tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33494713229906835842024-03-13T12:17:26.977-07:00OscarvationsD.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-8483118305539721502009-09-12T12:31:00.000-07:002009-09-12T13:16:15.585-07:00Van der Veer, Rucker, With Byrd at the South Pole<strong>With Byrd at the South Pole (1930)<br />WON:</strong> Best Cinematography (Joseph T. Rucker, Willard Van der Veer)<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3452/3902084552_9727a09b86.jpg" /></div><br />The first World War was over, and it was an exciting time in America. The modern age was quickly coming upon Us. We were quickly conquering the skies and the seas, and it wouldn't be too long before every stretch of Earth would be explored. Fortunately, film had been created the very last moments of the exploration age, when guys who traveled great distances were considered national heroes.<br /><br />Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd was one such hero, and <i>With Byrd at the South Pole</i> chronicles his 1928 expedition to the South Pole, with the goal to be the first man ever to fly an airplane over the very pole itself. Byrd, who claimed to have flown over the North Pole and who was one of the first people to fly a plane from New York to France nonstop, was quickly becoming one of the most famous explorers of the 20th century. He was considered very brave and patriotic.<br /><br />He was not, however, a very good actor.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3468/3901304367_095caeedca.jpg" /></div><br />The film opens with a near-five minute scene of Byrd introducing the film. He's clearly uncomfortable, and we can't help but laugh as we watch his eyes move as he reads from cue cards.<br /><br />Fortunately, the rest of the film fairs better, but overall it's an odd and slight docudrama that's valuable as a historical document then an actual movie. It's main problem is an overall lack of focus, switching between moods and goals rather quickly. At times, the film is a dramatic adventure...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3902084864_fd24d1ff94.jpg" /></div><br />...is a picturesque look at an alien landscape...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3902084922_e302573cf5.jpg" /></div><br />...is a technical documentary examining all the small details...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2639/3902085284_5d815f5f70.jpg" /></div><br />...is a naked guy in a bucket...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/3901304993_1590d21943.jpg" /></div><br />This is largely the work of the editor, though. The thing the film won an Academy Award for, cinematography, is really very good. Two cameramen went along with the expedition, and even got to be characters in the film. Willard Van der Veer...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3901304417_f16ed6feba.jpg" /></div><br />And Joseph T. Rucker.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2520/3902084810_6ebfdb13b1.jpg" /></div><br />Between the two, they produced a lot of great, dramatic footage of the Antarctic landscape and managed to great down and personal with the small details at the same time, and a lot of these shots, like ones high in the sails of the ships used to get to the South Pole or shots along the edges of icy cliffs, appear to have been downright life threaten to have taken.<br /><br />It's impossible to figure out who shot what, so for all we know, all the dangerous stuff could have been the work of one of them and the other could have been a total puss, but however it worked out, you can't help but appreciate the work that went into it.<br /><br />That brings up an interesting question: Why don't more documentaries get cinematography nominations? Surely, most documentaries depend on having the best damn cinematography possible.<br /><br />Maybe the Academy is just, I don't know, stupid.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/3901304855_ac1f6900c9.jpg" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-67545687481423022612009-08-05T00:02:00.000-07:002009-08-05T05:52:38.548-07:00Ronald Colman and Bulldog Drummond<strong>Bulldog Drummond (1929)<br />DIRECTED BY:</strong> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428059/">F. Richard Jones</a><br /><strong>STARRING:</strong> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0172903/">Ronald Colman</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0021502/">Claud Allister</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000910/">Joan Bennett</a><br /><strong>NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Ronald Colman)<br />Best Art Direction (William Cameron Menzies)<br /><br />The transition from silent films to sound was perhaps most dangerous for the actors. If an actor didn't have a voice to match the physical persona they had built up in their silent career, they might never find work again. The most famous case of this was the career of John Gilbert, though his unexpected (but not bad) voice really only played a small part in his steep decline.<br /><br />British actor Ronald Colman was one of the few stars that not survived the transition, but flourished in it. He had a great voice, and thanks to a side career in radio, knew how to use it. He had a natural charisma that he put in most of his roles, and found success in all kinds of films, be they action, comedy or romance, of which <i>Bulldog Drummond</i> is all three.<br /><br />The character Bulldog Drummond was created by British author Herman Cyril McNeile as sort of an answer to the rise of American pulp novels. Unfortunately, like a lot of British writing in the early 20th century, McNeile's stories contained a lot of racism and general thugishness that would make the character an unacceptable hero today.<br /><br />Fortunately, both Ronald Colman's and Bulldog Drummond's first foray into sound exorcised these negative elements, and what you're left with is a cool actor playing a character who's just simply <b>BETTER</b> then everybody else.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3784087648_3bf01d15a1.jpg" /></div><br />Throughout the film, the character of Bulldog Drummond, a retired World War I captain living in the British high life, goes around with a smirk on his face. He knows he's so much better then the people around him, and he's loving it. We're introduced to him reading in a gentleman's club full of old farts. A servant accidentally drops a spoon, upsetting the silence, and the old farts get cranky, and all Bulldog Drummond can do is laugh at how stuck up these people are. Then he starts whistling.<br /><br />Because he's just simply BETTER then them.<br /><br />The character of Bulldog Drummond is a bit unique, because he's not a professional crime solver, just a guy who's bored and looking for adventure. He's not even looking to help people, as his classified ad suggests.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3784087772_3c04604d05.jpg" /></div><br />And he does find adventure in the form of a girl's kidnapped uncle, but even on the case, he never starts taking anything seriously, even around the girl who hired him.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3784087832_8bb1f381da.jpg" /></div><br />And most people would take this situation VERY seriously, because once Bulldog agrees to try and free the girl's uncle, he finds himself transplanted into a rather dark and very dangerous pulp world.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3784087884_3a3d2382eb.jpg" /><br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/3783278835_3bc00e2676.jpg" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3784087976_61f427e0f0.jpg" /></div><br />In a world with mad scientists, murderers in the shadows and secret passages, you'd expect a hero to stay focused and serious, but Bulldog Drummond is just so much BETTER then everybody.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3784087926_a652c6fe0f.jpg" /></div><br />And that's ultimately where the film's entertain value comes from, Bulldog Drummond smirking and easily outwitting all these dangerous criminals who want to cause him serious harm. I didn't smile during the action scenes, I smiled at small moments like Drummond playing a little tune on his car horn to mock the crooks he just escaped from.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3784088088_23899abde2.jpg" /></div><br />In many ways, Bulldog Drummond is the grandfather to the wisecracking antiheroes who throw around one-liners with each victory, guys like Bruce Willis' character in <i>Die Hard</i>, but perhaps Drummond's nearest relative is this guy:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/3791271389_d2cf4e8980.jpg" /></div><br />That's what Drummond is. A cartoon. Just like Bugs Bunny sticking his fingers into Elmer Fudd's gun barrel and having it backfire, the rules just don't apply to Drummond, and he always ends up on top. Part of that comes from the script, but a lot of the credit needs to go to Ronald Colman, who's light smirk and general body language really sells the character's superiority over everyone else.<br /><br />Perhaps it's because it's such a rarity for a hero to go through no hardships at all that makes the film as enjoyable as it is, a contrast to the struggle of the heroes of every other film. I'm sure it'd get boring really fast if more good guys had it this easy. Bulldog Drummond would probably trump any of those guys, though. Bulldog Drummond is just BETTER then everyone else.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2520/3784088032_2f45f5aeab.jpg" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-19348376386113907272009-07-28T02:31:00.000-07:002009-07-28T06:10:50.188-07:00Oscar Lagerstrom and Raffles<strong>Raffles (1930)<br />DIRECTED BY:</strong> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0195496/">Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0280463/">George Fitzmaurice</a><br /><strong>STARRING:</strong> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0172903/">Ronald Colman</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0290215/">Kay Francis</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0281955/">Bramwell Fletcher</a><br /><strong>NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Sound, Recording (Oscar Lagerstrom)<br /><br />I've said many negative things towards the introduction of sound in the film industry, but this is not so much a distaste in sound itself as it is a mourning of the lose of what COULD have been. The only point to that is to warn people of how future technological advances can impede on art.<br /><br />Now that we've had the large clunk of transitioning between silents and talkies and are in the first Academy Awards to give out awards for sound, it's time to stop looking back and instead look forward to the artistic and technical advances sound will offer films as they begin to grow again.<br /><br /><i>Raffles</i> belongs to the technical side of things. The film and it's sound can be both described in one word: functional. The film is a largely no-brainer light comedy that serves as a Ronald Colman vehicle (of whom I'll have much more to say about in my review following this one). Neither groundbreaking nor insulting, just functional.<br /><br />The sound design on the film is equally so. Now that sound was no longer a novelty, it had to be made both unobtrusive when it wasn't needed (unlike scenes pausing to showcase their sound effects like in <i><a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/warner-baxter-and-in-old-arizona.html">In Old Arizona</a></i>) as well as technically sound (unlike the horrible sound levels in <i><a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/mary-pickford-and-coquette.html">Coquette</a></i>).<br /><br />Which is not to say the sound design doesn't occasionally have fun with itself. The very first scene is that of three police officers sipping soup.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2619/3742311584_656d617324.jpg" /></div><br />Right off the bat we're shown how dysfunctional the police force in this film are, because the sounds of biological functions are funny, and it wouldn't have been appropriate in 1930 to open a film with three police officers farting.<br /><br />However, beyond this and two other unimportant moments, the sound never really brings attention to itself. The only recurring motif in the sound design is that of chiming clocks, none the least being Big Ben, since the film takes place in London. Even these barely register though, merely a way to fill the gap of silence as Raffles, the Amateur Cracksman, pulls off his little heists.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2611/3741518115_5272274175.jpg" /></div><br />Very rarely do sounds in this film overlap. When a character walks through a room, we hear his footsteps or the floor creaking. However, when a character walks through a room <i>while talking</i>, we only hear the dialogue.<br /><br />This sounds like no big deal in today's film world, but barely a year ago filmmakers found themselves obligated to include every single sound they could to display the novelty of it all, so it's nice to start seeing restraint in these films. The only time sounds overlap is when there's just no other way around it, like when two characters chat while in a dance club.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2642/3741518143_c98ee8046d.jpg" /></div><br />In many ways, <i>Raffles</i> may be a more important film in terms of the use of sound then some of the more artistic attempts at the time like <i><a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/roland-west-and-alibi.html">Alibi</a></i> because <i>Raffle</i> displays <b>control</b>. All the artistic talent of a painter isn't worth a damn if he has a twitchy arm, and while <i>Raffles</i> may be artistically uninteresting, it's at least dominate of it's functions, so much so that they finally got the camera to move again.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2639/3742311680_aeb14fbc08.jpg" /></div><br />Remember, cameras during that time were so loud that they had to be encased in sound-proof booths so they wouldn't be picked up on the microphone. So imagine my surprise to see not one, but <i>several</i> scenes of characters to and away from the camera while the camera follows, complete with sound!<br /><br />I really don't know how they did it. Maybe they invented a quieter camera or a more selective microphone or they dubbed the sounds and dialogue in later (and if it is a dub, it's a really, really good one). Whatever they did didn't catch on with everyone, and a lot of the films during that time still had the nailed-down camera thing going against them.<br /><br />Sound is not and has never been an enemy to film, it's merely it's misuse that caused so many filmmakers and film viewers headaches. While <i>Raffles</i> the film is ultimately unmemorable, it does show a lot of control of it's functions, and now that the tools have been used properly, we can finally see what we can make with them.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/3741518205_cfd5b71753.jpg" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-61321666955858673092009-07-20T23:52:00.000-07:002009-07-21T00:00:19.111-07:00November 5, 1930The third Academy Awards <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">ceremony</span> was the second of 1930, done so to get the Academy aligned with the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">calender</span> year. Awards were given away for eight <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">categories</span>, including a brand new <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">category</span> for sound production.<br /><br />Thomas A. Edison was presented an honorary Academy membership and gave a post-dinner talk. George Eastman was also presented an honorary membership.<br /><br />For the third and last time, the statuettes are made of bronze castings with 24k gold plating. Later statuettes are all made of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">britannium</span>.<br /><br />Sound was finding it's ground at this point, and would eventually lead film into many interesting directions.<br /><br />I've managed to find many, many more films from these Academy Awards then I did for the 2<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">nd</span>, so hopefully we'll get a good look of the film industry in 1930.<br /><br />Welcome to the 3rd Academy Awards.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-36336321454861418022009-07-14T00:33:00.000-07:002009-07-14T01:00:26.603-07:00Index: 2nd Academy Awards<b>Best Picture<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/hollywood-and-broadway-melody.html">The Broadway Melody (1929)</a> - M-G-M<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/roland-west-and-alibi.html">Alibi (1929)</a> - Feature Productions<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/warner-baxter-and-in-old-arizona.html">In Old Arizona (1928)</a> - Fox<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/hollywood-and-hollywood-revue-of-1929.html">The Hollywood Revue of 1929 (1929)</a> - M-G-M<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Patriot (1928)</a> - Paramount Famous Lasky<br /><br /><b>Best Actor in a Leading Role<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/warner-baxter-and-in-old-arizona.html">In Old Arizona (1928)</a> - Warner Baxter<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/roland-west-and-alibi.html">Alibi (1929)</a> - Chester Morris<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Patriot (1928)</a> - Lewis Stone<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Valiant (1929)</a> - Paul Muni<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Thunderbolt (1929)</a> - George Bancroft<br /><br /><b>Best Actress in a Leading Role<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/mary-pickford-and-coquette.html">Coquette (1929)</a> - Mary Pickford<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Madame X (1929)</a> - Ruth Chatterton<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Barker (1928)</a> - Betty Compson<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/hollywood-and-broadway-melody.html">The Broadway Melody (1929)</a> - Bessie Love<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Divine Lady (1929)</a> - Corinne Griffith<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Letter (1929)</a> - Jeanne Eagels<br /><br /><b>Best Director<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Divine Lady (1929)</a> - Frank Lloyd<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Drag (1929)</a> - Frank Lloyd<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/warner-baxter-and-in-old-arizona.html">In Old Arizona (1928)</a> - Irving Cummings<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Madame X (1929)</a> - Lionel Barrymore<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/hollywood-and-broadway-melody.html">The Broadway Melody (1929)</a> - Harry Beaumont<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Patriot (1928)</a> - Ernst Lubitsch<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Weary River (1929)</a> - Frank Lloyd<br /><br /><b>Best Writing, Achievement<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Patriot (1928)</a> - Hanns Kräly<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/04/bess-meredyth-vs-william-h-daniels.html">A Woman of Affairs (1928)</a> - Bess Meredyth<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/warner-baxter-and-in-old-arizona.html">In Old Arizona (1928)</a> - Tom Barry<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/legs-and-our-dancing-daughters.html">Our Dancing Daughters (1928)</a> - Josephine Lovett<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Sal of Singapore (1928)</a> - Elliott J. Clawson<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Skyscraper (1928)</a> - Elliott J. Clawson<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Cop (1928)</a> - Elliott J. Clawson<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Last of Mrs. Cheyney (1929)</a> - Hanns Kräly<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Leatherneck (1929)</a> - Elliott J. Clawson<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Valiant (1929)</a> - Tom Barry<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Wonder of Women (1929)</a> - Bess Meredyth<br /><br /><b>Best Cinematography<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">White Shadows in the South Seas (1928)</a> - Clyde De Vinna<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">4 Devils (1928)</a> - Ernest Palmer<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/warner-baxter-and-in-old-arizona.html">In Old Arizona (1928)</a> - Arthur Edeson<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/legs-and-our-dancing-daughters.html">Our Dancing Daughters (1928)</a> - George Barnes<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-1.html">Street Angel (1928)</a> - Ernest Palmer<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Divine Lady (1929)</a> - John F. Seitz<br /><br /><b>Best Art Direction<br />Winner:</b> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Bridge of San Luis Rey (1929)</a> - Cedric Gibbons<br /><b>Other Nominees:</b><br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/05/roland-west-and-alibi.html">Alibi (1929)</a> - William Cameron Menzies<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">Dynamite (1929)</a> - Mitchell Leisen<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-1.html">Street Angel (1928)</a> - Harry Oliver<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Awakening (1928)</a> - William Cameron Menzies<br />- <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/07/lost-films-2nd-academy-awards.html">The Patriot (1928)</a> - Hans DreierD.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-75840622599807476752009-07-13T11:34:00.000-07:002009-07-13T14:24:40.353-07:00The Lost Films: 2nd Academy AwardsIn the days before television, VHS and DVD, not a lot of thought was given to film preservation. As such, the further you go back, the harder it is to find copies of certain films. There were a lot of films nominated during the 2nd Academy Awards that are either completely lost or unavailable in any consumable format.<br /><br />Should any of these films become available, I promise to go back and review them.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>4 Devils (1928)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Cinematography (Ernest Palmer)<br /><br />According to Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>"The plot concerns four orphans (Anders Randolf, Barry Norton, Charles Morton, and Gaynor) who become a high wire act, and centers around sinister goings-on at a circus."</i><br /><br />The film is sadly lost. Details are available on the DVD of <i>Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans</i>.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Awakening (1928)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Art Direction (William Cameron Menzies)<br /><br />Can't find much information on it, besides that it takes place in World War I. No known copy exists.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Barker (1928)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Betty Compson)<br /><br />Plot according to Turner Classic Movies:<br /><br /><i>"Nifty Miller, the greatest carnival barker in the world, sends his son, Chris, to law school in the hope that the boy will find in professional life a more settled and prosperous life than that of the sideshow. During one of his summer vacations, Chris finds work with the carnival, and Nifty breaks off his relationship with Carrie, a hula dancer who, seeking revenge for this slight, pays another carnival girl, Lou, to vamp the innocent boy; Lou, however, genuinely falls in love with Chris. When his father finds out that they are in love, Chris defiantly announces his intention to marry the girl. Seeing his ambitious plans for his son seemingly collapse, Nifty quits the carnival and turns to drink. He later finds out that Chris has returned to law school at Lou's urging. Offered a partnership in the carnival, Nifty returns to his former life as a barker."</i><br /><br />Prints exist, but no VHS or DVDs<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Bridge of San Luis Rey (1929)<br />Won:</b> Best Art Direction (Cedric Gibbons)<br /><br />Wikipedia on the novel the film was adapted from:<br /><br /><i>"It tells the story of several interrelated people who die in the collapse of an Inca rope-fiber suspension bridge in Peru, and the events that lead up to their being on the bridge. A friar who has witnessed the tragic accident then goes about inquiring into the lives of the victims, seeking some sort of cosmic answer to the question of why each had to die."</i><br /><br />A part-talkie, part-silent film. The talkie portions are lost, and the remaining parts of the film are in storage and are unavailable.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Cop (1928)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Elliott J. Clawson)<br /><br />Not much information on this film, a print might exist at the Library of Congress.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Divine Lady (1929)<br />Won:</b> Best Director (Frank Lloyd)<br /><b>Nominated For:</b> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Corinne Griffith)<br />Best Cinematography (John F. Seitz)<br /><br />The plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"A partly fictionalized account of history begins with the arrival of slatternly Emma Hart, a cook's daughter, at the home of Charles Greville. Greville takes her as his lover and grooms her until their relationship becomes an inconvenience. Greville then dupes Emma into traveling to Naples to live with his uncle, Lord Hamilton, ambassador to the court at Naples. Realizing that Greville has abandoned her, Emma agrees to marry Lord Hamilton. Soon, however, she meets Admiral Horatio Nelson of the British Navy. Emma plays a crucial role in convincing Naples to open its ports to Nelson during his campaign against Napoleon's French fleet. Soon, Emma and the married Nelson become romantically involved -- a relationship which will have consequences for them both."</i><br /><br />Prints exist, and it's aired on Turner Classic Movies a few times. Possible review in the future.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Drag (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Director (Frank Lloyd)<br /><br />Plot according to Turner Classic Movies:<br /><br /><i>"Young David Carroll takes over the publication of a local Vermont newspaper. Although he is attracted to Dot, "the most sophisticated girl in town," he marries Allie Parker, daughter of the couple who run the boardinghouse where he lives. Inseparable from her parents, Allie remains at home when David goes to New York City to sell a musical he has written. There, Dot, now a successful costume designer, uses her influence to get David's play produced. David and Dot fall in love, but she leaves for Paris when David indicates he will remain true to Allie. He sends for Allie; but when she arrives with her whole family, he decides to follow Dot to Paris."</i><br /><br />Prints seem to exist, not much information beyond that.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Dynamite (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Art Direction (Mitchell Leisen)<br /><br />The plot, according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"Wealthy Cynthia is in love with not-so-wealthy Roger, who is married to Marcia. The threesome is terribly modern about the situation, and Marcia will gladly divorce Roger if Cynthia agrees to a financial settlement. But Cynthia's wealth is in jeopardy because her trust fund will expire if she is not married by a certain date. To satisfy that condition, Cynthia arranges to marry Hagon Derk, who is condemned to die for a crime he didn't commit. She pays him so he can provide for his little sister. But at the last minute, Derk is freed when the true criminal is discovered. Expecting to be a rich widow, Cynthia finds herself married to a man she doesn't know and doesn't want to."</i><br /><br />The film is in rotation on Turner Classic Movies, but no VHS or DVD is available. A possible review coming in the future.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Last of Mrs. Cheyney (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Hanns Kräly)<br /><br />The plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"There is a big charity function at the house of Mrs. Cheyney and a lot of society is present. With her rich husband, deceased, rich old Lord Elton and playboy Lord Arthur Dilling are both very interested in the mysterious Fay. Invited to the house of Mrs. Webley, Fay is again the center of attention for Arthur and Elton with her leaning towards stuffy old Elton. When Arthur sees Charles, Fay's Butler, lurking in the gardens, he remembers that Charles was a thief caught in Monte Carlo and he figures that Fay may be more interested in the pearls of Mrs. Webley, which she is. After Fay takes the pearls, but before she can toss them out the window, she is caught by Arthur who is very disappointed in how things are turning out."</i><br /><br />Prints seem to be available, but no VHS or DVD copies.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Leatherneck (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Elliott J. Clawson)<br /><br />Can't find much information. If prints are available, there isn't any VHS or DVD copies.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Madame X (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Ruth Chatterton)<br />Best Director (Lionel Barrymore)<br /><br />Plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"Thrown out of her home by a jealous husband, a woman sinks into degradation. Twenty years later, she is charged with killing a man bent on harming her son. The son, unaware of who the woman is, takes the assignment to defend her in court."</i><br /><br />Prints exist, will probably review in the future.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Patriot (1928)<br />Won:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Hanns Kräly)<br /><b>Nominated For:</b> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Lewis Stone)<br />Best Art Direction (Hans Dreier)<br />Best Director (Wrnst Lubitsch)<br />Best Picture<br /><br />The tag line according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"These Characters Will Fascinate You! EMIL JANNINGS - Cruel, brutal, but also pathetic. The mad Czar who holds all Russia in his tyrannical grasp. FLORENCE VIDOR - An exotic beauty of the court. The Czar's favorite! Betrayed by her lover, she becomes a thorn in the hands of the conspirators! LEWIS STONE - Prime Minister and trusted friend of the mad Czar, who conspires against the monster ruler of Russia. NEIL HAMILTON - Heir to the throne. Worshipped by the Russians. The only man who can hold the government from self-destruction."</i><br /><br />This film is very, very lost. Chances of finding it are 0 to nil. It is the only Best Picture nominee for which no complete or near-complete copy exists.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Sal of Singapore (1928)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Elliott J. Clawson)<br /><br />Not much information. A print supposedly exists at UCLA.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Skyscraper (1928)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Elliott J. Clawson)<br /><br />The plot according to Turner Classic Movies:<br /><br /><i>"Blondy and Slim, buddies, are high steel workers. Blondy falls and is seriously injured while attempting to rescue Slim. As a result of his injury he can no longer work, and he falls into a reclusive depression. Only after his friend pretends to be interested in his sweetheart does he recover his spirit and become well again."</i><br /><br />Not much information on availablity.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Thunderbolt (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Actor in a Leading Role (George Bancroft)<br /><br />Plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"A criminal known as Thunderbolt is imprisoned and facing execution. Into the next cell is placed Bob Morgan, an innocent man who has been framed and who is in love with Thunderbolt's girl, without knowing of their relationship. Thunderbolt hopes to stave off the execution long enough to kill young Morgan for romancing his girl."</i><br /><br />Not much information on availability.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>The Valiant (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Paul Muni)<br />Best Writing, Achievement (Tom Barry)<br /><br />The plot according to Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>"The play's plot is actually quite convoluted. The basic story of the plot is that a half an hour before a murderer's execution, the Warden and the Prison Chaplain attempt to discern the prisoner's identity. He meets his long lost sister, although the end is slightly ambiguous if one is not paying attention. The play ends with the exit of the murderer, the Chaplain and the Warden."</i><br /><br />Prints exist only in private collections.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Weary River (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Director (Frank Lloyd)<br /><br />Plot according to Turner Classic Movies:<br /><br /><i>"Bootlegger Jerry Larrabee is framed by a rival gangster and is sent to prison, where he comes under the kindly influence of the warden. Jerry turns to music and forms a prison band, broadcasting over the radio. Radio listeners are deeply moved by his singing, and Jerry wins an early parole. He goes into vaudeville and quickly flops; he then moves from job to job, haunted by the past. Forced at last to return to his old gang, Jerry takes up with his former sweetheart, Alice. She gets in touch with the warden, who arrives on the scene in time to keep Jerry on the straight and narrow path. Jerry eventually becomes a radio star and marries Alice."</i><br /><br />Prints exist, may review in the future.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><b>Wonder of Women (1929)<br />Nominated For:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Bess Meredyth)<br /><br />The really short synopsis from IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"A German pianist is going to break up with his unfaithful wife, when he receives the message that his favourite stepchild has died."</i><br /><br />Despite a rumor of a laserdisc existing at UCLA, this film is pretty lost.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-81849717445143599362009-07-13T06:36:00.000-07:002009-07-13T11:18:51.267-07:00Hollywood and The Broadway Melody<b>The Broadway Melody (1929)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0064600/">Harry Beaumont</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656105/">Anita Page</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0522281/">Bessie Love</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454558/">Charles King</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Picture<br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Bessie Love)<br />Best Director (Harry Beaumont)<br /><br />The 2nd Best Picture winner opens big, with a vast shot of New York City as filmed from an airplane.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3610112505_d61c2bc55d.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />We spend about half a minute to absorb the setting. Similar shots were used in <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/king-vidor-and-crowd.html">The Crowd</a> to reveal the city as a massive machine, impossible for any individual to conquer, where as <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/harold-lloyd-and-speedy.html">Speedy</a> took the same kind of shots to create a poem celebrating the city for it's communities and quirks.<br /><i>The Broadway Melody</i> shares neither of those ambitions. The film mearly shows New York for the sake of showing New York, and then confines the rest of the film into tiny sound stages. That sums up the film perfectly: A film that by every right should have been ambitious and interesting, but decided to confine itself in trite and confusing plot points.<br /><br />The film holds the distinction of being one of the first musicals ever, and the first musical to win Best Picture. That doesn't mean anything, though. The songs are just songs. They are not used to tell the story, they aren't related to the actual plot, the film is put on hold so that the actors can sing them. I'm not even sure if you could call that a musical.<br /><br />And is it really that smart to make a musical this early into the history of talkies? People could barely figure out microphones, let alone sound editing, and scenes involving more then one person talking or making noise turned the scenes into clustered messes. Here's a scene near the beginning that's the perfect example of what I'm talking about, which also follows into the film's first song:<br /><br /><div align="center"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1pzVm6nm4xM&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1pzVm6nm4xM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><br />Hope you like that song, because it's not the last time we hear it.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3610112629_59df1b86e1.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Beyond bad sound and quaint songs, the film doesn't offer anything beyond a by-the-numbers struggle-for-success story, only now in sound for the first time. Two small town girls, Hank and Queenie Mahoney, make a new home in a New York hotel, trying to break into Broadway. They have a friend named Eddie on the inside, the big wig star you saw singing earlier, who is also Hank's boyfriend. They haven't seen Eddie for a while, so when Eddie sees how much Queenie has blossomed...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3610925250_b6f3f755b0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />...he IMMEDIATELY jumps ship.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3610925300_7c56290260.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Queenie isn't the smartest apple, and Eddie is shallow as all hell, but you're not going to believe this, but these two are the characters we're supposed to attach ourselves to. By the end of the film, Eddie will have cheated on Hank, Queenie will have turned down the advances of a rich but really really nice producer (who everybody in the film hates for no reason I can see), and then the two get married and we're supposed to treat this like a happy ending. I'm not sure if this is just an example of old-school 1920s values or some clunky attempt at a sad ending.<br /><br />What the hell is this movie supposed to be?<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3610112755_96c88781da.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />If I was to say anything nice about this film, it'd probably be that it provides a decent look at the behind-the-scenes of the Broadway variety shows of the time, and boy, do they seem like totally unappealing places. Nobody gets along, both the performers and producers are there just to make money... well, I guess that's pretty accurate t0 any job.<br /><br />The Broadway performances themselves are standard fare and unimaginative, but even if they were amazing, we could barely see them anyway.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3610112899_906bbd92aa.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />I suppose the filmmakers wanted to give us the feeling of being at an actual Broadway show, sitting in a decent middle row seat. This was an unfortunate attitude, and it makes the performances little and insignificant.<br /><br />There's nothing really beyond this. Once again, I find myself with fewer things to say about the Best Picture winner then I do with the other nominees. <i>The Broadway Melody</i> isn't an awful film, it's just uninteresting and uninventive in a time where films really needed both.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3358/3610113113_ae77875458.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-62329667891653504312009-05-24T09:03:00.000-07:002009-05-24T09:35:26.075-07:00Hollywood and The Hollywood Revue of 1929<b>The Hollywood Revue of 1929 (1929)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0718469/">Charles Reisner</a><br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Picture<br /><br />I don't normally look at films I haven't seen in full. My excuse is that <i>The Hollywood Revue of 1929</i> is not a film, it's a television special in the days before television.<br /><br />All this "film" is is a collection of sketches performed on a stage by then-famous Hollywood stars. There's no narrative, no story, just some comedy bits and some singing, stretched out to two hours. You could randomly shuffle the sketches up and still come out with the same movie.<br /><br />And that doesn't offer anything worth talking about. I guess it gave the people the same kind of Seeing Famous People Do Stuff thrill that we now get from Dancing With the Stars and such shows, but if you really need that kind of thrill, you probably have nothing to do with this blog.<br /><br />Since there's no substance to speak of, I'll just post the available clips on Youtube and show you what was entertainment in 1929:<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/70kz_8NGuxo&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/70kz_8NGuxo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Host Jack Benny getting his clothes torn off by William Haines...<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TaGbSJejwIU&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TaGbSJejwIU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Marie Dressler having a royal fantasy...<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OcLvoNcaFXU&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OcLvoNcaFXU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Buster Keaton dancing in drag...<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9La1WCRo9w&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9La1WCRo9w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Laurel & Hardy doing magic, kinda (my personal favorite bit from those I've seen)...<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0dT-4bN6y7E&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0dT-4bN6y7E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />John Gilbert & Norma Shearer doing a classic scene from Romeo & Juliet (IN COLOR!)...<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Qqtt6AEWI4&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Qqtt6AEWI4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />And them again, doing a more up to date scene from Romeo & Juliet (IN COLOR!)...<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EUoTAtl8lv8&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EUoTAtl8lv8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />And to close things out, the entire cast performing "Singing in the Rain," which I should point out debuted with this film.<br /><br />No, I have no desire to hunt the rest of the film down. What's the point? It's mostly Hollywood patting itself on the back, and I already get enough of that with the Academy Awards.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-63736814976730387992009-05-23T05:59:00.000-07:002009-05-23T09:46:15.454-07:00Warner Baxter and In Old Arizona<b>In Old Arizona (1928)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191899/">Irving Cummings</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0062828/">Warner Baxter</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0522926/">Edmund Lowe</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0121282/">Dorothy Burgess</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Actor (Warner Baxter)<br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Cinematography (Arthur Edeson)<br />Best Director (Irving Cummings)<br />Best Writing, Achievement (Tom Barry)<br />Best Picture<br /><br />There was a reason the early sound films were called "talkies." Most shoots were limited to a single microphone, and that was usually reserved for the dialogue. It was hard to pick up sounds that weren't within a few feet of it, so films were enclosed on sets to allow for easier sound pick-up.<br /><br />This is what gives <i>In Old Arizona</i> it's claim to fame: Along with being the first sound western, it's the first sound film that largely takes place outdoors.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3548830374_18de2cc9f5.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Unfortunately, this isn't as big of a deal as it sounds. The microphones barely picked up anything beyond a few feet, so for a ten second shot of a man riding a horse, you might hear the hoof beats for about two seconds, followed by eight seconds of total silence. More minor sounds that would create atmosphere, like the wind, weren't picked up.<br /><br />The locations in Arizona were certianly photogenic, but with such weak sound sources, it would have been a lot more satisfying to just give the non-dialogue portions of the film to a foley artist. Not that there's a lot of those. This is a "talkie," and it earns that title. This film will NOT SHUT UP! It's wall-to-wall boring conversations between three bad actors, and it's enough to drive you bonkers.<br /><br />Let's start with Baxter.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/3548830340_0a1c821866.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Warner Baxter, who won the Academy Award for acting somehow, plays the Cisco Kid, #1 outlaw of the west, and oversized hat connoisseur! This is my first film with Warner Baxter, and I'm not sure what his acting strengths are (or if he even has any). He's never allowed to physically act throughout the entire film, he just stands there with a smile and reads off his lines.<br />And he keeps talking, and talking, AND TALKING. He never stops talking. There are a lot of scenes where he's alone, and he just talks to himself. He sees a wanted poster for him, and he laughs and gives a monologue about how <i>awesome</i> he is. He monologues about everything: about how awesome his girl is, about how awesome babies are (seriously), about how awesome his wine is, etc.<br /><br />And despite all this talking-and-nothing-else, Warner Baxter isn't very good at it. Maybe it's his faux-Mexican accent (even though the character is Portuguese, figure that one out). Maybe Baxter couldn't play young (the character was 25 and Baxter was 39). Maybe he just couldn't get over how goofy and large his hat was.<br /><br />In any case, Baxter was bad, and the Cisco Kid was uninteresting. The description of the film I read compared the Cisco Kid to a wild west version of Robin Hood, which is nothing but a complete misunderstanding on what Robin Hood was about. Robin Hood didn't just "steal from the rich and gave to the poor," he fought a corrupt government that squeezed money unfairly from it's citizens. The Cisco Kid just stole stuff.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3326/3548830410_1fdd759785.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />The opening of the film shows the Cisco Kid stealing a box of money from a carriage, and then leaving. The people the Kid steals from aren't rich or corrupt or anything, they were just passing through, and the Kid never has any intention though the film to do anything with the money but buy things for him and his girl. What an asshole.<br /><br />It should be noted that in this classic western story of law makers and law breakers, there's hardly any action in it. The carriage stickup is just the Cisco Kid pointing a gun at a few people, them giving him the money, and him leaving. No shots fired, no hasty escapes, just routine.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2075/3548830596_da57381f3e.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />There's only one scene in the movie that would qualify as an action scene. About two-thirds of the way through, three random guys spot the Cisco Kid and try to take him down for the reward on his head, but the Cisco Kid makes quick work of them. It's a quick moment, shot from a distance, and has nothing to do with what little plot there is in the film. So, with those two short moments out of the way, what left for the remaining 60+ minutes of film?<br /><br />Talking, talking, talking, talking, TALKING.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3358/3548020127_edb1c578d0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />And then we have Edmund Lowe and his character Sgt. Dunn. Despite being the Cisco Kid's main foil, Dunn comes off even worse of a character. He's a gambler and a womanizer who cheats on his wife, and he's only really after the Kid for the money, not because it's the right thing to do. The main problem with this is that Edmund Lowe must not have gotten the memo and thought he was playing the good guy, because despite what this character <i>does</i>, Lowe always plays the character as an aw-shucks-boy scout that ends every sentence with "geez".<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3548830492_2b3a5963b9.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />And then we have Dorothy Burgess and her character, the feisty Mexican Tonia Maria. Tonia is a gold digger, and sleeps with other men behind the Kid's back. She's easily the least-likable character in the film, and it doesn't help that Burgess' performance is damn near racist.<br /><br />Eventually, Tonia gets with Dunn, and we realize that the only reason we're even rooting for the Cisco Kid, a selfish bandit, is because everybody else is WORSE. What we end up with is an hour and a half film where three totally unlikeable characters do nothing but talk to each other about nothing, all while being played by three bad actors. This is what Hollywood wanted to pretend was entertainment back then.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3394/3548830554_62e86828ee.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-49425455383527296582009-05-17T09:21:00.000-07:002009-05-17T10:53:24.648-07:00Roland West and AlibiFinally! An interesting movie!<br /><br /><b>Alibi (1929)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0922327/">Roland West</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0606431/">Chester Morris</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0835913/">Harry Stubbs</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0123994/">Mae Busch</a><br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Chester Morris)<br />Best Art Direction (William Cameron Menzies)<br />Best Picture<br /><br />It's kind of heartwarming to discover that SOMEBODY was trying to use sound artistically this early in it's history. Most sound films at the time were just stationary cameras filming people talking. Sound was just that, sound. A gunshot was a gunshot, a footstep was a footstep, and a scream was a scream. There was very few attempts to bring symbolization into sound this early in the game.<br /><br /><i>Alibi</i> is a dated, creaky film now, but put into context, and it's pretty amazing. The very opening scene is a montage of simple sounds. A prison guard twirls his baton, creating a beat.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2236/3527264401_01dfee5e26.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />A bell is rung to the same beat.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3528075932_202b5c480a.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Prisoners drag their feet.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/3528075960_722d6496cb.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Another prison guard beats his baton against a wall.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3527264481_1b4b6c143f.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This is the earliest musical moment I've seen in sound pictures. The film is not a musical, but the simple beat and the poetic images suggest the opening moments of a modern music video. Most musicals at that time were simply Broadway performances put in front of a camera, usually involving dancing girls with glittery costumes.<br /><br /><i>Alibi</i> has those too, though.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3327/3527264635_85139bf4df.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This is the main problem with <i>Alibi</i>, it has split personalities. The film was originally conceived as a silent film, but the success of talkies forced director Roland West to transform it into a sound film.<br /><br />What we end up with is a film where half the scenes are like the one at the beginning, filmed silent with sound dubbed in later, and the other half falling into the same claptrap of all the other early sound films, with glittery flow-stopping musical numbers and people standing in rooms talking while the camera doesn't move.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/3528076160_5f49607a2f.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />The plot is at least interesting, so we have that to get us through the exposition scenes. The film revolves around the relationship between ex-con Chick Williams and the police. For the first half of the film, we learn that the police planted a gun on Chick which resulted in him going to prison. When Chick gets out, he connects with the daughter of the police sergeant that framed him, much to the father's dismay.<br /><br />If the film has anything to say, it's that, sure, criminals are bad, but the police are not much better. Chick's framing is the big off-screen example of the police's questionable tactics, but that's not enough for us. We have to see these guys do their dirty laundry themselves.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2178/3528076296_ab1bc45149.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />During a heist, a police officer is shot, and the police are going to get answers no matter what. They bring in a two-bit thug and start questioning him, demanding a name out of him even though he claims an alibi.<br /><br />This scene is my favorite in the entire film. Roland West did a lot of experimenting with sound in the film, and he may have been one of the first directors to discover that with sound comes <i>silence</i>. Silent films never had the luxury of silence, with live music always being played. With a sound film, when the sound goes away, you pay attention, you get tense. So, when a mysterious face appears in a door...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2420/3528076320_f7cc572dda.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />...and one officer goes to stand by the window...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/3527264907_b58c4a06d2.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />...and the other officer wipes the fingerprints off a gun...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/3527264877_cba6201296.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />...and there's no sound to explain it all, no sound to comfort you, then your heart really starts to race.<br /><br />It's amazing how hopeful I get when I see someone trying to regain the artistic freedom lost by technology. As CGI continues to take over films, I hope we get more and more directors who try and implement it in new and artistic ways.<br /><br />Again, the film is still a mixed bag, and that goes for it's other elements. It was nominated for it's art direction by our old friend <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/09/william-cameron-menzies-dove-and.html">William Cameron Menzies</a>. Some descriptions of the film has dubbed it "inspired by German expressionism," but I don't agree. However, the slightly off-beat art deco is something to enjoy.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/3527264943_226a1c1d42.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />So while Menzies' production design is a hit, the acting is a big, big miss. It seems most of the actors involved were still suffering from the jitters of converting to silent style to talkie style. Chester Morris, nominated for Best Actor for his role as Chick Williams, always seems like he's trying to squeeze his skull out of his head.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2044/3528076552_282da180eb.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />However, the worst offender is Regis Toomey, playing an undercover detective named Danny McGann. His cover? Drunken Wall Street broker.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3527264981_c63289975b.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Danny's drunk character is so over the top it's laughable. At first I thought the character of Danny was a bad actor, but when Danny's cover is blown and we see the real character, I realized that it was Regis that was the bad actor. Every scene with Danny is sooooo drawn out and annoying, and it makes sense that his most drawn out and annoying scene is when he dies.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/3528076520_3478149bae.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />It takes minutes for him to finally go. He tells everyone his regrets, makes his finally wishes, etc., all with twenty second pauses between each line. And finally, right before he dies, UKULELE MUSIC STARTS PLAYING! What is this crap!?!<br /><br />*sigh* Such is the nature of this film. If you want the good, you got to take the bad. It's certainly the best film from the 2nd Academy Awards I've looked at so far, and in this sea of dead weights, you take what you can get.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2220/3528076582_55d5e556f0.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-70347536871038588232009-05-12T10:12:00.000-07:002009-05-12T10:15:27.162-07:00Mary Pickford and Coquette<b>Coquette (1929)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0064600/">Sam Taylor</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0681933/">Mary Pickford</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0113902/">Johnny Mack Brown</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601596/">Matt Moore</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Mary Pickford)<br /><br />I have to admit, I really miss the 1st Academy Awards. There was the questionable win and nomination here and there, but for the most part the films were interesting and deserved the accolades they received.<br /><br />However, it took merely a year for the Academy to fall into controversy. That year, the award for Best Actress was expected to go to Ruth Chatterton for her role in <i>Madame X</i> (a film I sadly haven't been able to find). Instead, it went to Mary Pickford for <i>Coquette</i>. Why the controversy? Two reasons:<br /><br />1) Mary Pickford was arguable the most powerful woman in Hollywood at the time. She began starring in movies in the 1910s, starring in 52 of them overall. Her youthful appearance and trademark curly hair made her on of the biggest stars of the silent era. Some say there was a point where she was more famous then Chaplin. Appearances in public were known to cause riots. One of her curls sold for $15,000 in auction. She was a superstar.<br /><br />And she used that superstar status to change the film industry from the inside. She became her own producer after three years of starring in films. Pickford's films were distributed through their own distribution unit. In 1919, she founded her own studio, United Artists, along with Chaplin, director D.W. Griffith and soon-to-be husband Douglas Fairbanks Sr. The company became a much-needed home for independent film producers at the time.<br /><br />And most importantly, she was one of the founders of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the group behind the Academy Awards. She was the only female member at the time, and even if Pickford HAD given the best performance that year, people would still have cried favoritism.<br /><br />2) Mary Pickford did not give the best performance that year. <i>Coquette</i> is an awful, awful film.<br /><br />This film is the first all-talkie picture reviewed on this site. While <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/hollywood-and-jazz-singer.html">The Jazz Singer</a> had a synced soundtrack, actual dialogue was reduced to a few songs and one brief monologue. This film is wall-to-wall conversations, and since microphones weren't mobile at the time, that meant everyone had to stay in the same area with little movement.<br /><br />See this chair?<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3506649785_fe8869c278.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />The microphone is somewhere around that chair, so most of the movie is people awkwardly standing around the chair chatting. That chair gets more screen time then any of the actors.<br /><br />The film takes place in some Southern state, where a rich doctor deals with her teenage daughter Norma (Pickford was in her 30s at the time) and the suitors that come to her door. Yes, for the third time in the 2nd Academy Awards, we're dealing with a Rich Person Melodrama. Anyway, Norma shows interest in a poor man from the mountains, and her father won't hear of it, and tries to hook Norma up with his dull rich friend. EXCITING!<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3507458008_45de64006a.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Again, Mary Pickford was almost twice the age of the character she was playing, and I guess she got it into her head that she had to exaggerate the youthful aspect of the character, and she really comes off annoying and fake. Remember, acting for silent films or for stage were different, and one had to be more subtle for sound films.<br /><br />You know, here. Here's a seven-minute clip from the film to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:<br /><br /><div align="center"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qXaKUJ0NmDo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qXaKUJ0NmDo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><br /><i>"Ooh. Aren't they just.... adorable?"</i><br /><br />The entire film is this. People standing in rooms, giving comically bad line readings and corny gestures. Mary Pickford is the queen of corny gestures.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3378/3507458164_6f89f5e9ab.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3507458304_bbdb874ed7.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/3507458674_c39b4a996d.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3507458874_7bf12ed2f0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><i>Coquette</i> might as well be the flagship of the horrible films made at the beginning of the sound era. I should point out that I think Mary Pickford was a good <i>silent</i> actress, so it's not like she was untalented, but it's clear that sound was her undoing. The film was a critical failure and didn't make money, and Pickford quickly lost the fame she spent twenty years gaining. She only made two more films after this before retiring to the role of producer only.<br /><br />But even with the troubles she had, I don't feel too forgiving. Her win in this category was pure politics. With sound destroying the industry and the Academy already patting itself on the back, it's clear just how dark of a time for movies it was.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3506651183_3e8fc83162.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-36610711314227652112009-05-05T02:13:00.000-07:002009-05-05T04:22:31.481-07:00Legs and Our Dancing Daughters<b>Our Dancing Daughters (1928)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0064600/">Harry Beaumont<br /></a><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001076/">Joan Crawford</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656105/">Anita Page</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0780941/">Dorothy Sebastian</a><br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Cinematography (George Barnes)<br />Best Writing, Achievement (Josephine Lovett)<br /><br />I find I have a bad habit of pretending I know something about culture and the history of culture. For some years I ran a pop culture website where I feign expertise on what people used to do and why they do it. However, I've come to realize I can't even grasp my own culture, which is completely different to the culture of ten years ago, which is different to the etc etc etc.<br /><br />But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that in the 20s, it was all about the legs!<br /><br /><i>Our Dancing Daughters</i> is a boring love story made in the heyday of the Jazz Age (the stupid white people jazz, not the awesome New Orleans jazz). It's not funny or exciting or emotional, it's just sleep inducing, and I see no real reason to return to it. However, it did bring to light something that I never realized. In the 20s, when a lustful man gazed at a woman, it was usually directed at her legs.<br /><br />I'm not saying legs aren't still sexualized, but in these old films, they're the ONLY thing that's sexualized. As far as Hollywood was concerned, even pre-code Hollywood, breasts and other womanly curves just didn't exist. I have no idea why, really. I can assume it has something to do with the religious influence that was leading into the 50s, but I'm simply not qualified to say for certain. All I know is that <i>Our Dancing Daughters</i> is about sexuality, and sexuality is all about legs.<br /><br />Our three main female character are all introduced BY their legs. First, Diana, a woman who takes a party girl persona in public, but inside is really romantic and wants to settle down:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3482841865_c2c759659c.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />She's introduced in the movie as a pair of dancing legs in front of the mirror, getting ready for the big party.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/3482841687_edb3ab1b3b.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />And then we have Beatrice, a woman who insists on not fooling around and really can't be bothered to party.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3483657400_95442fe5e2.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />We meet here from behind, standing still as her overprotective parents give her a stern talking to.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3483657318_fa83aa2304.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />And finally, we have Ann, a gold digger, a woman who's only interested in marrying a rich man for his money.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/3483657526_1066e28959.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />She only has interest in nice things, so when we meet her legs, we find her tearing and discarding some worn-out stockings.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3483657482_ba39f5110f.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Our female characters are characterized by their legs, which proves that shallow characterization has been present as long as film's been around. It's like when female characters in modern day action movies are characterized by hair color and cup size. To pound this point home, Ben, the man for our characters to swoon over, is introduced LOOKING at legs.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3483657642_195ba2da5f.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3482842275_0d8c29763a.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />When people think back to the golden days of cinema, it's hard to imagine that there were shallow sexual films. What was "shallow" and "sexual" back in the 20s are alien to us now, and it makes trying to understand these times seem kinda futile.<br /><br />If you're really interested in <i>Our Dancing Daughters</i>, you can find it on Youtube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORLOa7NjBAs">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3483657596_326547f190.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-90631934026270502252009-04-22T05:12:00.000-07:002009-04-22T05:20:11.766-07:00Bess Meredyth Vs. William H. Daniels: A Woman of Affairs<b>A Woman of Affairs (1928)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0113284/">Clarence Brown</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001256/">Greta Garbo</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0318105/">John Gilbert</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0832011/">Lewis Stone</a><br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Writing, Achievement (Bess Meredyth)<br /><br /><em>"In the old silent days, [William H.] Daniels had been the best of them all. His camera work was so close to art that producers and directors and cameramen used to sit in private projection rooms, not to judge a picture, but to see what new tricks of lighting and effects Daniels had achieved. The industry acknowledged that Daniels' work was so fine that other cameramen were never censured for shamelessly stealing it".</em><br />-Mark Hellinger, producer<br /><br />Every year, when the Academy Awards role around, there's always something to complain about. How in the world did such-and-such get nominated? Why was this nominated over that? Why was this aspect of the film nominated but not this aspect? These strange choices, the result of both ballot voting and inner-politics, have been consistent with the Academy since the beginning, and <i>A Woman of Affairs</i> is an early example of it.<br /><br />The film was nominated for it's writing, but it's story is muddled, it's dialogue is over-dramatic, and it's pace is uneven.<br /><br />The film was NOT nominated for it's cinematography, even though it has some great dramatic lighting, it uses it's space well, and its tracking shots are mind blowing for a film this old.<br /><br />Cinematographer William H. Daniels was been nominated four times for his work, winning once. He made over 150 films from the 20s to the 60s. Bess Meredyth wrote some Zorro movies. Ok, maybe I'm being disingenuous, one's success does not directly reflect one's quality and character, but seeing a film praised for it's weakest quality and having it's strongest quality ignored just seems so typical of the Academy these days.<br /><br />This is the film's opening shot:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3393297154_a20e9aeb3c.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Our main character, Diana Merrick, goes all CRAZY WOMAN DRIVER and haphazardly drives her car into puddles, avoiding other drivers by a fraction of an inch, and finally nearly decapitating half a dozen road workers.<br /><br />It's a typical screwball comedy gag, and it's high energy suggests we're in for a wild and zany ride! Problem is, this scene is in no way related with the rest of the movie. Nowhere else in the film do we get off-the-wall physical comedy or any general goofiness. It's not even consistent with the character. We see Diana drive several times after this scene, and she does so safely and calmly.<br /><br />It's almost as if they started writing one film and suddenly changed their minds. This isn't the first time we'll have this type of shift of tone, but it is the most jarring.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3392484843_0520c96d2d.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />So, now that those meaningless gags are out of the way, it's storytime. Diana is a young British aristocrat in love with slightly-less aristocratic Neville Holderness. Through flashback, we see that they've known each since childhood, and Diana, still an overgrown child, clings to the "strong male sweeps her away" fantasy of her youth, and Neville thinks she's cute, so hey, win-win.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3393297246_c4347c7d3a.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Meanwhile, Diana's brother Jeffry (right) drinks away his sorrows (though what those sorrows are, we never find out) while his best friend David Furness (left) tries to talk him out of the booze.<br /><br />Neither of these two are well-written characters. Jeffry does two things throughout the film: mope around and act angry for no defined reason, and show a damn-near homosexual amount of admiration to David. David's role in the film is simply to react to Jeffry. Both these characters are empty shells that simply offer plot devices when the story needs them to.<br /><br />So, after some short meaningless scenes of Jeffry and Diana fighting and then making up, we cut to the next day, where we're introduced to two more characters. First, Dr. Hugh Trevelyan:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3612/3393297848_ab3fe54b65.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />An old friend of Diana and Jeffry. HE'S NICE!<br /><br />And then there's Sir Morton Holderness:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3431/3393297902_b881d3b940.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Neville's father. HE'S NOT SO NICE!<br /><br />In case you couldn't tell already, the biggest flaw in this film is that the characters are totally depthless with one possible exception, but we won't meet her till much later in the film. All these characters do is allow the plot to move forward, and we never spend anytime learning their reasons for doing these things.<br /><br />So, Diana and Neville talk for a bit, and we learn that Diana is richer then Neville, and Neville, with his outdated masculinity, can't stand the idea of her supporting him. He suggests the idea of him leaving for a few years to start business in Egypt, but is only deterred when Diana threatens to leave him.<br /><br />I really need to point out there is no dramatic difference between Diana's and Neville's fortunes. I mean, look at Neville's house!<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3392485425_f507cf5c75.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3392485471_0c76f5bdb7.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />TWO PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS HOUSE! This isn't some fish-out-of-water love relationship, this is a story about a guy who feels less like a man because he has ten million dollars and she has eleven million. This film is "the rich and restless," and who wants to watch that? Sorry guys, I'd love to hear about your petty struggles, but I gotta go work at WAL-MART!<br /><br />Anyway, Neville does end up going to Egypt after a long off-screen talk with his father, who acts as the makeshift villain in this film. Diana learns of this, and as an act of petty revenge, marries Jeffry's friend David instead.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3393298488_fa5b46b271.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Of course, Diana doesn't love David, but David is too blissful to be aware of these. In any case, David has other things to worry about, because on their honeymoon, there's a mysterious knock at the door.<br /><br />Up to this point, the cinematography is pretty standard, but this moment, which also acts as a tonal shift in the film, is when it really starts to shine. David, with an expression of total terror on his face, slowly approaches the door, and we follow him with a long, tension-building tracking shot through two rooms.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3393298530_7277ed5a30.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3418/3393298578_10c8053fe4.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3392486177_5a4ff44f08.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3549/3392486275_c9b0b314ee.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This is the first of nearly a dozen tracking shots in the film, and they're all done really, really well, and brings forth the main theme in the cinematography: these people live in empty space, which could reflect the emptiness in each of the characters if I believed the film was trying to be that deep.<br /><br />Later, the film seems to switch to more natural lighting and frames the characters from far away, allowing the characters to get lost in dark voids. Take these shots from later in the film for example:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3593/3393299562_644b7b17fb.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3393299898_6e004c2160.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />One scene much later in the film takes place in a hospital, which is brightly lit, but the empty space is still overwhelming.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3393300060_75b5740c31.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This emptiness is made even more pronounced by how far apart the characters are from each other.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3632/3393300110_3caaf06c16.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />There's a lot of shots I could analysis for you, but these are the basic tricks used throughout the second half of the film, and they really give the film a much-needed flavor boost. There really isn't much more to add to that: The story is pointless and shallow and the cinematography makes me giddy. End review.<br /><br />But wait, who was knocking on the door? Will Diana and Neville get back together? I'll leave that for you to find out, because you can watch <em>A Woman of Affairs</em> on Youtube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dax4XPpe8fQ">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3392486317_b7ca220bee.jpg?v=" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-45958161691538535502009-03-29T08:51:00.000-07:002009-03-29T09:09:44.079-07:00April 3, 1930There were many changes between the first and second Academy Awards. The number of categories were reduced from twelve to seven, while the number of nominees allowed in each category was increased from three to five.<br /><br />Not that that mattered, because the nominees were never announced, just the winners.<br /><br />It was the first Academy Award ceremony broadcast by radio.<br /><br />Finally, it was the first of two Academy Award ceremonies to be held that year, so that it might fix itself so that it awarded films that fell in the calender year.<br /><br />The film world was in a state of trying to find itself again. The introduction of sound crippled the silent industry (though a number of silent films still got nominated that year). People were leaving and entering the film industry at an alarming rate, and what was once box office gold was now ignored while a whole new wave of films began to be noticed.<br /><br />I'm not sure how much of this chaos effected film availability from that year, but I cannot find any more then six nominees from the 2nd Academy Awards, and I don't know, but that might be for the best. The earliest of sound films were not pretty.<br /><br />Welcome to the 2nd Academy Awards. What's left of it, anyways.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-75129246194842179872009-03-25T03:09:00.000-07:002009-03-25T03:45:27.478-07:00Index: 1st Academy Awards<strong>Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/01/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-3.html">Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)</a> - Fox<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/cooper-schoedsack-and-chang.html">Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927)</a> - Paramount Famous Lasky<br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/king-vidor-and-crowd.html">Crowd, The (1928)</a> - M-G-M<br /><br /><strong>Best Picture, Production<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/hollywood-and-wings.html">Wings (1927)</a> - Paramount Famous Lasky<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-2-7th.html">7th Heaven (1927)</a> - Fox<br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">Racket, The (1928)</a> - The Caddo Company<br /><br /><strong>Best Actor in a Leading Role<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">The Way of All Flesh (1927)</a>/<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/emil-jannings-and-last-command.html">The Last Command (1928)</a> - Emil Jannings<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">The Patent Leather Kid(1927)/The Noose (1928)</a> - Richard Barthelmess<br /><br /><strong>Best Actress in a Leading Role<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-2-7th.html">7th Heaven (1927)</a>/<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/01/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-3.html">Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)</a>/<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-1.html">Street Angel (1928)</a> - Janet Gaynor (I)<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/09/gloria-swanson-and-sadie-thompson.html">Sadie Thompson (1928)</a> - Gloria Swanson<br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">A Ship Comes In (1928)</a> - Louise Dresser<br /><br /><strong>Best Director, Comedy Picture<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">Two Arabian Knights (1927)</a> - Lewis Milestone<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/harold-lloyd-and-speedy.html">Speedy (1928)</a> - Ted Wilde (I)<br /><br /><strong>Best Director, Dramatic Picture<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-2-7th.html">7th Heaven (1927)</a> - Frank Borzage<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/king-vidor-and-crowd.html">The Crowd (1928)</a> - King Vidor<br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">Sorrell and Son (1927)</a> - Herbert Brenon<br /><br /><strong>Best Writing, Original Story<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">Underworld (1927)</a> - Ben Hecht (I)<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/emil-jannings-and-last-command.html">The Last Command (1928)</a> - Lajos Biró<br /><br /><strong>Best Writing, Adaptation<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-2-7th.html">7th Heaven (1927)</a> - Benjamin Glazer<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">Glorious Betsy (1928)</a> - Anthony Coldeway<br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/hollywood-and-jazz-singer.html">The Jazz Singer (1927)</a> - Alfred A. Cohn<br /><br /><strong>Best Writing, Title Writing<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lets-talk-intertitles.html">Joseph Farnham</a><br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lets-talk-intertitles.html">George Marion Jr.</a><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">The Private Life of Helen of Troy (1927)</a> - Gerald C. Duffy<br /><br /><strong>Best Cinematography<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/01/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-3.html">Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)</a> - Charles Rosher; Karl Struss<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">The Devil Dancer (1927)/The Magic Flame (1927)</a>/<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/09/gloria-swanson-and-sadie-thompson.html">Sadie Thompson (1928)</a> - George Barnes<br /><br /><strong>Best Art Direction<br />Winners:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/lost-films-1st-academy-awards.html">The Dove (1927)</a>/<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/09/william-cameron-menzies-dove-and.html">Tempest (1928)</a> - William Cameron Menzies<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-2-7th.html">7th Heaven (1927)</a> - Harry Oliver<br />-<a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/01/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-3.html">Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)</a> - Rochus Gliese<br /><br /><strong>Best Effects, Engineering Effects<br />Winner:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/hollywood-and-wings.html">Wings (1927)</a> - Roy Pomeroy<br /><strong>Other Nominees:</strong><br />-Ralph Hammeras<br />-Nugent Slaughter<br /><br /><strong>Honorary Award<br />Awarded to:</strong> <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/charles-chaplin-and-circus.html">The Circus (1928)</a> - Charles Chaplin<br />- For versatility and genius in acting, writing, directing and producing The Circus.<br /><br /><a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/03/hollywood-and-jazz-singer.html">The Jazz Singer (1927)</a> - Warner Bros.<br />- For producing The Jazz Singer, the pioneer outstanding talking picture, which has revolutionized the industry.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-6579177710979888772009-03-25T01:39:00.001-07:002009-03-25T03:07:43.420-07:00The Lost Films: 1st Academy AwardsIn the days before television, VHS and DVD, not a lot of thought was given to film preservation. As such, the further you go back, the harder it is to find copies of certain films. There were a lot of films nominated during the 1st Academy Awards that are either completely lost or unavailable in any consumable format.<br /><br />Should any of these films become available, I promise to go back and review them.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><strong>The Devil Dancer (1927)</strong><br /><strong>NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Cinematography (George Barnes)<br /><br />Lost film, very little information on it. According to <a href="http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=507342&category=Overview">TCM</a>, here's the plot:<br /><br /><em>"Takla, a white orphan brought up and kept captive in a Himalayan monastery, is rescued by Althestan, an adventurous Englishman who falls in love with her. His sister, displeased with her brother's choice, arranges to have Takla kidnaped. Althestan searches for her and eventually finds her with a troupe of itinerant Muslim entertainers."</em><br /><br />---<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2851827942_d8a13129fc.jpg?v=0" /><br /><i>Gilbert Roland as Johnny Powell in "The Dove"</i></div><br /><strong>The Dove (1927)</strong><br /><strong>WON:</strong> Best Art Direction (William Cameron Menzies)<br /><br />Only four reels out of nine of this film exist. You can find them at the Library of Congress. According to Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>"Based on a play by Willard Mack, the original story is about a Mexican despot (played by [Noah] Beery), who falls in love with a dancing girl (played by [Norma] Talmadge), who rejects him. Due to the political repercussions of condemning Mexico, it was decided to relocate the plot to some anonymous Mediterranean country."</i><br /><br />---<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3384002677_d99a21bf95.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><strong>Glorious Betsy (1928)<br />NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Writing, Adaptation (Anthony Coldeway)<br /><br />A partial sound film. Prints exist at Library of Congress, but some of the sound is missing. According to Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>"The film is a semi-historical narrative and depicts the real-life courtship, marriage, and forced breakup of Jérôme Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon, and his wife from the American south, Elizabeth Patterson. Napoleon did not approve of the union (despite the fact that her family was one of the wealthiest in America) and the marriage was annulled. Jerome was subsequently forced to marry Catharina of Württemberg. They had one child, depicted in the movie, Jérôme Napoleon Bonaparte. In order to provide a "happy ending", Jerome in the film leaves France to be with his wife. However, in historical fact he remained in Europe."</i><br /><br />---<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEZU1WwXyg2ZG7HgkSXIOC-DMDwRgUbn7IxT3QVuSOlq5ZbUmtu0ARFMBP5tph2cqdXPwPBfyBLm17BsjNuNdRPsMyzYDhSayI5ZyYK4Lx2M-_oXzk36iALPWwkceRwEPuh9iTOYdaYffj/s400/magflrevpic.jpg" border="0" /><br /><i>Vilma Banky as Bianca in The Magic Flame (1927)</i></div><br /><strong>The Magic Flame (1927)</strong><br /><strong>NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Cinematography (George Barnes)<br /><br />Only five of the original eleven reels exist, and they're stored in the International Museum of Photography and Film at George Eastman House Archives. Here's the plot via <a href="http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=497089&category=Overview">TCM</a>:<br /><br /><em>"Bianca, the aerial star of Baretti's circus, loves Tito, the clown, and resents the advances of the handsome Crown Prince of Illyria, who poses as Count Cassati. The prince pursues the wife of a neighboring squire and kills her husband when he discovers them together. Maddened by Bianca's refusals, the prince lures her to his hotel with a forged letter, but she drops from the window, using her gymnastic skill to escape. Tito comes to her aid and in a struggle with the prince casts him from the window into the sea. Bearing a striking resemblance to the prince, Tito assumes his identity and thus evades prosecution. Believing Tito to have been killed by the prince, Bianca leaves the circus to seek vengeance. During the coronation, she is about to assassinate the "prince" when he reveals his identity, and together they escape to the circus."</em><br /><br /><em></em>Here's a copy of the New York Times review of the film that goes into more detail, via a <a href="http://www.vilma-banky.com/tmfreview.html">Vilma Bank fansite</a>.<br /><br />And if you want to go even MORE into detail, here's a <a href="http://www.giovanni-severi.com/html/the_magic_flame_one_i.html">novelization of the film</a>, translated from a French magazine.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><strong>The Noose (1928)<br />NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Richard Barthelmess)<br /><br />Prints exist, one at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3384831756_2b7de92e76.jpg?v=0" /><br /><i>Richard Barthelmess in The Patent Leather Kid</i></div><br /><strong>The Patent Leather Kid (1927)<br />NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Richard Barthelmess)<br /><br />Prints exist. According to Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>"[The film] tells the story of a boxer who scoffs at fighting outside the ring... particularly for the United States once it enters World War I. Eventually, he is drafted, is shipped overseas, and performs a heroic act, which results in his being severely wounded."</i><br /><br />---<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3383973557_016b5f258e.jpg?v=0" /><br /><i>Lewis Stone and Maria Corda in The Private Life of Helen of Troy</i></div><br /><strong>The Private Life of Helen of Troy (1927)<br />NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Writing, Title Writing (Gerald C. Duffy)<br /><br />About a half hour of this film exists at British Film Institute archives. Based on the novel by John Erskine.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><strong>A Ship Comes In (1928)<br />NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Louise Dresser)<br /><br />Very little information. Prints seem to exist, but I have no idea where.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><strong>Sorrell and Son (1927)<br />NOMINATED FOR:</strong> Best Director, Dramatic Picture (Herbert Brenon)<br /><br />Long thought lost, a partially restored can be found at Academy Film Archive. The film was remade twice, once in 1934 and again in 1984. The plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"Stephen Sorrell, a decorated war hero, raises his son Kit alone after Kit's mother deserts husband and child in the boy's infancy. Sorrell loses a promising job offer and is forced to take work as a menial. Both his dignity and his health are damaged as he suffers under the exhausting labor and harsh treatment he receives as a hotel porter. But Sorrell thrives in the knowledge that his son will benefit from his labors. Sorrell has allowed the boy to believe his mother dead, but when the mother shows up, wanting to re-enter the young man's life, Sorrell must make hard decisions."</i><br /><br />---<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3384848032_07789c65d6.jpg?v=0" /><br /><i>William Boyd, Mary Astor and Louis Wolheim in Two Arabian Knights</i></div><br /><strong>Two Arabian Knights (1927)<br />WON:</strong> Best Director, Comedy Picture (Lewis Milestone)<br /><br />Long considered lost, a complete print was recently found and aired on Turner Classic Movies. There's a good chance I'll get to review this one in the future. Plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"Two American soldiers are captured by the Germans on the Western Front during World War One and escape a POW camp only to stumble into further life-threatening adventures when they come across an Arabian king's daughter while on the lam."</i><br /><br />---<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3383985045_2ea8a4843f.jpg" /><br /><i>Evelyn Brent and George Bancroft in Underworld</i></div><br /><strong>Underworld (1927)<br />WON:</strong> Best Writing, Original Story (Ben Hecht)<br /><br />This film still exists, but isn't available on DVD, and I haven't been able to find a copy of the VHS. It still gets screened at museums occasionally. I'll probably be able to review this in the near future. The plot according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"'Nobody helps me -- I help them!' boasts open-handed gangster Bull Weed, handing over what will prove to be the best investment in his high-spending career: a thousand dollars that will put the literate 'Rolls Royce' of vagrants back on his feet. Living it up in the Twenties with the aid of cool but smouldering moll Feathers, the Bull lords it over the law and his rivals alike -- specifically big Buck Mulligan, whose floral-tributes business echoes that of a certain real-life Chicago gangster... Yet Feathers, prize possession and object of envy, proves his weak point; and in the end, Bull Weed will indeed come to need help from others, and more than he has ever needed it before. But can Rolls Royce and Feathers still give it to him? And will the Bull accept?"</i><br /><br />---<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/3384026433_3547c3cfe5.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><strong>The Way of All Flesh (1927)<br />WON:</strong> Best Actor in a Leading Role (Emil Jannings)<br /><br />This film is lost. It was remade in 1940. Here's the plot of the 1940 version according to IMDb:<br /><br /><i>"Paul Kriza is a cashier of a bank in a small town, and the happy husband of Anna and the father of four children. He is sent to New York to deliver some securities for the bank. There, he is tagged as easy-pickings by a con-game gang and Mary Brown, gang accomplice, proves he is. Waking up in the morning he discovers he has been robbed of the securities and, when he confronts the gang, he is hit on the head and taken out to be left on a railroad track. He comes to, struggles with the henchman and the man is killed when a train comes roaring by. Paul escapes but his watch is found and he is reported as the dead man. But he can't go home again."</i><br /><br />Here is my review of <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/emil-jannings-and-last-command.html">The Last Command</a>, the other film that won Emil Jannings the Oscar.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-39687264905424171012009-03-24T11:54:00.000-07:002009-03-24T11:58:24.537-07:00REWIND, FAST-FORWARD and INTERMISSIONFor future reference:<br /><br />REWIND: Should I review a film from a past Academy Award that wasn't available at the time but has become available.<br /><br />FAST-FORWARD: Should I review a film from a future Academy Award for some reason.<br /><br />INTERMISSION: Posts that have nothing to do with Academy Award nominated films.D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-55673186202099499282009-03-24T11:04:00.000-07:002009-03-24T11:51:33.012-07:00Hollywood and The Jazz Singer<div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3372566109_717abe68c3.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3372566141_7c68970364.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><br /><b>The Jazz Singer (1927)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0189076/">Alan Crosland</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310980/">Al Jolson</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564219/">May McAvoy</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0645941/">Warner Oland</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Honorary Award (For producing The Jazz Singer, the pioneer outstanding talking picture, which has revolutionized the industry)<br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Writing, Adaptation (Alfred A. Cohn)<br /><br />Lately, I've been blind-sided by the state of life. At this time last year, I was far less concerned about my economic status, far less concerned about if my car was functioning correctly, far less concerned about the policy changes at my job. The things I was more concerned about I've almost completely forgotten.<br /><br />I've been in so many good places in my life, and inside I'd beg for things to stay this way. Change is almost nothing but destructive. Change kills many great things.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> carries the stench of death...<br /><br />*snicker*<br /><br />Sorry, I'm being corny. As much as I want to make <i>The Jazz Singer</i> out as a Hollywood serial killer who killed the era of silent films and more then half of the people involved, it'd be closer to the truth to call it some mentally handicapped guy who accidentally ran over the silent film industry with his parent's car. It's fame and infamy are purely by chance, and not at all earned.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> was not the first sound film. Thomas Edison managed to sync sound almost right after inventing film, and the twenty years before <i>The Jazz Singer</i> led to dozens of examples.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> was not the first full-length film with sound. <i>Don Juan</i> came out a year earlier with a synced music soundtrack and sound effects. <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/01/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-3.html">Sunrise</a> came out a month earlier, also with music and soundtrack, and even background dialogue.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> was not the first full-length film with synced dialogue. For the most part, it's a silent film, intertitles and all, with dialogue only popping up in two scenes. The first "talkie" wouldn't come for another year, in the form of <i>Lights of New York</i>.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> was not made with the most innovative technology available. Fox Studio's sound-on-film system surpasses Warner Bros' sound-on-disk system in just about every way. Sound-on-film didn't get unsynchronized, it didn't wear out nearly as fast, and it allowed for more portable cameras.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> was not a good film. Not in the slightest. Some people are still rolling their eyes over it's high melodrama and over the top acting. It's the worse film I've reviewed thus far.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> is not a comfortable film. Even ignoring it's history as a silent film killer. I don't care how often you say "that was just how things worked back then," the famous blackface scenes make my stomach turn. Less talked about is the film's strong Jewish stereotype. There isn't as many numbers on just <i>how</i> offensive Jew stereotypes are, but this film like two kinds of uncomfort sandwiching some cheesy old musical numbers.<br /><br /><i>The Jazz Singer</i> was merely the first successful film with some sound in it. And, I guess, that's all it took to kill silent pictures.<br /><br />And with this, we finish the 1st Academy Awards. The film industry would recover eventually. It's like a phoenix, it becomes reborn in it's own ashes. Unfortunately, ashes are all we have to look at as we enter the 2nd Academy Awards...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3372566281_cd140bb7d0.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-1916067232901586512009-03-13T08:57:00.000-07:002009-03-13T12:01:49.056-07:00Hollywood and WingsAnd so it comes to this.<br /><br /><b>Wings (1927)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920074/">William A. Wellman</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001966/">Clara Bow</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0736777/">Charles 'Buddy' Rogers</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0035159/">Richard Arlen</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Picture, Production<br />Best Effects, Engineering Effects (Roy Pomeroy)<br /><br />I feel that I should have something more engrossing to say about this film. After all, it's a "first," and society loves firsts for some reasons. Thing is, first never means special, and first never means best. For their to be a first, there must be a second to best it, and a third and a fourth. There are many Best Picture winners that are better then <i>Wings</i>. In fact, most of them are, and being first doesn't change that one bit.<br /><br /><i>Wings</i> isn't a bad film, don't get me wrong. It's just... standard. Even the films I've given generally negative reviews have had several interesting elements to them that make them stand out. <i>Wings</i> has some technical innovations, but it's story and "message" come off as a-typical Hollywood plodding.<br /><br />We got a boy...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3345514387_636dcd1fff.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />He's got a dream, see. He wants to fly in dem new spangled air-o-planes!<br /><br />We got a girl...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3345514431_05c2242805.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><strike>She's a scary clown with boobs</strike><br /><br />She's the girl next door, and she's got a big ol' crush on the boy! But the boy, he loves another girl...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3346349002_cc968fc467.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />But this other girl is in love with the local rich kid, also pictured. We get some standard push-me-pull-you dinking around that would probably continue forever, if not interrupted by...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3365/3346349028_7bb310e839.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />GOOD GOD!<br /><br />WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?<br /><br />ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!<br /><br />So, the boy and the rich kid go off to war, where they meet Goofy Comical Relief...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3346349066_4126bcec5f.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />While he's a citizen, he comes from a German family, so nobody trusts him! Until he waves around his tattoo, that is!<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3300/3346349088_0c7987bdbe.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />So, our trio go to boot camp. Cue boot camp hijinks.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3345514623_d1c9129d71.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />They even have an always-angry drill sergeant!<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3346349188_8fffe8b78b.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/3345514689_5011c8f849.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Ok, I'm starting to sound demeaning, but we've all been here before, dozens of times. I'm not sure how fresh all these tropes were at the time, I'm not that well versed in film history (yet), but I do know they were done to death afterwards, and almost never done by classy films. I'm talking about <i>Pearl Harbor</i> and <i>Top Gun</i> kind of unclassy.<br /><br />It amazing how, right off the bat, the Academy gave the award to something standard and boring over fresher and more artistic films. The people may have changed, some of the categories may have changed, but the Academy? The Academy is forever.<br /><br />Another thing about this film being the "first" is that it's talked about to death, so everything I'm about to praise this film for has been talked about to death. When people talk about <i>Wings</i>, they always talk about Gary Cooper.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3346349276_e5fec57087.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Cooper plays a fellow pilot who bunks with our main characters for all of two minutes. During that time, he delivers a bit of wisdom about how good luck charms don't really mean anything, that when death is knocking at your door you're gonna answer no matter what. Then Cooper's character leaves for a training mission, has an accident, and dies off-screen.<br /><br />It's a fleeting moment, and the only real time the film transcends itself. Despite still being wet behind the ears at this point, Gary Cooper is clearly a subtle and talented actor, which gives the moment much more weight. It gives the scenes that follow an eerie feeling to them. Unfortunately, the movie goes on too long after, with too many scenes unrelated to the war (including a horrible set of scenes where one of our main characters chases imaginary bubbles... uh, don't ask), so by the final moments of the film, when Cooper's words would have resonated the hardest, they're all but forgotten.<br /><br />The film's other big plus is the flying.<br /><br />There were no models, so CGI, no stop motion, simply no special effects that could simulate flight at that time. So, when you see airplanes take off...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3346349350_4d754c8cc5.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Airplanes in the air...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3346349380_3a8a10cde9.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />And even airplanes crashing...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3346349488_a537c03900.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />You're seeing the real thing! These moments are really what make <i>Wings</i> worth watching. Sometimes it's nice to be reminded just how sedated on computer generated images were are, and just how thrilling the real thing actually is.<br /><br />I really wish I had more to say, I really do. I wanted to do a huge, perhaps multi-article breakdown of the film, but I came up with nothing besides what I've just shown you. <i>Wings</i> is standard, that's all there is to say.<br /><br />Firsts aren't always that important, I guess.<br /><br />However, We're still not done with the 1st Academy Awards yet. There's one more film to look at, one that changed the face of film more then all the films reviewed so far put together, even if it didn't win the top prize.<br /><br />You ain't heard nothing yet.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3345514865_83087ec8ec.jpg?v=0"></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-7694776907502265342009-03-03T00:38:00.000-08:002009-03-03T01:22:47.856-08:00The Fairbanks/Pickford/Chaplin/Griffith ConnectionOver at <a href="http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/">The Film Experience</a>, Nathaniel R is asking us <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">bloggers</span> what old candid celebrity photos we wish we could have audio tracks to, and almost everything I thought of came from the silent period. I guess that's not too big of a surprise, considering I've been watching almost nothing but silents for the last two months.<br /><br /><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPnoxeybOyFRsim1FXqdlewTBSJt0VLbyzns5-3a5kgDoPOYQ5rF4CiP_i1rKx_3d7gkzYlTpThbqcWEqSVTDyvfsCaAd_2HJZ9upHt4k1soZLNUjYXHJ01R9hOwFpDHmJcjdD164AKsl4/s1600-h/ua_1_583.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5308878344965615874" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 165px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPnoxeybOyFRsim1FXqdlewTBSJt0VLbyzns5-3a5kgDoPOYQ5rF4CiP_i1rKx_3d7gkzYlTpThbqcWEqSVTDyvfsCaAd_2HJZ9upHt4k1soZLNUjYXHJ01R9hOwFpDHmJcjdD164AKsl4/s400/ua_1_583.jpg" border="0" /></a> From left to right: Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Mary Pickford, Charles Chaplin and D.W. Griffith, around the time they founded United Artists in 1919. What did these four talk about on their off time?</p><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5308886053857969282" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 370px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 288px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJSr2rh7WW7erUqDP48RVi9feotcy6kKrnKSGR9rlMtt8njLVWexPOQeforHT9dZT5cJyq5mvG_bUAsC4JmiJyihiL3y-G8Z7e9qtJZjtchWYESuqGQOAGmNiM_whm1PEKA_-H0j5mpLMe/s400/united-artists-founders_fairbanks-griffith-pickford-chaplin.jpg" border="0" /></p><p>Was D.W. Griffith the alpha male in the group? His hat says yes.</p><p>By the way, for those who like their Oscars (and if you're here, that's probably what you came for), Nathaniel has teamed up with <a href="http://goatdog.com/blog/">Mike from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Goatdog's</span> Movies</a> and <a href="http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/">Nick from Nick's Flick Picks</a> have been running a feature comparing the Academy Award winners for Best Picture from the outside in, aptly titled <a href="http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Awards/history/bpftoi.html">Best Pictures From the Outside In</a>.</p><p>Check it out, and check out the Film Experience blog in all it's nifty <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">photoshoped</span> glory. Though, considering my first <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">audience</span> will probably come from there for this picture <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">challenge</span>, I think I just created a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">mobius</span> strip. Enjoy clicking links forever! <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">HAHAHA</span>!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where can I get one of those alpha male hats?</p>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-44413407468395869502009-03-02T08:58:00.000-08:002009-03-02T10:23:47.233-08:00Let's Talk IntertitlesWhen talking about the 1st Academy Awards, people often talk about the "Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production" award, which went to <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/01/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-3.html">Sunrise</a>. At that time, two Best Picture awards were given, one for production merit, and one for artistic merit. This was the only time that separate awards were given, and "Unique and Artistic Production" became a piece of Oscar lore.<br /><br />However, little attention is given to the OTHER award that was only given out at the 1st Academy Awards: <b>Best Writing, Title Writing</b>, awarded to <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0267868/">Joseph Farnham</a>, for no film in particular. 1929 officially marked the end of silent pictures. A demand for sound forced Hollywood and filmmakers to start from square one, 20+ of progress tossed in the trash by a humble blackfaced jazz singer. They had find new ways to shoot, new ways to act, and new ways to be artistic. And intertitles disappeared for good.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine what films would look like if the silent era had been allowed another ten or twenty years to itself. Silent television, now that would have been something.<br /><br />People rarely talk about intertitles, even when talking about silent films, but they were developing along with the rest of the film industry. Many great films didn't just have their intertitles reveal dialogue. They used artistic language to set moods that couldn't have been found with simple lighting and sets. And the actual intertitles, the screens themselves, began exploring new ways to present themselves.<br /><br />Not all intertitles were simply white text on a black background. Take a look at some of these, from 1921's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012675/">The Sheik</a>:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3626/3322400083_594720d6b2.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3550/3322400179_e6774357c6.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3322400271_540114c699.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3322400341_4846c1f049.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3323233794_38fc571d6a.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3322400503_e3146880c0.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3322400587_42a4ea3d4d.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3593/3323234020_218e92cf53.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3323234190_2f79b0ef4e.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/3322400933_f963bef675.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />That's what we lost people. Awesome stuff like this.<br /><br />Another artistic aspect intertitles had were their physical relation to the film itself. My favorite use of intertitles in all the films I've reviewed so far comes <i>Sunrise</i>. The film's story is simple and the acting is a bit blunt and direct, but Murnau's use of images adds subtextual layers in the film in ways you wouldn't see anywhere else. That goes for the film's intertitles as well, which are used in a very unique way.<br /><br />Take this scene. Neighbors to the husband and wife characters are discussing the two's marital problems. One of the the neighbors says this:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/3312396798_cef483dfa0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Then, we fade into a flashback of happier times...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/3312396840_d5bd923014.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Fine enough. Usually we'd cut to the next scene, probably back to the neighbors, but instead...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/3312396798_cef483dfa0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />We fade back to the same intertitle. What we just witnessed was the thoughts and memories behind this dialogue, encased completely in it, and it works great. Also, it's an idea you couldn't pull off in sound. Imagine if someone was talking, and in the middle of their sentence we fade to a flashback for a minute, then fade back to see the original speaker finish their sentence. It would seem awkward at best, bad editing at worst.<br /><br />When the husband and the woman from the city are making near the lake, the intertitles take on the devilish qualities of the surrounding mist.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3311567049_3817ab5012.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />My favorite intertitle moment ever comes in this scene. The woman from the city offers a suggestion to the husband about what to do with his wife.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3311567103_b174201462.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />We hold on this for a moment, unsure of what evil thing our antagonist is going to suggest. Then, it fades in.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3311567159_7c4e39cc78.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This thought then literally sinks into the husband's mind...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3312397086_19866ec926.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />After sinking it, the idea plays out in the husband's head, words turned into actions...<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3311567241_ea87770f91.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Intertitles had only just started getting used in these unique and interesting ways when sound showed up and ruined all of that.<br /><br />So, please, when you go to bed tonight, say a little prayer for intertitles.<br /><br />To close, here's a collection of some of my favorite intertitles from films previously reviewed. Can you guess which film goes to which?<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3322401013_49c446b8e4.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3322400959_c6452f7385.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3647/3322401111_776d79c2b9.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3323233358_44331136d7.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/3323233044_f34e8cac18.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3624/3323232970_88fdd5d097.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3323233094_cf9d46454a.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3322401307_ff4fc09c51.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3323234796_dae431d6ab.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3322401059_14954fe459.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3323232892_786a5c49e2.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3322399441_4a9faf827b.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3322399867_de24b8b396.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3323234716_07d4a5c67f.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3323233420_5c10a97601.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-63730316804165728272009-03-01T11:53:00.000-08:002009-03-01T09:55:14.138-08:00Janet Gaynor Triple Feature Part 3: Sunrise<b>Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003638/">F.W. Murnau</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310980/">Janet Gaynor</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0639563/">George O'Brien</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0515272/">Margaret Livingston</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production<br />Best Actress in a Leading Role (Janet Gaynor)<br />Best Cinematography (Charles Rosher, Karl Struss)<br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Art Direction (Rochus Gliese)<br /><br />And so we reach <i>Sunrise</i>. It's hard to find new things about this film to talk about. If you know anything about the film, then you know about it's groundbreaking moving cameras, it's double/triple/quadruple exposures, and it's unique intertitles (which I'll a bit in an upcoming post). I'm sure that since it's now out on a Netflix-available DVD that every scene, every frame will be pawed over and cut apart with an exacto knife to find something new.<br /><br />Let me be the first. Exacto knife in hand.<br /><br />Since these last few articles have been focused on the role of Janet Gaynor, on this viewing of <i>Sunrise</i> (my second), I focused on the acting, which turned out to be very different then the two Frank Borzage films we covered, <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-1.html">Street Angel</a> and <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-2-7th.html">7th Heaven</a>. Borzage's acting felt more modern. Smaller movements, more focus on the face, and flow. When a character's mood changes in a Borzage film, it appears. When a character's pose changes in <i>Sunrise</i>, it happens dramatically and quickly. It's the poses that are important, not the movements.<br /><br />For example, the film opens with the husband character played by George O'Brien (none of the characters have names) waits impatiently for the woman from the city, whom he's having an affair with.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3312396696_dceee4c3e0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><br />Note his dramatic, disheveled, slightly hunchback stance. Now, the Gaynor character, who walks around the scene, acting oblivious to her husband's behavior, being a goody-good house wife. Finally, the husband gets a chance to escape. The wife returns, realizes he isn't there anymore, and collapses into a chair.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3312396748_f3142c67c5.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />We take notice of two poses in this little moment: One of her looking at the door, with a look of shock on her face, realizing that her husband is gone, and then quickly she slips into the above, one of sudden sadness when she realizes just where, and to whom, he's gone to.<br /><br />The more I watch it, the more I realize that the film is told in the language of postures. There are two key moments to this idea, this first happening early on, when the wife cradles her child while she cries over her cheating husband.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3311566945_b426f4f5e1.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />It's a tender moment, when BAM<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/3312396932_efda26aa57.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />We cut to a similar pose, of the husband and and woman from the city making love in the nearby wetlands. It's a hard cut, not a fade, so it jumps at you suddenly, and since they're positioned directly where the wife and her child were, they're directly in your line of sight. A moment of family tenderness invaded by a moment of family destruction.<br /><br />The second moment happens much later, near the end of the second act. The husband and wife, after a traumatic morning, rebond and basically restart their relationship. While in the city, they decide to take a photograph. They pose for the photographer:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3311567547_13cca2a9d1.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />It's stiff and fake, of course. After some banter with the photographer, the husband and wife have a good laugh, and kiss.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3499/3312397426_22a72c2e7d.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />It's a much more honest pose, and it's this that the photographer takes and the couple buy. Both these moments ask us to look at the various postures throughout the film and determine their meaning.<br /><br />This means that many of the poses in the film end up being very exaggerated and sometimes goofy-looking.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3312397340_7207547bd1.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3312397262_a01fcf7c78.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3311567447_da51944d56.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />These are not action shots, people. The characters hold these poses for a nice chunk of time. The pose in the top picture? She holds that for more then a minute. I tried to do that, it hurts.<br /><br />I guess it sounds silly with stills. It works a lot better while watching the film. These poses and gestures act as the most direct way to show the audience just what's going on in each character's head. In that bottom picture, where the husband looks like he's a vampire reacting to a cross, is from a scene where he battles his inner demons, and it's quite powerful stuff.<br /><br />There are occasional exceptions to this big gesture stuff. Take a small moment in which the husband tells his wife that he's taken her to the city on a date.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3311567295_d391e42915.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />It's a long shot on just her face, and there's a lot of facial movement and a lot of subtleties. It's classic Gaynor, finally put forward, and it acts as a nice contrast to most of the film.<br /><br />Speaking of Gaynor, even with her more subtle acting style put on hold, she's more physical in this film then any of her films that we've reviewed so far. There's a long foot chase in the middle of the film, and later we get a nicely choreographed dance scene.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/3312397712_f145091b5b.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />She does some stunt work too. She's right in the middle of the action during a terrible storm while the couple are out on the lake.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3311567873_5e9caf6912.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Thrown overboard, we get long extended shots of her floating in the water, barely clinging to a makeshift life preserver made of reeds.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3311567917_12b37068fe.jpg?v=0" /></div><br /><i>Sunrise</i> is a film to see, so I won't spoil anymore. I'd rather you solve Murnau's posture code yourself.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3442/3311568133_2388de3c56.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-91198773824761455762009-02-23T08:40:00.000-08:002009-02-23T09:15:58.244-08:00Janet Gaynor Triple Feature Part 2: 7th Heaven<b>7th Heaven (1927)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0097648/">Frank Borzage</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310980/">Janet Gaynor</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0268190/">Charles Farrell</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0054135/">Ben Bard</a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Director, Dramatic Picture (Frank Borzage)<br />Best Actress in a Leading Role (Janet Gaynor)<br />Best Writing, Adaptation (Benjamin Glazer)<br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Art Direction (Harry Oliver)<br />Best Picture, Production<br /><br />I didn't like <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2009/02/janet-gaynor-triple-feature-part-1.html">Street Angel</a>. The first half of the film had little to do with the second half, and it's dated politics didn't help much. Lead actress Janet Gaynor was good with what she had, but she didn't have much.<br /><br />So now, we go back in time, with <i>7th Heaven</i>. It has most of the same cast and crew. The same director, the same two lead actors, the same studio, and a year less experience for all of them. You could say that I was dubious going into it.<br /><br /><b>HOLY CRAP 7TH HEAVEN IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF STREET ANGEL!</b><br /><br />Whereas <i>Street Angel</i> moved too quickly through it's timeline and gave us little character development, <i>7th Heaven</i> takes it's time and allows our characters to simmer. Whereas <i>Street Angel</i> pulls the old "love at first sight" trope, <i>7th Heaven</i> allow the characters to fall for each other naturally. Whereas <i>Street Angel</i>'s main character found love <i>despite</i> her disposition, <i>7th Heaven</i>'s main character found love by <i>overcoming</i> her disposition.<br /><br />It's just an all-around better movie, and it's hard to believe that <i>Street Angel</i> is its follow up.<br /><br />Our film opens in Paris, on the cusp of World War I. We're introduced to Chico, played by Charles Farrell, a city sewer cleaner who dreams of moving up the next rung in the ladder: from sewer cleaner to street cleaner.<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3298231466_612266ec02.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This begins the theme of people striving to move up. In Chico's case, literally, from deep underneath to the city to it's streets, where he can be seen and his work more appreciated. Diane, played by Janet Gaynor, is also striving, but her journey is emotional, not literal.<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3297405721_61c1062172.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Diane lives under the whip of her older sister, Nana, both Paris prostitutes. Diane is an honest and good girl, but she doesn't have any guts. She won't stand up for herself, and she won't take the necessary steps to pull herself out of her hellhole.<br /><br />A long-lost uncle shows up, and agrees to take the two girls away with him if they've been "good." Diane can't lie, and the uncle leaves with a huff. Nana is furious, and chases her out into the street and nearly beats her to death. Fortunately, Chico happens to be working right underneath them, so he climbs out and chases Nana off.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3298231782_20c79ee6c5.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />As much of a bitch as she was, Nana was Diane's only grounding, and without her, Diane finds herself adrift emotionally. There's no goals to strive for, nothing to look forward to. These scenes of Diane sitting there, her eyes blank, her face expressionless, are juxtaposed by Chico and his coworkers eating their lunch, talking big and mighty and talking down to Diane's profession. Diane attempts suicide, but Chico prevents it.<br /><br />Chico is an atheist, and loud about it. He gave God several shots to make his dreams come true, to give him the street cleaning job and to give him a blond-haired wife, and God was silent on both of them. And if he doesn't grant wishes, there's just not much point in believing him, right? (For the record, I'm an atheist, and this film makes a far better case against it then any Christian I've talked to)<br /><br />This conversation catches the ear of a wandering priest, who just happens to have the power to give Chico his street cleaning job! At almost the same time, Nana returns with the police, accusing Diane of prostitution, but Chico, out of his character, steps in and claims Diane as his wife. The police says that they'll send an officer to Chico's place to confirm this. Chico finds he has no choice but to let this... <i>woman</i> stay at his place for the next few days.<br /><br />So Chico takes Diane to his apartment. As a dreamer of big things, he naturally tries to live as close to the stars are possible. In the film's most famous scene, we watch, without any cuts, Chico and Diane ascend seven flights of stairs, straight up.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/3298231840_a60a4f83ff.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Inside his apartment, up in the sky, in his element, Chico begins to transform for the audience from something of a loud mouth to just a big guy with big dreams that he wants to share with everyone. In a bit of irony, he almost begins to sound like a passionate preacher.<br /><br />There's a wide wooden plank between his apartment and his next door neighbor's, with the street down below. Chico begs Diane to cross with him, showing her that if she wants to escape her trap, she needs courage. Diane would rather just sit by the large window, look at the stars and listen to Chico talk.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3297405929_85f2081d63.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Janet Gaynor is just wonderful in this. Her character is allowed to naturally grow and progress, and Gaynor makes it work wonderfully. There's an immediacy about her. You always know what she's feeling and what she's thinking by just her eyes alone.<br /><br />She does these cute little twitch movements to express a build up of emotion. With any other actress, this would look corny, but I don't know, Gaynor controls it just right that it works perfectly. Things get so emotional that there are times in the film where you just want to jump into the movie and hug her in happiness, like in the scene where Chico agrees to let Diane stay with him even after the cop leaves.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3298231954_b8b762a0ea.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />It really is wonderful. So, the two become a couple, and their journey towards the stars become one. Diane gains confidence and a strong will. Eventually, she can cross the plank without fear.<br /><br />There's a lot more to this film, including a third act taking place on the battlefields of WWI, but I'll stop the review here. That's the task of the reviewer I guess, to decide how information to give and how much to leave for the viewer to discover for themselves. And I DO guess, I've only been trying to "writing about movies" thing for a few months now, and I still have a lot to learn. But I'll figure it out as I go along. And, maybe these reviews will lead me to the place I want to go.<br /><br />After all, even us that don't believe in God look to the heavens.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3339/3297406095_a7982911e7.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-67481823938508001812009-02-17T10:36:00.000-08:002009-02-17T05:10:10.203-08:00Janet Gaynor Triple Feature Part 1: Street Angel<em>"Naturally, I was thrilled but being the first year, the Academy Awards had no background or tradition, and it naturally didn't mean what it does now. Had I known then what it would come to mean in the next few years, I'm sure I'd have been overwhelmed. At the time, I think I was more thrilled over meeting Douglas Fairbanks."</em><br />-Janet Gaynor<br /><br />As I've gone throughout the nominees and winners of the first Academy Awards, I haven't made a big deal about "firsts." In this context, being first doesn't mean anything. Had the awards been given out a year earlier or a year later, the "firsts" would be different but the movies and performances would have been the same.<br /><br />However, there was one unique aspect to the first Academy Awards. Actors were nominated not for one specific role, but for their entire output during a certain period of time, in this case 1927 through 1928. Emil <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jannings</span> did not just win for one role that year, in <a href="http://oscarvations.blogspot.com/2008/12/emil-jannings-and-last-command.html">The Last Command</a>, he also won for <i>The Way of the Flesh</i>. It makes the award itself feel more special<br /><br />This special feeling seems to have come back for a one-time-only reunion tour, as Kate <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Winslet</span> has been getting bunches and bunches of awards for her entire 2008 output. Regardless of what you (and I) actually think about the actual films, <i>Revolutionary Road</i> or <i>The Reader</i>, it's hard to think of another time an actress as pulled such a one-two punch.<br /><br />Janet Gaynor pulled a one-two-three punch. She's half-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Goro</span>.<br /><br />Janet Gaynor released three huge <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">successful</span> films in that 27/28 time period, and was awarded for all three of them. Were they deserved? Was the award really given for the combined output of her films, or was it given for one performance and the rest just added to the nomination for technical reasons? The only way to really tell is to watch all three.<br /><br /><b>Street Angel (1928)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0097648/">Frank <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Borzage</span></a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310980/">Janet Gaynor</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0268190/">Charles Farrell</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0268190/">Guido <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Trento</span></a><br /><b>WON:</b> Best Actress in a Leading Role (Janet Gaynor) (1st Academy Awards)<br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Cinematography (Ernest Palmer) (2<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">nd</span> Academy Awards)<br />Best Art Direction (Harry Oliver) (2<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">nd</span> Academy Awards)<br /><br />Yeah, you read that right. For some technical reason I haven't been able to pinpoint yet, <i>Street Angel</i> was nominated in two different Academy Awards. There isn't much to say beyond that.<br /><br />Our film opens in 19<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">th</span> century Naples, though we spend very little time focusing on it, or anywhere else for that matter. Spending hardly three minutes to set up setting and mood, we go straight to our main character, Angela (which is kind of a groaner of a name-title connection).<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3282071956_e0dc9a7ae0.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Angela's mother is deathly sick and Angela can't afford medicine. Gaynor plays Angela with the right amount of youthful confusion and worry. In fact, I'll say this right out, Gaynor plays all of her roles in this film with the right amount of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">ingredients</span> without doing the whole "this is a silent film so I have to do greater gestures and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">exaggerate</span> expressions" style of acting. It's pretty rare to find pitch-perfect acting without either <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">dialogue</span> or wide gestures.<br /><br />I say "all her roles" because even though Gaynor technically plays the same character throughout the film, there are large leaps in time and the audience is not allowed to see any real character growth. So <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">every time</span> we come back to Angela, she's a completely different character. I'll explain more as we go along.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/3282072044_4477cff7f4.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />So Angela, desperate for money, becomes a "street angel," a prostitute. A really bad one, too. Inexperienced at just about everything, Angela fails several times, and after trying to steal some food, she's captured by the police and sent to court.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/3282072100_657bcbdae2.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />I want to point out this shot in the court scene, in which all the men in the room dwarf little Angela. The camera remains at eye level to the men in the court, so the only thing we can see of Angela is from the eyes up. It's a kind of cleverness you don't see too often these days.<br /><br />So, Angela is sentenced to a year in the workhouse, but manages to escape. Returning to her home to find her mother dead, she ends up fleeing to a circus that's passing through, and convinced the ringleader to allow her to join.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3281250631_d3fcc4003c.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Time passes, and we meet Angela again, doing balancing tricks for the traveling performers, stunts with stilts and all that. We're not told how much time as passed, but Angela is completely different now, with loads of confidence and a bratty attitude. Remember, all we know is that her mother died and she joined the circus, we are never given any clues as to why Angela ended up like this. It's a completely different character.<br /><br />Which, again, Gaynor plays perfectly, and she isn't to blame for these clunky character <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">transitions</span> at all.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3471/3281250701_85a166ace9.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Angela meets starving artist Gino (played by Charles Farrell), who falls in love with her and pleads that he paint a portrait of her. Angela <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">grudgingly</span> agrees. Gino paints, and Angela is impressed, but not smitten.<br /><br />A few weeks later, Angela takes a fall and breaks her ankle, forcing her to leave the show. She and Gino leave for Naples, and the two fall in love.<br /><br />Again, we have a really dramatic shift in character. By a mere broken ankle, Angela is transformed into a snot-nosed brat into a loving, playful partner.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/3282072270_9b7e3a19c6.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This transition is even worse. At least last time there was a significant amount of off-screen time for Angela to change. Here, one broken ankle and she's a completely different person. AGAIN, no fault to Gaynor, she keeps playing the role pitch perfect.<br /><br />Finally, a third into the movie, we have a characterization of Angela that sticks. The rest of the movie is her spending her days with Gino, both madly in love with each other, trying to make the rent.<br /><br />I kind of wished we started the film at this point, since all the circuses and dead mothers amounted to almost nothing. It's OK to make a movie about two people in love, you don't always need Giant Dramatic Events.<br /><br />The final half of the film is great, if a bit out-of-date in this post-PC world. Angela's past finally catches up to her and the police officer that originally arrested her catches up with her. Gees, it's been years and her crime wasn't that serious to begin with, that's dedication to his work.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3282072340_23566623ba.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />The officer does allow Angela one more hour with Gino though. This is the best part of the film, as Angela tries to come up with a way to tell Gino, but they both just end up drunk and goof off for an hour.<br /><br />So, Angela goes to jail and Gino wanders around aimlessly, not knowing where's she's gone, assuming she's run off. Time passes. A woman shares a cell with Angela, and when this woman's time is up, she finds Gino and tells him that his girl is locked up and was once a former prostitute. Oh sure, a prostitute for only about twenty minutes, and just to save her mother when all other options had run out, but still, former prostitute. And then we learn that Gino HATES prostitutes.<br /><br />Eventually, Angela and Gino cross paths again, but it's not a happy reunion, but a violent one.<br /><br />Again, the film suffers from some poor characterizations in the first half, but Janet Gaynor did the best with what she was given. Let's see if she can keep it up for part two of our triple feature.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/3281250863_da0907f013.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349471322990683584.post-55905372125881263202009-02-13T08:51:00.000-08:002009-02-13T10:54:15.673-08:00Harold Lloyd and Speedy<b>Speedy (1928)<br />DIRECTED BY:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0928514/">Ted Wilde</a><br /><b>STARRING:</b> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0516001/">Harold Lloyd</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0160680/">Ann <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Christy</span></a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0940437/">Bert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Woodruff</span></a><br /><b>NOMINATED FOR:</b> Best Director, Comedy Picture<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3276187133_1ba00ab9dd.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />Harold Lloyd often seems to get the bronze medal in the great "who was the greatest silent comedian" debate, with Chaplin and Keaton duking it out for the gold. Of the Lloyd films I've seen, I can sort of see why. Lloyd was the least "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">silenty</span>" of the three. His stunts, even prior to his accident in 1919 that resulted in the lose of two of his fingers, were rarely as big as his contemporaries. Which is not to say he wasn't athletic. He was fast and had great balance, but his films seemed to have many more smaller, simpler gags.<br /><br />Harold Lloyd's films also don't hit the same emotional heights that most of Chaplin's films (I'll keep my opinion of Keaton to myself for the time being). They tend to be more popcorn entertainment then anything else, but nobody can popcorn entertain better then Harold Lloyd.<br /><br /><i>Speedy</i> was both Harold Lloyd's last silent film as well as his only film to get an Oscar nomination. There actually isn't much to talk about, because going into the film in any great detail would just be listing gags, and comedies work best when you don't know what's happening. This film does have one great value to it that I will touch upon, a value that probably makes this one of the most important films for historians that I've looked at so far.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3277006658_ca5f796720.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3460/3276186895_76c0f414ba.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3277006734_3bffe8824d.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />This film <strong>IS</strong> New York City!<br /><br />No silent film I've seen thus far shows the Big Apple in the 1920s in so much detail. Most of Harold Lloyd's films were shot in LA, but the exception of a few pickup shots, <i>Speedy</i> was shot entirely on location in NYC. They used mostly hidden cameras to film, and they went everywhere. Uptown, downtown, even into the subways, and what we get are a lot of little details, such as the combination scale-and-fortune-telling machine at the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">entrance</span> of the subway, or the drive-in horse-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">shoers</span>, or my favorite:<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3521/3277006892_5981620271.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />An <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">updated</span> play-by-play score board in a shop window. One <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">shop owner</span> gets updates over the phone while another operates lights and symbols to show what's going on in the game. This was prior to television, and radio hadn't gotten in to the whole sports broadcasting thing yet, so this was one of the main ways of getting the scores.<br /><br />Baseball and the Yankees are huge cultural things in <i>Speedy</i>. Everyone in the film, as just everyone in that time period, is a big fan of the game, and their schedules are determined by the game schedules. Lloyd's character only gets jobs if there's an easy way to get updates on the game. A lot of the film acts as a love letter to the game and to the team, and it all peaks when Babe Ruth himself makes a cameo.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3467/3276187581_350e30ff4b.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />And this is big-but-athletic Babe Ruth, not old-and-a-bit-dumpy Babe Ruth you see in all the sound clips. At one point, Lloyd's character becomes a cab driver, and by pure chance ends up picking up Ruth to take to Yankee Stadium. Lloyd is so <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">overwhelmed</span> that he can barely pay attention to the road, and keeps glancing over to sing Ruth praises. Ruth's reaction is priceless.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/3277007414_115dcdd935.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />The centerpiece of the film is a trip to 1920s <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Coney</span> Island, which may well have been the most dangerous place in the world!<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3276187195_4b2722e1be.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/3277007030_8d8955bea3.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />To be honest, if I ended up going back in time to the 1920s, I'd stay as far away from <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">amusement</span> park rides as possible.<br /><br />Well, except the spinning disk. I've always wanted to try the spinning disk.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3453/3277007180_7f3a9cff64.jpg?v=0" /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3418/3277007238_84465c09c7.jpg?v=0" /></div><br />These moments of where old school New York really shine through are what make the movie for me, more so then any of the gags and storyline. And they're good gags and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">story lines</span>, don't get me wrong, this is a very enjoyable if simple film. But when you get me nostalgic for a time that even my GRANDPA wasn't around for, then you got something special going on.<br /><br />Plus, Harold Lloyd flips himself off.<br /><br /><div align="center"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3277007120_9703bc37e6.jpg?v=0" /></div>D.W. Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534157770702841671noreply@blogger.com0