Apr 011932
 
four reels

ā€˜Deadlegsā€™ Flint (Walter Huston) is a paraplegic who rules over a small area of the African jungle with a combination of cruelty and magic tricks. From there he plans various illegal schemes which are executed by his cowed henchmen Hogan (Mitchell Lewis) and Cookie (Forrester Harvey). He also keeps around sex toy Tula (Lupe Velez). All his substantial will is focused on revenge against Gregg Whitehall (C. Henry Gordon), who stole his wife and crippled him years ago, and itā€™s time to put the first part of that plan into action. Heā€™s kept Whitehallā€™s daughter Ann (Virginia Bruce) in a convent school for years. Now he will drag her into the jungle and degrade her in every way imaginable before confronting her father. Entering into this hellhole is Kingsland (Conrad Nagel), drug-addled doctor, who falls for Ann while Flint forces him to stay for his own purposes.

Sadism, rape, whippings, incest, mental & physical abuse, drug addiction, alcoholism, forced alcoholism, prostitution, pimping you daughter, torture, and human sacrifice, and in 1932. I didnā€™t know they made them like this then. Hell, they never made them like this. Kongo is all things exploitation turned up to 11. It laughs at SAW and Hostel. Itā€™s sleaze, but itā€™s sleaze elevated and perfected. There is no taunting or teasing. It lays it all out. No, we donā€™t need many films like this, but if we need one, this is it.

Kongo is often said to be a remake of Tod Browningā€™s 1928 silent West of Zanzibar, starring Lon Chaney, which is a partial truth. Both are based on the 1926 stage play Kongo, which starred Walter Huston (Virginia Bruce is often cited as being in it as well, but sheā€™s not listed in the original cast). Browningā€™s version softened it, removing the drug references and making Flintā€”known as Phroso in that versionā€”more sympathetic by adding an unnecessary opening, as well as slightly easing up on the abuse of the daughter. Itā€™s a good movie, but Kongo is the real deal.

William Cowenā€™s career as a director was brief and otherwise not noteworthy, but he knew what to do with this material. His restraint is amazing. The story is over the top, the dialog extreme, and the acting drags you kicking and screaming into the film, so Cowen keeps the camera calm. He keeps the focus on character and avoids anything that could distract. He had a wonderfully lurid script filled with sharp cruel dialog and a cast that could project the nastiness involved so he got out of the way and let it happen. Sometimes thatā€™s the best kind of direction.

I canā€™t praise the cast too highly. Each brings levels I didnā€™t expect. Perhaps most surprising is Conrad Nagel who is normally bland in early Hollywood bland leading man parts. Not here. He takes the character that could so easily have been overshadowed and gives him real depth. Kingslandā€™s romance with Ann is believable, perhaps because they walk through the abyss together. Itā€™s actually quite heartwarming to see them still moving after all their suffering, and it helps that Kingsland isnā€™t simply a paragon of cinematic virtue; heā€™s a drug addict that has sex with Tula for a fix. Virginia Bruce is a revelation as well. I didnā€™t know she was capable of this. Itā€™s her finest performance and it could easily have gone wrong. She walks a fine line between virtue and depravity. Ann is the victim, and Bruce never tries to hide that, but she plays it as more. Sheā€™s not just some thing to be rescued. Sheā€™s exhilarating. And of course there is Huston, a legend of ā€˜30s Hollywood, who owns Flint. He feels dangerous from the instant we meet him, and even more malevolent. Itā€™s easy to hate him, yet I couldnā€™t help reveling in his vile actions.

Kongo is everything 1970s Euro-trash cult films promised but never seemed to deliver, in part because they were never made this well. Kongo is lewd and malignant and I could feel the sweat and filth and disease. If a film could infect you, this is it, and I loved it.

Mar 231932
 
three reels

Professor Morlant (Boris Karloff) dies with a final instruction to his servant (Ernest Thesiger), for a mystical gem to be left in his hand when he is put in his crypt, that way when he rises from the dead, he can go straight to paradise. But the gem is stolen. Days later, the heirs, Ralph Morlant (Anthony Bushell) & Betty Harlow (Dorothy Hyson), along with her flatmate (Kathleen Harrison), a grumpy lawyer (Cedric Hardwicke), a parson (Ralph Richardson), and an Arab looking to take the gem back to the Middle East (Harold Huth), all end up in the darkened mansion of the dead man.

Long thought lost, The Ghoul is the first British horror picture. While the description makes it seem we are dealing with an undead monster movie, the film is better classified as an old dark house film (such as The Cat and the Canary, The Ghost Breakers, and The Old Dark House). Like others in the sub-genre, it has a group of eccentric characters thrown together in a spooky house with multiple mysterious things going on around them. There are real horror elements, but they are mixed with sometimes wacky comedy and a lot of drawing room chatting. These sorts of films were of a time, and faded at the end of the ā€˜30s.

As a monster movie, The Ghoul is slow and talky. As an old dark house film, itā€™s pretty good. Expectations have a lot to do with how much someone enjoys a film and too many critics, having heard about this film for nearly a century without being able to see it, were expecting British Frankenstein.

It certainly has its horrific moments. Karloffā€™s Professor looks like an undead creature (with excessive eyebrows) before heā€™s even dead. Once returned, Iā€™d place him as one of Karloffā€™s better creations. His ritual scene is as ghastly as anything Universal cooked up and had the censors quite upset.

Hardwicke and Richardson (in his first film role) are a welcome part of the ensemble. I found the comic flatmate to be overdone, but Ernest Thesiger (from The Bride of Frankenstein and The Old Dark House) has the perfect amount of quirk.

The Ghoul isnā€™t a great film, but it is a good film, and would be my first choice if you wanted something for a double feature with The Old Dark House.

Mar 161932
 
one reel
GetThatGirl

Ruth Dale (Shirley Grey) is on her way to collect her inheritance, followed by three thugs, two of whom arenā€™t even given names because in a movie of this quality, names are an unnecessary indulgence. They plan to stop her. By chance she runs into tractor salesman Dick Bartlett (Richard Talmadge) on a train, but the crooks separate them and take her to an evil sanitarium run by mad scientist/drug fiend Dr. Sandro Tito (Fred Malatesta). Mme. Nedra Tito (Geneva Mitchell) is unhappy with her husbandā€¦ sometimes, perhaps because of his drug habit or perhaps because of his experiments; since the 3-times-credited writer (for original story, screenplay, and dialogue) didnā€™t seem to know which, thereā€™s no reason for me to know. Bartlett decides that instead of calling the police, or her family, or her lawyer, heā€™s going to rescue Dale himself. After all, heā€™s good at flips.

Richard Talmadge was a circus acrobat turned stuntman turned actor. With his limited acting ability, he didnā€™t have many opportunities for leading roles, and with his German accent and weak voice, even fewer in talkies, so he made his own, producing a string of very low budget D-level pictures. They had limited success in the US, though did better overseas, particularly in the Soviet Union where his ability to leap about was more important than being able to speak a line. By 1934, heā€™d moved on to become a successful stunt coordinator.

As a movie, Get That Girl is the worst thing Iā€™ve seen from the 1930s. As a goofy background to a party or a drinking game, itā€™s fun, provided your plan is to laugh at it.

No explanation is given for why a tractor salesman is so good at acrobatics, but then no explanation is given for what Tito is doing, nor how the inheritance works, nor why every woman screams whenever they see the gardener. But at least Talmadge being skilled in somersaults means someone had a skill who was involved in the movie. The cameraman and soundman didnā€™t.

Like many low budget thrillers of the era, it overlaps with horror, this time due to a mad scientist who uses hypnotism, and apparently turns women into wax figures. Playing that up might have added some needed cheap thrills, but that wasnā€™t the point. The movie exists so Talmadge can swing around a tree branch and jump off a balcony, and he does those quite well, so I suppose on that level, Get That Girl is a success.

Mar 101932
 
one reel

Years ago the fathers of John Mason (John Wayne) and Janet Cater (Sheila Terry) each owned half of the Sally Ann gold mine. Carter was cheated out of his half by the father of Joe Ryan (Harry Woods). Now, mysterious letters have brought both John and Janet back to town, at the same time Joe and his gang have appeared. Whatā€™s more, the town seems to be haunted by The Phantom, which makes things awkward for Johnā€™s scared-of-spooks stereotype Black sidekick. Is there gold in the mine? And who is the mysterious Phantom?

John Wayne in a horror movie? Not quite. John Wayne in a Scooby-Do horror Western? Closer. John Wayne in half a Scooby-Do horror Western? Thatā€™s it.

Haunted Gold is a remake (or a re-purposing) of the silent The Phantom City (1928), starring Ken Maynard, who was, briefly, a big Western star. Maynard wasnā€™t much of an actor, but he was a real rodeo rider who could perform some impressive stunts. So they took the old exterior shots and added sound, and shot new interior ones, and called it a movie. Wayne, who was never a great actor but was truly pathetic at this early point in his career, was hired purely because he looked enough like Maynard that they could merge the films. Of course if the idea was to reuse old exterior shots, the studio wasn’t going to spend much time or money on the new stuff, so Wayne’s part of the film involves a lot of standing around and reciting exposition.

The result is as good as youā€™d expect. Actually, itā€™s even worse as thereā€™s a hefty dose of racism in the form of a cowardly Black servant. The film even speeds up when heā€™s running from imaginary ghosts because that makes him even sillier. It’s edited so there’s a specific moment when the White audience along with the White actors are supposed to laugh at the ridiculous Black man.

This is an atrocious picture. Itā€™s overly talky, poorly made, pitifully acted, and painfully racist. It covers all the bases. Skip it.

Mar 011932
 
three reels

Within a sideshow, the Freaks live, carrying out romances, arguments, friendships, and betrayals. Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova), the beautiful acrobat of the circus, plots to marry the midget Hans (Harry Earles) for his secret fortune, and then kill him, with the aid of her lover, the strongman Hercules (Henry Victor). Frieda (Daisy Earles), Hansā€™s ex-fiancĆ©e, knows that Cleopatra laughs at Hans behind his back, but he wonā€™t listen to her. The others go along with the situation, but when they discover how far Cleopatra is willing to go, they plan their revenge.

Freaks is a power fantasy for the disenfranchised and outsider of any kind, and it works best when considered in that way. The midgets, dwarves, Pinheads, Siamese Twins, bearded lady, and physically disadvantaged are shown to be kind, or cruel, smart or stupid, loving or hateful. They are us, assuming we are not those with power, the normals. They are laughed at and abused. They have their allies (Phroso the clown and Venus), but allies can be accepted, but never entirely understand. And the outsiders (that’s us), can band together, rise up, and avenge themselves.

Itā€™s an important story, and one thatā€™s always needed. And when the Freaks do finally rise up against Cleopatra and Hercules, the film becomes transcendent. It becomes culturally significant.

Unfortunately, the rest of the time itā€™s not so great. Tod Browning was never a top tier director. His roots were in the circus, and his sympathies with the unusual, so he could add an interesting outlook to a motion picture, but he lacked the artistry to do more. The look of his finest film, Dracula, can be assigned to cinematographer Karl Freund. If he was going to make great art, he needed a lot of help, and he didnā€™t get it with Freaks.

On the interesting side, he cast actual sideshow performers, people with deformities and mental and physical disadvantages. This brought realism to the picture. However, while casting for realism has advantages, one of them is not acting. The sideshow performers were mostly terrible at lines and movement before a camera. This really stands out with Harry and Daisy Earles as they play major characters, and not for a second do they appear to be anything but people reciting lines. Even the professional actors are weak, which calls into question both Tod Browningā€™s ability to work with actors, and the decision not to hire any established stars. Here and there, when acting isnā€™t required (and for that amazing revenge sequence), I can be pulled into the film, but the rest of the time, Iā€™m watching non-actors and semi-actors going through the motions.

Freaks has another problem, and itā€™s a crippling one. A test audience rejected the film, many walking out and one woman threatening to sue. They hated it, calling it deviant and sickening. MGM immediately caved and cut a third of the film, and added a brief prologue and epilogue in an attempt to stitch up the story. Few films can survive being butchered like that, and Freaks couldnā€™t. Those missing sections are lost, but itā€™s known that part of whatā€™s gone is the end of the climactic scene, when the Freaks get their hands on Cleopatra and Hercules. It neuters the movie. A film needs its climax. I canā€™t say if the excised material would have fixed the structural problems and slight character development, but Iā€™m willing to bet on it.

Freaks, as whole, could never have been great, but it could have been better. It is interesting, which is enough of a reason to watch it.

Feb 061932
 
one reel

In the most Victorian of Victorian Englands, upstanding Dr. Jekyll (Fredric March) investigates the duel personality of man while waiting in frustration for his delayed wedding to Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart). Her father, Brigadier-General Danvers Carew (Halliwell Hobbes) insists they wait; heā€™s also not happy with Jekyllā€™s unorthodox theories. Jekyllā€™s attempt to separate manā€™s nature works too well as his potion changes him into the murderous Mr. Hyde. Hyde, lacking the restraint of Jekyll but filled with the same lust, takes up with Miriam Hopkins Ivy Pearson (Miriam Hopkins) a ā€œdancehall girl,ā€ whom he abuses. When Jekyll attempts to free himself from Hyde, he finds itā€™s too late, as Hyde can now appear without the potion.

This seems like the natural place for a Paramount to enter 1930s horror. Itā€™s based on a classic novella by Robert Louis Stevenson, so they could always claim that they were making a literary work, not one of those low class monster films. And it was a remake of their own 1920 silent film. Like Dracula over at Universal, it only follows its source material when seen from a great distance, and is closer to a stage version. It isnā€™t a mystery nor is it told in flashbacks as the novella. And it adds women (as compared to the original; the fiancĆ©e and prostitute had already been inserted in somewhat different forms in the play and silent film versions). Helming the film would be Rouben Mamoulian, who already had a reputation as a innovative director, particularly with regard to camera movement. Perhaps it would be considered horror, but it would be sophisticated horror, and that label matted almost as much as the money they planned to make. Almost.

How sophisticated it actually is comes down to taste, but it does look good. Mamoulian spent a lot of money and itā€™s all on the screen. He built set after set and brought in a small village worth of people to walk around his faux London. And his camera tricks are all on display. His POV shots push me out of the picture instead of pulling me in, but no one was doing this better at the time, or for a very long time to come. The on-screen transformation from Jekyll to Hyde is amazing and is the finest use of special effects makeup in the decade. The final Hyde makeup design, however, is not in the same league as the work Jack Pierce was doing over at Universal, and is likely to elicit laughter now. Paramount had the money and skill for a horror film, but they were behind on artistry.

This version does vary from others (particularly the 1941 re-make when the production code had teeth) by its focus on sexual frustration. Itā€™s lust that motivates Jekyll to take the potion, and itā€™s lust that drives Mr. Hyde. Miriam Hopkins is a ball of alluring lust. Her partly-on/partly-off camera stripping scene has rightfully risen above the Hyde-transformations as the most moment of the film. This is sexually charged movie. Less helpful is what itā€™s saying about lust and sex. Stevensonā€™s novel may have been a statement against the hypocritical nature of Victorian society, but the film comes off as yet another conservative rant against interfering in Godā€™s domain. While the pompous father, who represents the sillier aspects of polite society, is noted as a fool, itā€™s still curiosity and the attempt to upset the status quo that are immoral. If only Jekyll had understood his place in society, then everything would have worked out fine. Sigh. While the superior Frankenstein undercut that message, it was exactly what Paramount wanted to say.

The acting is mixed. Hopkins steals the picture with the best supporting actress performance of the year. She presents extremes of emotion while creating a authentic character that I cared about. March is very different. He succeeds splitting the role; unlike the ā€™41 version, Jekyll and Hyde seem like completely different people. Youā€™d never guess that the same actor played both parts. But neither part works, certainly not next to Hopkins. His exaggerated mannerisms as Jekyll (flailing his arms and dropping to his knees) and melodramatic speech come off as fake and very stage-like. This isnā€™t March embracing expressionism. Heā€™s just overacting. A little subtlety would have worked wonders. His Hyde is also exaggerated, but thatā€™s OK in an evil ape-man, though a better film would have given us more than ā€œevil ape-man.ā€

While most of the violence approaches parody, Mr. Hydeā€™s brutal treatment of Ivy is much more realistic. Itā€™s as horrifying a treatment of domestic violence as Iā€™ve seen on screen and elevates the film. However, that is not enough for me to recommend it.

Back to Mad ScientistsBack to Classic Horror

Jan 171932
 
two reels

Col. Walters (Burton Churchill) and his Sphinx Club of Amateur sleuths is responsible for the arrest of a member of the evil Crooked Circle. The black-hooded members of the Circle choose their only female member as their assassin to avenge themselves on the Colonel tonight when he and other members of his club are staying at Melody Manor, an Old Dark House with all the trimmings. It will be Brand Osborneā€™s (Ben Lyon) last night in the Club after which he will be replaced by Hindu Yoganda (C. Henry Gordon). Brand is resigning at the insistence of his newly-met fiancĆ©e Thelma Parker (Irene Purcell), who has a mysterious connection to Yoganda. Might they be members of the Crooked Circle? Also joining the Club members are morbid and dim housekeeper Nora (Zasu Pitts) and incompetent policeman Arthur Crimmer (James Gleason).

Not much effort went into character or dialog or plot in this silly mix of Old Dark House and kidā€™s adventure, with an evil paranormal society and upper class do-gooders straight from a radio show. But then none of those were the point. Top billing didnā€™t go to the generic he-man hero, or his slightly goofy sidekick, or the lovely romantic interest, but to Zasu Pitts. For a brief and confusing time in the 1930s, Pitts was a star, and her shtick was a combination of cowardly and sorrowful, which she used in every film. Sheā€™s often described as being like Popeyeā€™s girlfriend Olive Oyl, which isnā€™t a coincidence as the cartoon characterā€™s delivery was based on Pitts. She has no part in the story of The Crooked Circle, such that it is, but instead pops up about once a minute, to either scream or despondently point out the bleak affair of things. She utters her catch phrase, ā€œSomething always happens to somebodyā€ dozens of times. If Zasu Pitts amuses you, then youā€™ll find this film amusing, but I suspect that her comedy has fallen out of style. I can handle five or ten minutes of her. Any more and itā€™s nails on blackboard time, and sheā€™s around a lot more than ten minutes.

Next in importance to the film is James Gleason, who was another successful comic actor of the times, and whose character also has nothing to do with the story. He played a lot of flustered cops and criminals. With the right director and some decent dialog, I find Gleason engaging. In this case, however, he was on his own, so did a low rent version of his normal routine. Itā€™s not funny, but it isnā€™t half as annoying as whatever Pitts was doing.

Beyond those two, well, things happen and none of it matters. Thereā€™s ghostly violin music, a skeleton, secret passageways everywhere, a clock that strikes 13, and none of it is in the least bit creepy. It isnā€™t supposed to scare you, but give opportunities for Pitts and Gleason to screech.

At least the house looks properly foreboding. So if you have more tolerance than I for Zasu Pitts, you can give it a try on a rainy afternoon. Itā€™s easy to find online.

Oct 121931
 
one reel

Vaguely sinister stuff happens.

Not enough of a synopsis?

OK, Iā€™ll write more, but ā€œstuff happensā€ really covers it. So, master criminal The Phantom escapes from jail before his execution, using a train and a plane. He seems to want revenge on DA John Hampton (Wilfred Lucas), and thenā€¦ Heā€™s out of the picture. Reporter Dick Mallory (Guinn ā€˜Big Boyā€™ Williams) shows up at the DAā€™s house pretending to be The Phantom to get a story as he needs a big break to make enough money to reveal his secret engagement to Ruth Hampton (Allene Ray). Iā€™d have thought not mucking with his fiancĆ©eā€™s father would be a good idea, but thatā€™s just me. Police Sgt. Pat Collins runs around the house pushing people around, particularly the butler. Dickā€™s employer also shows up at the house for no clear reason; he wants to marry Ruth as well but donā€™t expect anything to come of that. Then the movie starts over at the halfway point. Yup. Iā€™m not kidding. Dick, Ruth, Lucy the Maid (Violet Knights) and Shorty the Chauffeur (Bobby Dunn) go to investigate mad scientist Dr. Weldon (William Gould) at a local insane asylum, and Weldon is happy for the guests as heā€™s been looking for a subject for his brain experiments. Then someone is said to be The Phantom, but for no reason and contradicting everything thatā€™s gone before.

This is fascinating. Not good, but fascinating. What kind of development did this film go through? Did they just squish multiple scripts together? Was there ever a single script?Ā Did one individual ever read through it? Was there anyone thinking, ā€œYes, this is the story I want to tellā€? Itā€™s just over an hour long, and nothing in the first 30 minutes has any connection to the ending.

Thereā€™s some nice stuff in the last half. The asylum is stylishly designed and the inmates are both creepy and funny. I donā€™t know why a known criminal (Dr. Weldon had to go on the run when a body was found on his property) is allowed to run a sanitarium, nor why the police donā€™t show up to arrest a fugitive since they know the place as ā€œWeldonā€™s Sanatariumā€ but then why should that part of the film make sense? Since we only have 30 minutes at the asylum, thereā€™s not enough time spent developing Weldon and his strange brain experiments. Thereā€™s actually a good, and semi-coherent horror film that could have been made from this segment if it had been expanded. But it wasnā€™t so we could instead see that prison break (why?), and watch a guy on the phone during the prison break (why?), and have a scene at the newspaper office (why?).

Strangely for such a cheap and sloppy picture, the sets look great. My guess is that several projects fell apart (one with nice sets) and wanting something to release, they just stuck whatever they had together. I canā€™t recommend sitting through the result.

Oct 121931
 
four reels

Svengali (John Barrymore) is a talented musician living in an artists community that include his follower Gecko (Luis Alberni), and painters The Laird (Donald Crisp), Taffy (Lumsden Hare), and Billee (Bramwell Fletcher). Heā€™s also a cad, who uses his charisma and hypnotic powers to gain what he wants, and in one case, to cause a no longer useful woman to kill herself. He stumbles upon vivacious artistā€™s model Trilby (Marian Marsh) and realizes she could be a great singer. She falls for Billee and vice versa, but he rejects her, at least momentarily, in a fit of moral pique when he sees her nude modeling. Svengali, who had left a suggestion in her mind to think only of him when he had hypnotized her to rid her of repeated headaches, convinces her to fake her own death, and then be reborn as a great opera star under his tutelage. However, when he rid her of her pain, he took it into himself, and it is slowly sapping his strength.

Itā€™s exciting to find a great movie that had somehow escaped my notice. While Iā€™ve been a fan of the Universal horror films since I was a kid, Iā€™d never even heard of this. Strange as it was a big hit. Of course I knew the term ā€œSvengaliā€ and that it referred to a character, though Iā€™d never read George Du Maurierā€™s novel (titled Trilby). This is the 5th feature version, and the first with sound, and everyone should know it. It deserves a place next to Frankenstein and Dracula. Itā€™s a shame it was made at Warner Bros instead of Universal as theyā€™d have done a better job of keeping it in the public consciousness.

Like all the best monsters, Svengali is sympathetic. I didnā€™t give a damn about Billee, but I felt it when Svengali was harmed, when he ached. Itā€™s a wonderful performance by John Barrymore, the ā€œGreat Profileā€ and renowned drinker. Heā€™s helped by an iconic character design. Svengaliā€™s long hair is swept back; his beard ends in multiple points, and his eyes are intense, and shine when he uses his powers. For most of the first act, he seems just a playful rogue, much like the other artists, except for causing that woman to dieā€¦ He is jovial, and above the traditions that pull down others (like Billee), but despair is always underneath, and eventually must show through. His love for Trilby is heartbreaking as he can make her appear to love him, but then heā€™s just ā€œtalking to himself.ā€

Trilby is a light in the sea of darkness which was female roles in the early ā€˜30s. In this regard, Svengali rises above its universal rivals. Sheā€™s sharp, fun, and very much alive. She has to have such strong agency for it to matter when it is taken away. Seventeen-year-old Marian Marsh (they started them young back in the day) glows in the part. While she doesnā€™t upstage Barrymoreā€”no one couldā€”she holds her own with him.

As good as those two are, they are beaten by art director Anton Grot and Cinematographer Barney McGill, who make Svengali a dreamlike wonderland. Iā€™ve never seen expressionism used so effectively outside of the works of James Whale. They, and director Archie Mayo, were clearly big fans of Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Nothing is quite right. No door is straight, no room is square, and spaces are far larger than reality would dictate. But then in a world of artists and hypnotists, what is reality?

Iā€™m not the first to note that Svengali can be taken as a comment on May-to-December romances, with the elder controlling and sapping the life from the younger, while the stress of it does him in. But things are a bit more complex, as one would then expect Billee to be the true love TrilbyĀ should have been with, and thatā€™s not the case. Heā€™s shallow and cruel, in part due to his youth. The older man would almost certainly have been the better match for her, if only sheā€™d been given the choice.

Svengali is a mesmerizing mix of tragedy, horror, and comedy. It may be difficult viewing for horror fans only familiar with modern film, but if German expressionism interests you, youā€™ll enjoy it.

 

Note: Warners attempted to follow up the success of Svengali by casting Barrymore and Marsh in a very similar project, The Mad Genius (1931), this time with Barrymore excessively controlling a ballet dancer. However, they removed all of the fantastical and horror elements, leaving a passable melodrama. It’s nicely directed by Michael Curtiz, who would soon become one of the great directors (and my choice for the greatest of all time), but Barrymore’s kind of ham works better when his eyes are magic and he’s surrounded by a dreamlike world.

Sep 291931
 
two reels

Ladykiller Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez) is pulled into the case of the mysterious black bird by femme fatale Ruth Wonderly (NiBebe Daniels).Ā  After his partner is murdered, he is introduced to a gang of eccentric criminals who have been searching for the statue for years: mastermind Casper Gutman (Dudley Digges), effeminate Dr. Joel Cairo (Otto Matieson), and gunman Wilmer Cook (Dwight Frye).

A pivotal film in the development of Film Noir, The Maltese Falcon is one of the great American Films. But not this one. The justly famed Bogart/Huston version was not the first adaptation of the Dashiell Hammett novel, nor the second (that was the deeply strange Satan Met a Lady, which omitted the black bird in favor of an animal horn).Ā  No, the first rendition was this 1931 exercise in mildly amusing mediocrity.Ā  There’s a lesson here: Never make grand statements about the undesirability of remakes.

Watching this version is not unlike sitting through a production of a neighborhood theater’s Macbeth.Ā  It’s not bad because the material is first rate, but everything is a poor shadow of what it should be.Ā  You can see what a great film this could be (and later, was), but it just isn’t up there on the screen.

Ricardo Cortez plays Sam Spade as if he’s in the first act of a romantic comedy.Ā  With a broad, silent-era smile plastered on his face, this Spade is far from a troubled, Noir anti-hero.Ā  Give him a plucky sidekick and make him learn that deep down, he truly wants to settle down, and you’ve got…wait a minute, that’s what they do.Ā  This The Maltese Falcon has a tacked-on ending that will make you squirm.

OK, so with an inappropriate lead, characterizations that lean away from those in the novel, static camerawork, and questionable editing, this is not the 1941 version.Ā  But few things are.Ā  Taken on its own terms (preferably by people who have never read the book or seen Bogart), it is an enjoyable, light, crime story.Ā  Gutman, Cairo, and Wilmer are gratifyingly bizarre villains.Ā  Gutman is nearly a carnival barker while Cairo is suited for any 1940s farce.Ā  Dwight Frye (best known as the insane Renfield in 1931’s Dracula) is almost a match for Elisha Cook ten years later.Ā  NiBebe Daniels and Una Merkel (as Effie, the secretary) are both sexy and alluring, if somewhat generic.

A majority of the script is taken unchanged from the book, but a great deal is missing.Ā  Its eighty-minute running time creates a fast-paced, but slight picture.Ā  If this had been the sole cinematic The Maltese Falcon, no one would remember anything but the novel.

For years this film was only available on VHS under the title Dangerous Female.Ā  It is now part of a three-disk set that includes all three versions.

 Film Noir, Reviews Tagged with:
Aug 241931
 
one reel
traderhorn

A White ivory trader and ā€œhunterā€ known as Trader Horn (Harry Carey) heads down the river with his oblivious friend Peru (Duncan Renaldo) and his loyal Black ā€œgun bearerā€ to trade with the savages in the deepest part of that mysterious continent of Africa. Along the way they run into Edith Trent (Olive Careyā€”the star’s wife and mother of the better known Harry Carey Jr.), a White missionary whoā€™s spent years looking for her baby that was taken by some evil tribe. When Trent is killed, Horn continues the quest and finds the beautiful woman (Edwina Booth), who is treated as a goddess by the locals.

Itā€™s a bit silly of me to claim that Iā€™m correcting Trader Hornā€™s incorrectly lofty status as almost no one remembers it now, and unless you are lucky with TCM or hang out on Russian streaming sites, you havenā€™t seen it. But it once upon a time was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, so it deserves some comment.

Trader Horn is the type of movie that the fictional Carl Denham made in King Kong. It is built around documentary footage (and staged ā€œdocumentaryā€ footage) of a dangerous and exotic local, at least as 1930s Americans viewed the world. The place was Africa, and moving pictures of leopards, rhinos, lions were pretty new and exciting. The film’s plot is slight and exists to have a reason to show Africa, thus leading to some of the worst editing in film history. The story often stops so that Carey can point to animals and give brief and not always accurate descriptions. Peruā€™s job for the first half of the film is to be incredibly stupid so Careyā€™s Horn can explain everything to him.

And more than ninety years later, a good deal of that footage is impressive. Yes, Animal planet (thatā€™s a TV channel if times have changed by the time you read this) will give you better, but itā€™s still pretty good and was amazing in its time. Of course Animal Planet is less likely to torture animals, and thatā€™s an aspect that makes this film morally repugnant while reducing its artistic and informational worth. You see, bunches of lions donā€™t hang out to attack animals on cue, and then attack each other. To get that, they had to fake it (sometimes in Mexico), starving and torturing the animals in enclosed spaces so theyā€™d be desperate enough to rip at each other in ways that wouldnā€™t happen in nature. And yes, they really did shoot and kill the ā€œbig gameā€ you see dying in the movie.

Well, you canā€™t say karma isnā€™t a bitch. Two crewmembers died while filming (though at least one was an African) and almost everyone got sick, in some cases seriously. Edwina Booth ended up bedridden for years.

The acting is weak and what serves for character development is ludicrous even by African adventure film standards, but then director, ā€œOne-shot Woodyā€ Van Dyke, wasnā€™t going for art and didnā€™t care how his actors looked or what they did. Those ā€œnatureā€ shots were what counted. After all, the draw of this film wasnā€™t supposed to being seeing if Trader Horn could summon up a second emotion, but to see those animals, though I suspect the topless African women was the bigger draw. It sure beats the old National Geographic. I canā€™t think of another mainstream film with this kind of nudity for thirty years. But you know, ā€œsavagesā€ donā€™t count as people, so you can show them naked.

The African footage, both of tribes and animals, was re-used (or used for the first time as a lot hadnā€™t made it into the film) in adventure movies for years to come, most famously in Van Dykeā€™s Tarzan the Ape Man a year later. It is odd that this film has such abhorrent views on the treatment of animals while Tarzan has nearly the reverseā€”ivory trading is the great evil of the Tarzan series, and White hunters are never a good thing.

So, Trader Horn has terrible animal welfare views for its time and racist views that are about on par with its time (“Youā€™re mistaken about these people. Theyā€™re not savages; theyā€™re just happy, ignorant children.ā€), but the film is bad mainly because it is boring. Documentary footage just tossed on screen is not enough. A story worth the time would have helped (note: no Oscar nomination for script), and some kind of deeper connection to the characters could have saved it all (note: no Oscar nomination for acting). It would be a less drab viewing experience if it all was more attractive to look at, but ā€œOne-shot Woodyā€ was not known for the beauty of his cinematography (note: no Oscar nomination for cinematography or art direction). If it didnā€™t drag so much it might be a guilty pleasure (note: no Oscar nomination for editing). This is one of those very rare pictures that was nominated for Best Picture without a single other nomination. People at the time were simply astounded by that African footage and wanted to reward its existence. Thereā€™s worse films out there, but this ā€œbest pictureā€ simply offers nothing to the modern viewer. You want to see those shots of Africa (minus the nipples), watch the far superior Tarzan the Ape Man.

Jun 121931
 
two reels
MurderbytheClock

Cruel, elderly Julia Endicott (Blanche Friderici), matriarch of a dying family, walks through the cemetery, trailed by Philip (Irving Pichel), her feeble-minded, brutish son and Miss Roberts (Martha Mattox), the housekeeper. Julia claims they are going to the family crypt to lay flowers, but really it is to check the moaning alarm horn sheā€™s had installed so that she can call for help if she is entombed alive. Do you think weā€™ll be hearing that horn again? So begins Murder by the Clock. Vampish Laura Endicott (Lilyan Tashman) is sick of living below her standards, and of her weak, alcoholic husband, Herbert (Walter McGrail), who she presses to get money out of his Aunt Julia while she goes off to visit her lover, Tomas Hollander (Lester vail). Julia despises Laura, but surprisingly, she decides to make Herbert her heir. What choice does she have: a man-child who dreams of killing or useless Herbert. But thatā€™s not enough for Laura. She doesnā€™t want to wait. What follows is a string of seductions, murders, and the obsessive detective work of police lieutenant Valcour (William Boyd)

It was 1931. Sound equipment was primitive and filmmakers were trying to catch up to the skill level theyā€™d attained with silents. Horror had always been a tricky proposition, with audiences, by which I mean those claiming moral authority, likely to rebel. And no one knew quite what the limits were. Only Universal, old hands at horror in the silent era, really had any kind of a handle on it, and Dracula, their first horror classic, was still new. So Paramount dipped itā€™s toe. It had money, and it had talent, but it was never comfortable with horror.

Instead of going with a horror property, Paramount chose a melodramatic mystery novel, and the (as far as I can determine, unproduced) play based on it as the basis for their film. Then they grafted on horror elements: mists, cobwebs, ghostly sightings, death masks, graves and crypts, secret passageways, moans, screams, and an atmosphere of gloom. It doesnā€™t all fit together, but it is horror, and it is interesting.

All of the confusion and skill is evident when watching Murder by the Clock. Thereā€™s some elaborate sets that perfectly define the mood. Besides the house and the marvelous graveyard with crypt, thereā€™s the loverā€™s apartment/studio filled with statues of Laura. And to frame those was soon-to-be Oscar-winning cinematographer Karl Struss who found moments of macabre beauty. But they didnā€™t have a lot of skilled sound directors yet, and none familiar with horror. Edward Sloman does a passable job, but he couldnā€™t add the necessary magic that Whale and Browning and Freund were injecting over at Universal. The graveyard scenes, similar to what would appear within the year in Frankenstein, invoke that sense of wrongness that a horror film needs, but I couldnā€™t stop imagining that extra push that Whale could have given it, and did in his own film. Whatā€™s good here, should have been better. And thereā€™s plenty that isnā€™t good. If your actors canā€™t move too quickly, or in all directions, or speak naturally, all for fear of missing the words with the mics, then your film has serious flaws, ones that Sloman didnā€™t know how to cover.

Luckily he had actress Lilyan Tashman, who pulled out all the stops. Laura is self-obsessed, trampy, money grubbing, controlling, murderous, and just a whole lot of fun. Everyone is a mere shadow next to her and she dominates the movie. Sheā€™s a great villain, and it doesnā€™t hurt that I wasnā€™t going to shed a tear for Julia. There are no redeeming characters in the Endicott family. Whie this is Lauraā€™s movie, the rest of the Endicottā€™s are a good deal of fun too. Irving Pichel makes Philip a frightening creature, and a first cousin to the Frankenstein monster, but with a touch less soul. He thinks strangling people will be a lot fun, and has the right mix of child-like and lustful to be really uncomfortable.

But the Paramount confusion shows up with Valcour. Heā€™s clearly the hero who we are supposed to be rooting for, and thereā€™s nothing interesting or likable about him. Heā€™s mostly drab, with his one character trait being his self-righteous compulsion to solve the crime. Heā€™s obnoxious, but otherwise boring, and I wanted him to lose. And thatā€™s a problem in a film where clearly heā€™s going to win.

The ending is a bit of a mess as well. Itā€™s the ending youā€™d have for a procedural mystery with just a touch of thrills, not for a horror movie. We reached the point when several deaths were absolutely necessary for the filmā€”and they didnā€™t happen. We get some police work when we should have had screams.

Thereā€™s a lot of good here, and a lot of potential. In better hands, Murder by the Clock would have been one of the great early horror films.

Note: It is frequently categorized as an Old Dark House film simply because thereā€™s an old dark house. Thatā€™s not enough.