'Beggars of Life' was seen for two primary reasons, other than my love of classic film of course. One was Louise Brooks, a luminous and powerful presence who sadly didn't transition that well to sound, but when there were directors that knew what her strengths were and used them to full advantage (especially GW Pabst) she was magnetic. The other was director William A Wellman, known for his uncompromising approach to difficult subjects.
Although Wellman may have done better films than 'Beggars of Life' overall, it is to me Brooks' best American film and among her better ones overall. 'Beggars of Life' may not be perfect in the pacing, but both Brooks and Wellman are represented very well indeed. As is Wallace Beery, not always a fan of his but he certainly gave fine performances. On the most part, 'Beggars of Life' was a very good film that started off excellently but lost its way later on.
Will start off with the many things that 'Beggars of Life' does incredibly well. It looks great with photography that is stylish with some inventive angles, the lighting has a nice moody atmosphere. The film was shot on locations and the locations themselves are remarkably evocative and not stagy at all, especially the railways. Wellman creates a lot of strong atmosphere, especially in the tense train action and the first half an hour, and nothing about the subject is sugar-coated or anything.
The film starts off brilliantly, with a startling opening and the chemistry between Brooks and Richard Arlen charms and intrigues. The ending is satisfying and didn't feel too neat. A typically photogenic looking Brooks is excellent, being intense and moving, showing that there were other directors besides Pabst that knew her strengths and made the most of them because that's what Wellman did. Arlen is youthful and sympathetic, and Beery really livens things up when he enters the picture without being hammy.
For all those great things, 'Beggars of Life' falls short of being flawless. The middle does tend to drag and doesn't have the meaty, explosive quality of the brilliant first third.
Did feel that a few scenes, especially the trial, suffered from being overlong and from being too silly.
On the whole though, very good. 8/10
Although Wellman may have done better films than 'Beggars of Life' overall, it is to me Brooks' best American film and among her better ones overall. 'Beggars of Life' may not be perfect in the pacing, but both Brooks and Wellman are represented very well indeed. As is Wallace Beery, not always a fan of his but he certainly gave fine performances. On the most part, 'Beggars of Life' was a very good film that started off excellently but lost its way later on.
Will start off with the many things that 'Beggars of Life' does incredibly well. It looks great with photography that is stylish with some inventive angles, the lighting has a nice moody atmosphere. The film was shot on locations and the locations themselves are remarkably evocative and not stagy at all, especially the railways. Wellman creates a lot of strong atmosphere, especially in the tense train action and the first half an hour, and nothing about the subject is sugar-coated or anything.
The film starts off brilliantly, with a startling opening and the chemistry between Brooks and Richard Arlen charms and intrigues. The ending is satisfying and didn't feel too neat. A typically photogenic looking Brooks is excellent, being intense and moving, showing that there were other directors besides Pabst that knew her strengths and made the most of them because that's what Wellman did. Arlen is youthful and sympathetic, and Beery really livens things up when he enters the picture without being hammy.
For all those great things, 'Beggars of Life' falls short of being flawless. The middle does tend to drag and doesn't have the meaty, explosive quality of the brilliant first third.
Did feel that a few scenes, especially the trial, suffered from being overlong and from being too silly.
On the whole though, very good. 8/10