1930s_Time_Machine Reviews

Madam Satan (1930)

I'm sure Rita Ora wore that outfit?

[7/10 · 19 June 2024]

Although Cecil B DeMille is associated with ponderous, pompous serious epics, as he showed with this, he had a sense of humour and could make a fun filled light comedy. This is a great little - well big spectacular - romantic comedy.

DeMille fans didn't like this because it wasn't what they expected from him. A lot of modern reviewers consider this over-blown and just weird but I honestly thought it was genuinely witty and entertaining. The majority of pictures from 1929/1930 are pretty awful - they're stagey, static affairs but this is clearly made by someone who knew exactly how to make a talking picture. If you're familiar with films from this time of transition, you'll find this a breed apart.

Besides The Marx Brothers and of course Laurel and Hardy, It takes an awful lot for me to find something so old funny but this actually did make me laugh. It's neither full of pitiful puerile slapstick and childish humour nor is it so sophisticated such as DINNER AT EIGHT that its description as being a comedy is baffling. Madam Satan is a mature, grown up amusing and eventually exciting comedy. It's not just some interesting old curio - it's something which can still be enjoyed.

The story however is most definitely not one which could be made today. We have a husband who tells his wife that she's boring and he doesn't try to hide the fact he has a young floozy mistress. So she hatches a plan to win him back, resulting at one point in him being outraged that she might have been seeing another man. That he is a blatant adulterer is seen as completely normal and actually celebrated by his friends. But that the slightest hint that she may have innocently met another man is viewed as utterly outrageous and disgracefully scandalous. Sounds like something written by man? No, this was written by women - we certainly all thought very differently back then!

The plot could only exist in a comedy, it's absolutely ridiculous but in the capable hands of Mr DeMille it all seems perfectly feasible when you're watching it - except if you think about it - but because it's so enthralling at the time, you don't have a moment to think about what nonsense it actually is.

Besides the archaic attitudes, some of the acting is a little 'silent movie' at times. Reginald Denny's acting style doesn't quite work, his over-theatrical delivery is like a mix between Robin Hood and Rick Mayall's Flasheart in BLACK ADDER. Fortunately he's tempered by the wonderfully natural persona of the ever witty and charming Roland Young. The floozy is Lillian Roth who's very amusing as an exaggerated caricature of herself. The genius piece of casting however is Kay Johnson.

The first part of the film is Miss Johnson introducing herself to us. We get to know her perfectly, she's a fairly plain looking but pleasant upper class sophisticated society lady. We understand that she's very refined, slightly repressed, prim and proper and above all respectable. When she subsequently becomes Madam Satan in that Rita Ora outfit we the audience are amazed, shocked and ecstatic for her. Because we know her so well, this transformation is incredibly sexy. We're with her cheering her on all the way and a hundred percent on her side - we're even hoping she wins back her pig of a husband!

Although it's a bit 1920s at times, if you love classic early thirties movies you'll like this. It feels newer than something that was made at the birth of the talkies.

Hips, Hips, Hooray! (1934)

Hips, Legs, Bums and Boobs - Hooray!

[2/10 · 18 June 2024]

If you were unfortunate to have been around in the 1970s, you'll think you're watching one of those dreadful so-called British sex comedies again but on an old black and white TV....and it being even less funny than you remember they were.

It's utter tripe and a real struggle to get through. Wheeler and Woolsey are virtually forgotten these days for the very good reason that they were absolutely appalling. There was so much good comedy around in the early thirties that it makes no sense to us that these two were allowed into a studio to make pictures. Woolsey thinks he's Groucho Marx but has as much humour as Karl Marx and Wheeler inexplicably thinks he's funny as well. Did people really pay money to watch this drivel? Wasn't The Depression bad enough for them that they had to suffer this as well?

So why in the name of all that's holy did I put myself through a whole hour of this? I confess - it's because there are a profusion of pictures on the internet associated with this film of very saucy young ladies wearing very little. OK, I admit that I'm shallow but I paid dearly for my sins by having to endure Wheeler and Woolsey for an hour. There are indeed quite a lot of very pretty young ladies wearing very little and in some cases, although obscured by some clever camera angles, wearing nothing at all. Unlike those smutty 70's comedies, the naked and near naked ladies scenes are actually presented in a very artistic and tasteful way. Those scenes are not in any way whatsoever tacky or crude although they were clearly designed as a safe substitute for soft porn so that respectable husbands could have gone to respectable cinemas along with their respectable wives.

If you're a red blooded male - but one who had led a very sheltered life, you'll definitely get quite a few hubba, hubba moments out of this! Overall however it's not a sexy film and the reason for that is that all of those gorgeous models are there just as decoration, they're not actual characters in the film, consequently they don't have personalities so they're not real people. Looks are nice - very nice in this case - but it's personalities not pretty faces which are genuinely appealing. It reminded me of another dreadful 1934 film MURDER AT THE VANITIES which again had dozens of scantily clad ladies who were also detached from the main narrative so are essentially just dimensionless cartoons - and not a cartoon like Jessica Rabbit - hubba, hubba again!

Besides its moments of 'glorifying the American girl,' as they said, the rest of the picture is the insufferable duo under the misguided delusion that they're being funny rather than behaving like five year old children. Thelma Todd and Dorothy Lee are pleasant enough but don't add much to this film - and incidentally, don't wear any of the racy costumes either....and talking of racy, the last ten minutes of this is a tedious car race across the country like Whacky Races but without Dick Dastardly or indeed any jokes.

Corsair (1931)

It's not one of West's best films but it's still pretty good.

[6/10 · 16 June 2024]

This is really enjoyable. Its low IMDb rating is mainly because it's compared with Roland West's other two 'masterpieces.' It's not a great picture but if you like early thirties movies, you'll like this - it's still one of the better films of 1931.

Roland West was unquestionably a genius in terms of pushing the boundaries of the filmmaking technology to the limits and beyond. His first two sound features, the fabulous ALIBI and the interesting THE BAT WHISPERS were amongst the most outstanding and impressive very early talkies. His technical skill is also evident with this one but there's a problem. By 1931 other talented directors had caught up with him in terms of technical prowess and these seemed to understand what movies now needed to be. It wasn't enough just to be a technical genius, a director needed to get his actors to be real people.

Although in terms of imaginative camera angles and innovative fluidity conveying action, Mr West's direction is superb but his direction of his actors simply doesn't make them come alive to us . Like you find in a lot of films from the very early days of the talkies, the dialogue is horribly stilted with each actor saying their lines with the next one waiting in turn to say theirs. This however is not from the very early days of the talkies - it seems at times like you're watching a film from 1929. His style doesn't seem to have moved from the 20s to the 30s.

ALIBI immersed you a wonderful expressionist dream world. BAT purposely had a theatrical feel where stagey acting worked in that particular context. This however is meant to be realistic and Mr West doesn't quite manage to create that sense of reality. His leads played by Chester Morris and Thelma Todd are fascinating characters but we don't get to know them. Why they're the way they are is absolutely intriguing so you desperately want to know why they're like that and what makes them tick. In the hands of a more modern (well for 1931!) director, the characters' personalities are emotions could have been explored but West, the silent movie genius now seems like yesterday's man.

Possibly this turgidity was hampered by his choice of leads because his supporting actors are really good in this. He actually gets great natural performances from Ned Sparks and surprisingly even from Mayo Methot - in fact if these had been given the leads, this might have been a classic. Frank McHugh is also in this - looking younger than ever and as always, he's great fun.

Chester Morris however is completely unauthentic and out of his depth as the good guy who turns into a ruthless gangster (that role would have been ideal for Ricardo Cotez or even Fredric March but that's by the by). Thelma Todd might be fine as a foil in comedies but she's definitely not cut out as a dramatic leading lady (Mr West was of course somewhat enamoured with her at the time).

The poor characterisation of Morris and Todd doesn't however make this a bad film - it's actually head and shoulders above a lot of films from 1931. It's exciting, full of clever twists, it's beautifully put together and will keep you watching - it's just that you feel it should be a lot better.

The Bat Whispers (1930)

I wish it was as entertaining as it is interesting

[4/10 · 15 June 2024]

Doesn't quite work today just as something to enjoy but it's fascinating because of its technical innovations and how it puts you into the mind of someone from 1930. You wouldn't watch this yourself but somehow it appeals to your 1930 entertainment gene.

Apparently Roland West's earlier silent version of this was an expressionistic masterpiece with crazy sets, long shadows and wacky angles. For his talkie version he toned his artistic inclinations right down in order to just tell the story. It is therefore mundane and pedestrian for Mr West but compared with the majority of pictures made in 1930, this is like being on the Holodeck of the Starship Enterprise!

Ignoring what should be the crippling restrictions of early sound cameras compared with the old mobile silent equipment, Roland West gives us swooping camera shots with the fluidly and action you'd find in the best of the silent movies. And to give himself a proper challenge he uses two cameras at the same time to make a widescreen picture!

Yes, wide-screen. Before The Depression put a stop to such expensive indulgences, Fox, RKO and Warners had all invested in wide-screen technology. UA debuted their own system, called MagniFilm with this. Not only was this wide-screen, but featured panning, close up zooms, special effects and time lapse editing - nothing new to us now but these were all absolutely brand new concepts in a 1930 talking picture. This was Roland West at his most imaginative and inventive. Audiences in 1930 would be amazed by this...well those who could see it but since most cinemas weren't equipped show wide screen films, hardly anyone did.

Considering when this was made, technically it's absolutely outstanding. Unfortunately, despite its brilliant production, it's not a great story! Unlike West's first sound film, ALIBI which had an exciting contemporary story, this isn't as accessible to a modern audience. It's essentially a filmed stage play. (If you haven't already, watch ALIBI, if you've bothered to read about this one, you'll love that one)

Both films transport you back to 1929 but whereas ALIBI gives you a glimpse into what people were like in 1929, this gives you a glimpse into what people in 1929 enjoyed. You're not being fed a vision of 1930, not being shown what it was like then, you're given an insight into their minds, being shown what people then found fun. These types of murder mysteries in country houses with over exaggerated stereotypes (and in this case a very annoying 'comedy' maid) were massively popular of the late 1920s and this a a good example of the genre. Unfortunately it's not a genre which anyone today would find that entertaining. Nevertheless, it's just about watchable but more interesting as a curiosity than a film.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

it's one of the most famous films ever for a reason!

[9/10 · 14 June 2024]

And it's not because of The Simpsons version with Lisa's poem: Cesspool on the Potomac! A million words have been written about this wonderful hard-hitting if somewhat simplified satire on corruption yet ultimately optimistic film which I don't need to add to.

....but I will.

It's the film which made Jimmy Stewart a superstar.

It's the film which (with the exception of GONE WITH THE WIND) more people saw and made more money than any other film in the whole decade.

It's the film which will bring tears to your eyes when you hear Lincoln's address spoken - even though you might not even be American!

It's the film which might even make you proud to be an American - again even if you're not American and the only time you visited there you thought it was noisy a bit dirty and the bacon wasn't right.

It's the film with Guy Kibbee in it where he's not called Pop.

It's the film you can watch over and over again because each time you do it gets even better.

If however you're someone who might use the expression: 'sickly over sentimental nonsense where all the rich people and all politicians are stereotypically nasty, the press are 100% evil cynical life destroying monsters but the good ole' boy from the back woods is the only man in Washington with a kind and pure heart' then maybe this film isn't for you. But then again, if you are a cynical pessimistic misery-guts, possibly even a journalist - between eating babies, maybe after watching this, you'll be leaping around the park like Mr Banks singing: Let's Go Fly a Kite! I'm actually only half-joking: this really is one of those pictures which after you've watched it seriously makes you feel better and makes you want to be better! Basically, If you liked PADDINGTON, you'll like this.

Whilst it's utterly enthralling, the actual story is completely stupid - really stupid: He wouldn't get elected in the first place.

Why couldn't he build his boy scout camp on the other side of the river?

What's that proposal got to do with the US Senate anyway?

How did all those newspapers get printed and protest marches happen during just those first few hours?

How could he speak for 24 hours without going to the toilet!

The magic of this film is that none of that matters. Whilst you're watching this you're transported to another world, a magical world where you believe anything and everything. Maybe you believe that world is real because you want to believe it's real - because you want to believe in a world which can be made better just by being a better person?

It's all the more remarkable because this wasn't originally a Frank Capra film. It was nearly a Rouben Mamoulian picture (which might also have been brilliant) so Mr Capra inherited the project from someone else along with a story not written by his usual partner, Robert Riskin. (It's by Lewis Foster - who?) So what we have here is Capra on his own - maybe a little less humorous, maybe the little subtle in showing the little guy against the big guy theme but Capra's almost unique skill in making his protagonist's challenges and struggles your challenges and struggles - and always, ultimately your victory too is never better exhibited than in this.

Loyalties (1933)

Makes you glad you weren't around then

[5/10 · 12 June 2024]

You'd probably think that you don't want to see this. It's not much fun but you'll be glad you've seen it once. It's a well made picture with a laudable message and once you get past those weird accents, you'll actually find it really quite gripping.

What a horrible bunch of people! What an awful artificial stiff upper lip world they have created for themselves. Everyone is vile - even Basil Rathbone and he's the hero. It's rare that you find a film without any likeable people in it whatsoever and that makes this quite difficult to engage with. It wouldn't have course have been made if society toffs like those depicted in this film didn't actually exist. It does therefore give us a fascinating glimpse into a society which fortunately no longer exists.

It's a rather dry and worthy film but is nevertheless addictively watchable. Directed by the famously humourless tyrant of England's early thirties film industry Basil Dean, he injects absolutely no light relief in it at all. One gets the sense that Mr Dean saw this a far too serious a subject for anyone to even think about smiling in it. It is nevertheless an excellent story and Mr Dean does tell it effectively and by using a technique of restrained sustained release of outrage, he evokes in us an escalating sense of anger.

Racism is certainly not just a thing of the past but it's shocking to see it expressed so blatantly as though it's normal - especially by the upper classes. These days we don't expect to encounter such explicit bigotry from 'the ruling classes' so hearing such attitudes coming from those stiff polished accents is somewhat unnerving. That this was normal is really quite shocking. It's an intelligent and clever little film - one you'll remember.

Alibi (1929)

If he could make such a good film in 1929, why couldn't others?

[6/10 · 12 June 2024]

If you don't know who Roland West was, after watching this you'll immediately want to see his other work. He pushes the boundaries of the technology of the time to make an outstanding work of art that's still reasonably entertaining even today.

It's obviously apparent that this was made at the time when talking pictures were just being invented but Roland West was not one to be inhibited by the limitations of what logic told him was possible. Aficionados of early talkies will be aware that most 1929 films were pretty awful. With a handful of notable exceptions, they were frequently stagey and static populated by actors seemingly utterly incapable of acting and talking at the same time. This isn't just one of the rare exceptions but an imaginative and beautiful piece of popular entertainment.

Compared with the more "normal" style of acting which we'd see in a year or so, the style of acting here hadn't quite evolved. That stilted and affected style however actually works really well with this picture by enhancing the other worldliness and the feeling of disconnect the characters have from each other and society in general. The mood Mr West creates heavily influenced by German expressionism is an edgy uncomfortable blend of realism juxtaposed with surrealism. It's definitely however not just an exercise in style - this has an abundance of substance too. You soon acclimatise to the acting style, it isn't bad just different although to be honest, Eleanor Griffith isn't good, Regis Toomey is a bit annoying and I'm afraid that to me Mae Busch will always be Oliver Hardy's wife!

Despite the understandable limitations of the production, what's unusual for a 1929 film is that it really engages your mind and immerses your thoughts in its themes. You question who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The police and the criminals aren't black and white - they're all pretty black. What this film then does is punch you in the stomach by making you realise that you were wrong. As it progresses you almost start to side with the criminals, you totally empathise with 'Joan' as she sides with them but then suddenly you realise how wrong you were as the bad guys show their true colours. It's rare for such an old talkie to play with your mind this cleverly.

These days a big topic of conversation is: 'can we trust the police.' Historically trusting the police isn't really a natural state of affairs. There seemed to be a golden age of trusting the Bobby maybe in the fifties but certainly in the twenties and more so in the thirties when The Depression kicked in, for a lot of people in America the police were not trusted. If they needed help or got into trouble, the last people they'd think of calling would be the police, they were not thought of as service to help or protect ordinary people. To a huge proportion of the population, they were just another bunch of hoodlums at war with other bunches of hoodlums. As 'Joan' demonstrates in this story, that sense that they were people to avoid is evoked very effectively. It gives you a genuine taste of the attitudes of the time - an excellent time machine!

In terms of style, although the cumbersome sound cameras restricted Roland West's vision, this almost has the feel of a classic expressionist silent classic. We get flowing camerawork sweeping down and across semi-surrealist rooftops yet still taste the dust and the dirt of the streets. He invites us into this world by occasionally using his camera to give first person point of views and uses his sets to express and accentuate the mood of the characters. Depending on whom we're seeing, their settings reflect their state of anxiety or optimism. For example, as the characters' outlooks turn bleaker, the walls look bigger and the people seem tiny and trapped. The spaces which were once opulent art deco apartments or nightclubs become huge enveloping claustrophobic prisons which again emphasise the hopelessness of those within.

As an insight into pre-Depression American society and how those people thought, this is invaluable. It's also a real work of art but is it something you can sit down with, kick off your shoes and relax with? Yes, it's not quite a classic but being so well produced, the quality is still there and so it's still enjoyable.

Becky Sharp (1935)

It refers to a sinful place in Bunyan's PILGRIM'S PROGRESS.

[7/10 · 9 June 2024]

If you want a faithful, superb and enjoyable adaptation of Vanity Fair watch the BBC version from the 1990s. If you want a superb and enjoyable taster of the story - which looks stunning by the way - watch this. In fact, watch both!

It's not a perfect film: the script is a bit weak, Becky isn't as cruel and conniving as she could be and Amelia isn't as limp and pathetic. You don't quite get the parasitic dynamic between them. Rouben Mamoulian inherited this project half way through production so he wasn't completely in the driving seat. Had he been, this might have been a real masterpiece but nevertheless he still manages to create a superb piece of entertainment. Like he did with sound in his first sound film APPLAUSE just six years earlier he uses colour in this to add an extra dimension like he'd been making colour films all his life.

What else Mamoulian achieves perfectly is the sense of fun that the original novel had. This isn't meant to be a dry, stuffy and serious drama. It's a humorous satire with some silly over the top characters and this film does keep you smiling - Thackeray would be pleased, me thinks.

Squeezing nearly a thousand page novel into an hour and a half movie is quite a challenge. Fortunately this had already been done with a three hour play written in 1899 on which this film is based. To squeeze this even more into a manageable film they decided to simply concentrate on the protagonist: Becky Sharp herself. Such a long and involved story like Vanity Fair is impossible to turn into an hour and a half picture so instead we have an excellent if somewhat toned down biography of Becky Sharp. This is BECKY SHARP, not VANITY FAIR.

The supporting characters, who made it into the final edit therefore had the challenge of conveying their entire story arcs, their whole personalities and back stories into just a couple of scenes. Rouben Mamoulian just about manages to get his actors to convey what's needed without them having to over-act but with such a condensed approach you do however keep asking: so what happens to them next as the story rushes on to its next chapter.

If you're familiar with the story you'll know that as fascinating as she is, Becky is a pretty awful person. She's utterly selfish with no consideration for anyone else, smart, sneaky and conniving - but she knows those traits are what men find attractive. (She was also an inspiration for GONE WITH THE WIND's Scarlet O'Hara.) Miriam Hopkins plays this character absolutely perfectly. Allegedly, according to many of her contemporaries, she was like that in real life so maybe didn't have to act too hard? Whatever the reality was, for us the viewer she's enchantingly fabulous.

Stormy Weather (1935)

Carry On Farcing

[5/10 · 9 June 2024]

Very much the Carry On films of the 1930s complete with enough double entendres to make Barbara Windsor blush. This isn't quite the best of the Aldwych farces but if you like a proper old style comedy or are just interested to see what made people laugh between the wars, you'll enjoy this.

We are conditioned to enjoy the familiar. Consequently a lot of us love classic 1930s comedy such as Laurel and Hardy, Will Hay and Marx Brothers This slightly more obscure and forgotten style of comedy takes a little while to get into but these professionally made, tried and tested pictures from "The Aldwych Gang" - which are funny - endear themselves quickly to us.

Tom Walls, the leader of the group and director of the films was immensely popular in the thirties but I am not sure he comes across as a likeable person. It might be just his screen persona but these days he seems a little arrogant and unpleasant. As someone doing a 1930s Sid James, some degree of likeability feels necessary. It's difficult to root for someone you don't like.

I've mentioned that these were the Carry On films of the day and that Tom Walls was their version of Sid James. There are two other similar roles: Ralph Lynn, the silly toff makes a fabulous Kenneth Williams and Yvonne Arnaud, the sex starved matron is Joan Sims. Then there's the hilarious Robertson Hare is....well he's just unique - my new comedy hero!

So if you fancy a silly story with people chasing along corridors running into the wrong bedrooms, losing their trousers and hiding strange women under their beds, give this a go.

Disgraced (1933)

I wasn't expecting this to be as brilliant as it was!

[8/10 · 8 June 2024]

This is definitely not the usual predictable society cad seducing the innocent girl from the wrong side of the tracks story. Well it is but it's also a hard hitting, exciting and intriguing drama that will have you on the edge of your seat - I know it's ancient but honestly it's fabulous and not just for 30s aficionados.

The beginning of this superb picture gives the impression that it's going to be that same old story, so common in pre-code movies of the over-privileged rich boy worming his way into the affections of the sweet naive young thing and ruining her life. To start with that's exactly what this is but it actually tells that story so extremely well that if that's all this was it would be one of the very best of that genre. You can see what Mr Wealthy is up to, you want to shout 'no' to Miss Innocent but you yourself can also understand - no, feel exactly what she's feeling too. Perfect storytelling.

Half way through, just when you think you know how this is going to end we are thrown some jaw-dropping plot twists which you'd never guess yet it all seems so believable.

Earle Kenton is certainly not one of those directors with a fan base. I doubt anyone makes a list of his pictures then works through them! The direction of this film however is outstanding - it's up there with the best of them. That this also has Paramount's top cinematographer Karl Struss on board, giving us some gorgeous fluid camerawork which also helps of course but this is Kenton's film.

His actors don't just act, they become real people, people you care about. There's none of that residue from the silent days of over gesturing or acting like they're on stage. Everyone looks natural, acts natural and talks natural. Helen Twelvetrees is remarkable and even Bruce Cabot - whom I thought was quite wooden in KING KONG comes across as authentic and genuine - in a sneaky sort of way.

We're also treated to the impossibility beautiful epitome of sophistication, Adrienne Ames as Cabot's other woman (and in real life, soon to be wife). She doesn't have to act too hard because she basically plays herself - the society glamour model turned fashion icon and celebrity of the age. She's perfect for this role.

If you watch this on that free Russian website you'll find that the sound quality is atrocious - don't let that put you off. Stick with it - you'll be so glad you did.

Sons of the Sea (1939)

Fuller's Earth or Fuller's Duck?

[2/10 · 8 June 2024]

Boring is such a lazy word to use in a review but unfortunately it's the only word which is appropriate for this. How they made a story about spies, murder and intrigue on the brink of a world war so dull is quite astounding.

I wondered why such a third rate production was chosen to showcase the new Dufaycolor system - Britain's rival to Technicolor. Presumably corporate politics? Compared with earlier 1930s British colour films made in Technicolor like WINGS OF THE MORNING and the excellent DIVORCE OF LADY X, this looks a little blurry - almost like one of those dreadful colorised black and white films, so maybe the major British studios didn't want to risk switching from a (slightly) more established system?

Enough about Dufaycolor! That most reviewers focus only on that aspect rather than the actual film says a lot about how entertaining this film is as a film. To be able to watch this from start to finish you'll need to have a sharp pin handy to keep poking yourself with.

It's astonishing just how unengaging all the characters are. You'll wish that the spy would kill everyone off simply to get this over with. Mackenzie Ward's character is the only one with any personality but even his larger than life extrovert man-about-town comes across as totally flat and lifeless. Maurice Elvey wasn't a bad director but it seems that the entire purpose of this film was just to highlight the Dufaycolor system rather than making something's that actually entertaining.

South Riding (1938)

OK but far too short to engage

[5/10 · 6 June 2024]

This is a drama about a small selection of diverse people all living in a small town in mid-thirties Yorkshire. Dramas and indeed novels like this can really grip you, they can become addictive when you can engage with the characters and want to know more about them. With a 400 page novel or a ten hour tv show you can get to know them but when, like with this picture, you've only got an hour and half, it simply doesn't work.

Philistine that I am, I've never read this book - it's not really my thing but believing it to be semi-iconic I thought I out to dip my toe into its water. I can vaguely remember as a young boy being forced to watch the ITV series back in the seventies so I subsequently avoided the BBC series about ten years ago. I thought that if it could be condensed down to an hour and a half it might be more palatable. Oh dear no!

I did find it reasonably enjoyable but hardly something I'd watch again. It's competently enough made and does look quite good - it is after all produced by Korda and directed by Victor Saville, but with a character driven drama like this where very little actual action happens, to try and squeeze a long nuanced story into a short feature film format results in it being little more than a glorified trailer.

Screenwriter Ian Dalrymple clearly loved the novel too much to sacrifice any of it which was what was needed to create a manageable movie. In his adaptation, all the themes of the novel have to be explored and all the characters have to be there. Instead of focussing on any one particular theme or person, what we end up with is therefore 4 minutes on snobbery, 3 minutes on poverty and the class divide, a couple of minutes on male chauvinism, 3 minutes about the value of girls' education (which could certainly be a film in itself), a minute on traditionalism vs. Progress, 2 minutes on hypocrisy and 6 minutes about corruption. And all that has to be done whilst developing the characters including a couple of romances. One has to give Victor Saville some credit, he takes an impossible task and whist he doesn't quite succeed, he does a reasonable job of it.

I said earlier, over condensed like this is it's like a glorified trailer - well one thing this film has done is inspired me to watch the ITV or BBC adaptation.

The Man from Yesterday (1932)

A superbly made and brilliantly acted little melodrama

[6/10 · 4 June 2024]

Talented German director Berthold Viertel is perhaps most well-known for the superb (and memorably titled) 1935 British film THE PASSING OF THE THIRD FLOOR BACK but between escaping Nazi Germany and settling in England he made a few pictures in America. This modest little film is one of his best and demonstrates his skill in filling a space with atmosphere and story.

His cinematographer was Karl Struss, not just Paramount's leading cameraman but an actual famous photographer of the 1920s as well and his artistry combined with Viertel's imagination and vision create a beautifully rich and fluid visual cocktail.

If you watch pictures from this period, even if you haven't, you might think you've seen this before because the story isn't that original. It's not original however because this was made only fifteen years after the First World War so incidents like this (soldier is reported dead - wife falls in love with someone else - soldier didn't actually die and turns up later) probably happened quite a lot. This telling of that familiar old story is however executed so much better than in some of its contemporaries.

The acting isn't what you'd call naturalistic - it's definitely 1930s film acting but it's not that terrible silent movie style which polluted a lot of early talkies. There's no longing looks into the camera, no over-gesturing, no speaking as if addressing a meeting of people with hearing issues - no, although you know you're watching a movie, not real life, everyone is very believable....even Clive Brook (whom I can't for the life of me think why was so popular.... or indeed managed to get Claudette Colbert's character to marry him - he was definitely punching above his weight there!)

Clive Brook plays the stiff upper-lipped English officer type which clearly must have really existed back then. Whilst his character isn't particularly endearing (showing emotion was probably a court martial offence for a British officer back then), one can really appreciate his acting skill because he does actually make you feel sorry for such a wooden character. Claudette Colbert is of course, as she always is, remarkably good (exception being the terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE SIGN OF THE CROSS - but she did give us the famous boob flash in that so it can more than be excused!). She doesn't need to do anything whatsoever to develop her character in this, she has that and magic touch of being able to engage with you instantly.

The Count of Monte Cristo (1934)

Superbly entertaining but not quite a classic

[7/10 · 2 June 2024]

This excellently made picture is one that those you can watch over and over again. It's not however going to be anyone's all time favourite because you can't help feeling that it could have been a bit better. It's a great film but the extra magic which a film like this should have seems missing.

It was the STAR WARS of its day. It's a proper big budget, exciting adventure story and although it's as old to us now as it was to the makers of this film from the writing of the novel, it's still the most accessible and easiest to watch. There are none of the old fashioned traits of silent movies sometimes seen in some 1930s films in this. Perhaps it's because it's set in the past but the style of acting feels absolutely perfect for a story like this. It's almost a classic.

Although as a film it's faultless, in the hands of a different director I am sure it could have been even better. The themes of vengeance, justice and hope are explored well but they don't quite engage on an emotional level. Had this been made by someone like David Lean - or possibly even by Michael Curtiz or George Cukor, the nuances of those themes could have spoken to our hearts rather than just to our heads. There's nothing wrong with this film at all, it's just lacks that spark of magic to raise it to the next level.

Street of Women (1932)

There's no point in watching this.

[2/10 · 31 May 2024]

It's just a pathetic mushy melodrama with a script that sounds like it was written by a 12 year old girl from the eighteenth century. It's so staggeringly unspecial that you might start to think that AI generated pictures have been around a lot longer than you thought.

When I find a film made by Archie Mayo that's good - and there are a few: PETRIFIED FOREST, BLACK LEGION are fantastic, I'm really surprised because most of his output is bland, lazily directed rubbish like this.

He clearly could be a great director when he needed to be but usually he didn't need to. For most of his career, his job wasn't to be a good director because he was just part of the Warner Brothers factory. His function was to turn up, get a bunch of people to dress up and read their lines then his product would be used to fill some screen time in the Warner cinemas for a few days then it would get thrown in the bin. Throw-away films like this didn't need to stand the test of time, they weren't meant to be watched afterwards. If the story was any good it might get remade a few years later. Nobody would ever think of rooting around in the archives to dig out something like this even if it was only a year later. If Mr Mayo is looking down on us now watching this he'd be completely dumbfounded....and possibly embarrassed.

Once you realise that it's Kay Francis who gives the best performance in this you need to be worried. She just does what she always does but the rest of them seem like they've simply turned up for the paycheque.

The Dance of Life (1929)

One of the very best films from 1929

[6/10 · 30 May 2024]

Other than APPLAUSE, I can't think of any 1929 films I'd class as 'good.' The advent of sound seemed to imbue most directors with creative impotence and turn even great actors into talking statues. This one however is actually a genuinely watchable piece of entertainment.

If you're a weird masochists like me who like to torture yourself by watching early talkies, this will be a pleasant surprise for you. It feels like a big budget, high quality Paramount spectacular - a typical 1930s Hollywood movie - even though it's not actually a Hollywood movie. Paramount's new state of the art studio had just burned down so they had to relocate to their old New York studio for this.

Besides APPLAUSE and to a lesser extent THE LADY LIES and BROADWAY MELODY, most 1929 productions can only be viewed as interesting (or in most cases, boring) curios. This one however lets you sit back and, kick off your shoes and enjoy it as a proper picture. It's got proper modern style acting delivered with dialogue which sounds natural and authentic. The actors do what actors are meant to do: make you think they're real people.

One reason for this must attributed to David O'Selznick's decision to use two directors: one with a movie background and one with a theatre background - it works well. (David O'Selznick at Paramount? Working for MGM and RKO was clearly not enough for him!) The photography is as fluid and imaginative as it was before the restrictions of sound recording came in and the sound recording itself is superb. Also, another big plus is that although it's to some extent a romance, it is refreshingly not one of those nauseating, mushy, sickly sweet pictures which polluted our screens in the late twenties.

It's a bit longer than a typical early talkie but lovely Nancy Carroll thoroughly keeps your attention for the whole two hours. Like a lot of actors and actresses who became massively famous in early talkies, she virtually vanished after the mid thirties. You can understand that with many of those stars like Helen Twelvetrees for example who just didn't fit in with the style of filmmaking which the early talkies evolved into. With Nancy Carroll however it doesn't make sense because, certainly in this picture, she was so believable and engaging. She's not just beautiful and super-sexy like say Alice White, she's a real, normal person whom you think you might have gone to school with.

Woman to Woman (1929)

Pretty awful, even by 1929 standards

[2/10 · 28 May 2024]

There were a few really fabulous films made in 1929 but most were dreadful. This is not one of the worst but it's still one of the dreadful ones. Only if you like cringingly sentimental Victorian melodrama made by people who don't know how to make pictures should you brave this one.

To be fair, this was Victor Saville's first full talkie and only the fifth film he'd ever directed so he was still finding his feet - Gainsborough's head of production had clearly not fully developed any directorial skills yet. To learn the ropes, he'd set up yet another company where he'd produce and direct talkies in collaboration with the equally ambitious Tiffany-Stahl company over in America.

Unfortunately for all concerned, T-S's sound recording system was RCA Photophone. Like Warner's Vitaphone, this was a cumbersome sound on disc system which meant that the film's dialogue had to be delivered at a glacial pace giving the film a horribly stilted feel. The sound on disc system also didn't allow for any editing or re-takes so once it was shot, that's what you got.

So this picture isn't terrible simply because of poor direction and poor acting - although the direction and the acting were exceptionally poor! Curiously however the first half hour of this, the scenes set in France aren't too bad - in fact I'd go as far as saying, quite impressive and even engaging. I was actually thinking: Hey, this is quite good for 1929. Were this just my review of the first half hour I'd say that Betty Compson is lovely and I can understand why George Barraud would fall head over heels for her. I'd say that the picture cleverly shows how his feelings develop and loads the screen with tension for the inevitable catastrophe.

Unfortunately you get the impression that Mr Saville went back home to England half way through this picture because once the story has moved on to London, that lively style of delivery, that interesting and imaginative camerawork and that empathy with the characters completely vanishes. It feels like a different film all together - a really bad one! Everyone suddenly starts speaking like they've some horrible disease and Betty Compson forgets she's meant to be doing a French accent.

If you can overlook the awfulness of the production (of the last 2/3 anyway) what is quite interesting is to note that whereas in the original wrote just after the war, soldier David was already married and playing away from home with Lola whereas in this film, such immorality could never be shown - certainly not with a British officer. It's also fascinating to see that the whole crux of the sad denouement relies on the almost impossible to accept today fact that the future of a child born out of wedlock could be so awful that you'd sacrifice your life to avoid it! I'd imagine crowds would have burned down London and hanged Ramsay MacDonald had the original story been filmed! (Or does the example of that beloved Prime Minister disprove this?)

It's weird how in the late twenties a handful of silent movie stars and theatre luvvies suddenly made it big in to the talkies - they were for a few years at the top of the tree, but within a couple of years they were history. Those big new superstars of 1929 of that transition stage between 1929 and 1931 when some great movies were made but most filmmakers were just learning on the job, just vanished. Even the sexiest, cutest and prettiest woman in the world, Alice White who came from nowhere to be absolutely massive in 1931 but was virtually forgotten by 1933. Unlike the divine Alice, Betty Compson was a big silent star - one of those who became a superstar of the talkies. She was perfect for them but as the talkies of 1929 evolved into the talkies of 1931, as they became films we'd recognise as films today, she just couldn't adapt. Most (but not all) of the moving pictures made before about 1931 were essentially silent films with sound. It wasn't really the advent of sound which somersaulted filmmaking, like life in general, the massive social changes in the early 30s were the main driver....... but back to this film - I think I'd prefer George Barraud's amnesia than remember this.

Sadie McKee (1934)

Better Alternatives are Available

[3/10 · 26 May 2024]

Unlike a lot of pre-code movies this doesn't really convey a genuine feel of the early 30s. It's primarily just a Joan Crawford vehicle so fans of Miss C should enjoy this but as an actual film, it's synthetic, a little flat and predictable.

OK, it's well made but possibly too well made to be authentic. It feels like it was written by a committee based on recommendations from a focus group. Joan Crawford plays the Joan Crawford character that her fans expected her to play. There's no originality involved, you can guess exactly what will happen next and you feel like you've seen this before even though you haven't. Surely even Joan Crawford fans must get bored with seeing her in the same tired old stuff? Give me the craziness her character in RAIN any day - at least she was different in that.

During The Depression, Viña Delmar wrote lots of great stories about struggling working class women, several of which evolved into films. BAD GIRL was one of the best. Their appeal was that they were believable stories about real down to earth people. Her original story for this, serialised in a 5c per magazine was apparently quite gritty, salacious and scathingly critical of the male patriarchal unfair society of America in the 1930s. This polished MGM product however feels just like a polished MGM product. It's the equivalent to one of those commercialised manufactured pop bands!

Funny how tastes change, back in the 1930s Gene Raymond was considered to be a bit of a hunk, a pin-up for the ladies. I can't too many women swooning over him today but what do I know? He's certainly not the most naturalistic actor but to be fair, he's got a reasonable singing voice as he demonstrates a few times with 'All I Do Is Dream Of You.' On another music related note, it's interesting to hear a rare guitar solo in the band's rendition of 'After You've Gone.' Not quite Jimmy Page but still something you don't often hear.

Susan Lenox (Her Fall and Rise) (1931)

MGM sure knew how to make a movie!

[7/10 · 25 May 2024]

This is one of THE classic romances! It's extraordinarily well made - not just for 1931, I doubt it could be made better even today. It will guarantee to keep you glued to the screen for an hour and a half.

The story is about a couple who meet just for a couple of days, decide they are meant for each other but are then separated so spend the rest of the film looking for each other. You can't get a more classic romantic fairytale than this but it's believable enough for you to believe that it could actually happen to you. If you don't believe that's possible then maybe you won't like this but if you have a trace of romance inside you, it's pure magic. As romantic as this is, it's not slushy - after all it's still a Mr Macho Gable picture so even the roughest toughest alpha males can enjoy this without impunity.

I've never really 'got' Greta Garbo but watching this I can start to appreciate what her appeal was. Her acting style isn't modern but somehow, in this anyway, she's completely authentic and natural - mesmeric even. Clark Gable is, as always Clark Gable, his character isn't the most developed and the multiple writing team make him a little inconsistent at times but he's still great and even his dog (Gable's own dog) acts brilliantly too - he mimics his owner's expressions perfectly!

Why doesn't Robert Leonard have a statue? His imaginative and creative direction is magnificent - he creates the perfect blend of tension, anticipation, happiness and sadness. Apart from the inexplicably overrated THE DIVORCE, I can't think of one of his films which aren't excellent. His clever montage of Helga literally and allegorically growing up in the shadows is inspired. The camerawork, lighting and set design is amazing throughout.

Comparing a film from the very early 30s with a modern production is usually a stupid thing to do but when something is as professionally and well made as this, you can. This film has class. It's not one of those cheap (but nevertheless often great) Warner Brothers flicks which were thrown together in a few days.

This would have been "an event picture", something everyone would have made the effort to go and see. The best stars, a top director (yes he was!), over a dozen top writers (different stages of their lives need different moods but it all blends together - nearly) and a huge budget were lovingly crafted together to create this near-perfect masterpiece.

Honor Among Lovers (1931)

Like a good soap? You'll love this.

[7/10 · 23 May 2024]

You might think that one of those early 1930s 'women's films' about a girl who marries the wrong man is not for you? Don't think that - this is brilliant! OK, essentially it is just a trashy soap but it's fantastic - honestly!

So why would a Cagney fan watch this? It's made for women, it's written by a woman, directed by a woman and staring THE woman of the 1930s. This isn't the usual type of movie I'd consider watching but because I'm weirdly infatuated with Claudette Colbert I gave it a go. So glad I did! It might be because I wasn't expecting much but I found this absolutely enthralling.

For a film made in 1931, it's extraordinarily well made and the acting is outstanding. We've got none of that theatrical, silent movie type over-gesturing or gazing wistfully into the camera which plagued many early 1930s pictures - this has naturalistic acting and realistic, believable real characters.

The story is nothing original - a pretty girl, chased by two men marries the wrong one. It's not however a sickly sweet romantic melodrama (like one of those mushy Kay Francis films), no, this works so well because its two leads are so utterly real and likeable. You become totally engaged with the romantic dilemmas and emotional traumas of Colbert and March. They're both so natural and real, avoiding the usual clichéd stereotypes.

Claudette Colbert is dazzling, her perfectly well developed character is flirty and bubbly but also sensible and intelligent. Fredric March, playing a millionaire isn't the usual over entitled cad, he's charming and suave but he's also sensitive and a genuinely really nice guy. Dorothy Arzner's supporting cast also give refreshingly proper performances as well portraying real people: Charlie Ruggles plays his usual inebriated friend and Ginger Rogers, still in her 'Betty Boop' phase is fun.

This has a much more modern feel to it than a lot of early 30s films whilst still retaining that naive charm of the era. It's 100% entertaining.

Fallen Angel (1945)

More of a Film Gris rather than a Film Noir

[3/10 · 22 May 2024]

If you're expecting a classy Film Noir, you'll be disappointed. This is completely lacking in that characteristic moody atmosphere. Everyone is so unlikeable in this it's hard to engage making it quite a feat of endurance to get through what seems like hours and hours of dullness.

Fox were trying to recapture the magic of Preminger's earlier picture, LAURA with this but failed miserably. Although his earlier picture had the same talented writer along with cynical and snarky Dana Andrews, it lacked that film's witty dark humour. It also lacked the absurdly beautiful Gene Tierney - lifeless Alice Faye and plastic Linda Darnell are no substitute - they're simply too one dimensional to be credible people.

Nothing quite works. The story just isn't interesting or realistic (as Film Noirs need to be): why the town's entire male population seem to be infatuated with Linda Darnell's character makes no sense. She venomously spits out every single word she speaks as though she despises everyone she meets. How she got a job as a waitress is unfathomable - can't imagine she got much in tips.

You can't develop any empathy for any of this miserable cast. Although Linda Darnell is dreadful in this, Alice Faye is worse. She doesn't manage to pull off doing a serious role, her goody-two shoes character isn't remotely believable. The rest of them seem to be playing clichéd stereotypes of what they think characters should be in a film noir. It's a real disappointment.

Let Us Be Gay (1930)

Nobody can flirt quite like Norma Shearer!

[5/10 · 18 May 2024]

This comedy is very different to what you might expect. Its first ten minutes is the little drama that sets the scene but from then on it's a 1920s style drawing room farce, the type of thing you'd expect to hear the phrase: Anyone for tennis?

Surprisingly, once you get used to its theatrical style - necessary for this type of comedy, you might enjoy this. I didn't think I would but despite my initial reservations (were I around then, I'd have been watching Cagney at the Warner Brothers cinemas), I actually found myself laughing at this.

If someone asked you what 1930s movies were like, this type of picture would definitely not be what you'd think about. Today such gentle, gentile plays would play to empty houses but if you put yourself into the mindset of a 1929 theatre goer, you'll find this quite amusing: it's not what these days you'd call funny but it's not without some charm.

Like all of her films, this is another excuse for Irving Thalberg to say to the world: Have I got a hot wife or what! Inexplicably although Miss Shearer is no classic beauty, she somehow exudes 1.21 Gigawatts of sexuality. Don't know how she does it....maybe it's because she was such a good actress!

In this picture, Mrs T after divorcing her unfaithful husband reinvents herself as the most brazen, sex-hungry man eater you've ever seen outside of a Carry On film. The rest of the cast are the usual stock characters for this type of thing but it's made so well (ok, it's a bit creaky because it was made in 1930) it's a cut above the usual. As long as you know what you're going to get: the acting isn't meant to be naturalistic, it's in the style of a farce - it's actually quite entertaining.

The Little Giant (1933)

One dimensional, one joke movie

[5/10 · 16 May 2024]

Like a lot of comedies made in the pre-code era, depth and believability of characters and subtlety of story were sacrificed for jokes. In this example, there's just one joke which gets a little bit too childish after a while to make a proper picture.

That approach worked with talented comedians such as Laurel and Hardy, Marx Brothers or even today's SpongeBob SquarePants but not with character actors who don't bother to display any character. Comedy dramas only work when you can believe in and empathise with the people you're watching - when you can believe you're watching real people not actors. This film however simply feels like Edward G Robinson having a bit of a laugh. It's not a bad film but its gentle humour relies solely on the fact that Robinson was that tough guy actor being silly.

Despite its significant flaws, reliable Roy del Ruth keeps this bouncing along at a good pace so it's easy to watch. EGR is actually quite amusing and although you'll not laugh, you'll smile. Essentially however this is nothing more than a famous actor enjoying some in-jokes.

Good-Time Girl (1948)

As if we didn't have enough to be miserable about!

[7/10 · 8 May 2024]

England was in a terrible state in the late forties: the cost of the war had bankrupted the country, industry and employment was decimated and crime rates were through the roof. Not too different to America in the early thirties. So, to cheer us up - to give us some escapist entertainment Rank Films gave us this misery fest!

It's no GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933! Optimistic is not an adjective anyone would use to describe this but nevertheless it will keep you glued to the screen. It's not escapist fun, it's not sexy but it is beautifully made.

You'll be cringing as Gwen, 'the good time girl' played brilliantly by Jean Kent, makes stupid decision after stupid decision plunging her life spiralling down the toilet. Virtually every man she pairs up with is worst than the last one - indeed it doesn't paint a pleasant picture of men at all. What it does do is paint a picture of a land where the victory jubilation has given way to an utterly grim and cold reality.

If you've watched lots of pre-code Hollywood movies you'll be familiar with such plots but because it feels much more realistic than a lot of what Hollywood made during those lean years of the thirties, it feels more personal. You can really empathise with poor Gwen and think; there but by the grace of God go I.

Personally I think this would benefit from not having what feels like a morality lecture bolted on to the beginning and the end but the main body of this film is incredibly compelling. Unless you've just watched BICYCLE THIEVES, which manages to be even more relentlessly grim, you're not going to feel especially happy after watching this but it's very satisfying. It's a superbly well made film.

The Sea Wolf (1941)

I think I need a drink after that!

[9/10 · 7 May 2024]

What an experience! Michael Curtiz, the master of the action movie, the master of romance shows that he's also the master of drama with this magnificent and magnetic film which makes you think without you realising that you actually are.

You'll not hear the Amazon man knocking once you've started watching this. Margot Robbie could be banging on your door desperate for a night on the town with you but you'll ignore her advances until the final credits roll - nothing will drag you away from this fabulous picture. Right from the start you're hooked because you know you're watching something special.

It's a real dramatic drama but since it's made by Michael Curtiz and is a Warner Brothers picture you know not to expect it to be too high-brow or intellectually taxing. Expect in-depth and complex characters, emotions running at a hundred and ten percent, one of those scripts which make you feel like applauding for the beautiful and clever use of the English language, an exploration of what it is to be human and the meaning of society ...and as it's a Michael Curtiz picture, pirates (well, sort of)

I quite like Edward G Robinson but I've never really been a fan of his - in this however he's fantastic. He overacts like crazy but that's exactly what his character is like. He makes Captain Bligh seem as chilled out as The Fonz! Watching him is what I imagine it must be like jumping out of an airplane with a parachute for the first time. And as for John Garfield, I don't think I've ever seen him not overacting, even if he was ordering a Big Mac I'm sure he'd do it with such passion and intensity that at least half the people serving would have a breakdown. But again, his violent, reactionary temperament (similar to that in OUT OF THE FOG...although there's more fog, both real and metaphorical in this) fits in perfectly with the crew of The Ghost. In this film however, on this crazy other-worldly ship everyone overacting is the natural state of being. It sounds contradictory but all those intense emotions and passions, all that sheer hatred and unconditional love seems completely and utterly normal. Not everything Michael Curtiz did was brilliant, a lot was pretty poor but this shows his true genius in making this nightmare world, hidden in layer upon layer of fog so real. At times it reminded me of BETWEEN TWO WORLDS/OUTWARD BOUND inasmuch that that crew that captain, the way people just accepted their fate I thought to myself: I know what this is about - it's one of those films where you find out that they're all dead. This was much cleverer - death would be too simple for these people.

You probably know that Curtiz, Robinson, the film's writer Robert Rossen and not forgetting Jack Warner himself were all passionately anti-Nazi so the story was adapted to reflect the perniciousness of the Fascists overrunning Europe. That's as maybe but far more earth shattering is the fact that the song sung in that rough dockside bar at the beginning was 'Hello My Baby' - the song which that frog sung in the best Warner Brothers cartoon ever: ONE FROGGY EVENING!