have clearly injured him badly). Seems pretty obvious to me that the monster, much like an animal, would be angry and dangerous and disinclined to show sympathy.

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, you could make a case for the old man- though he wasn't showing any overt menace at the time, he was at least pretty clearly going down there on the attack- but the old woman hadn't done anything beyond help the creature up. The creature wasn't actively in pain or being attacked, so I don't think that one was a situation of animal fear and anger.

I don't recall, does he kill people out of anger much in the first movie? The ones that come to mind are mostly accidents, but it's been a while.

[colinr0380]

It has been a while since I last watched the original Frankenstein as well but were there supposed to be a couple of different versions of the girl being killed, or surviving, in the first Frankenstein? (I seem to remember the monster throwing her in the lake to see if she will float). By the way The Quatermass Xperiment homages this scene, featuring a young Jane Asher in the girl's role!

And then, following the novel, I think there is Henry Frankenstein's bride to be who the monster murders in her boudoir, even though she hadn't really done anything to warrant the attack!

[Mr Sausage]

Well, you could make a case for the old man- though he wasn't showing any overt menace at the time, he was at least pretty clearly going down there on the attack- but the old woman hadn't done anything beyond help the creature up. The creature wasn't actively in pain or being attacked, so I don't think that one was a situation of animal fear and anger.

I don't recall, does he kill people out of anger much in the first movie? The ones that come to mind are mostly accidents, but it's been a while.

She screamed at him, so he threw her down into the ruins, almost out of annoyance. At that point, he'd been through so much fear, pain, and anguish that I frankly don't see why this would be out of character.

Anyway, in the first one the monster hangs Fritz due to being tormented by him, and nearly murders Henry right after that before the drug Waldmen injects him with kicks in. He kills Waldman later when the latter is preparing to dissect the monster, although that one is fairly cold-blooded.