Skippy [Nominee ~ 1931]

"You're a tell-tale tattletale hanging on a bull's tail!"

I really dislike child actors.  For the most part, they are terrible.  But when they're actually good, they make me feel like I've done nothing with my life.  These kids are working and getting awards before they hit puberty.  What was I doing at that age?*  Probably watching The Little Mermaid for the 3000th time and thinking up ways to torture my sister.

Skippy is the story of a mischievous yet warm-hearted boy, played by Jackie Cooper.  He befriends a poor boy named Sooky, who lives in nearby Shanty Town.  When Sooky's dog is picked up by a cruel dog catcher, the boys team up to save her.  Meanwhile, Shanty Town itself is in danger of being torn down by Skippy's father, the head of the city's board of health.

Cooper is the youngest actor ever nominated for Best Actor, at the tender age of nine.  I have to hand it to him: he does do a fine job in this film (as does Robert Coogan as Sooky).  While the main plot mostly focuses on childhood hijinks's, there are a few touching scenes that nearly brought me to tears.  I could chalk this up to the fact that this is essentially a "dog movie,"** but there's more to it than that.  Even though I wasn't all that interested in this movie to begin with, the kid's made me care about their plight in the end.

Another fun fact about this film: it's the only Best Picture nominee based on a comic or graphic novel.  The idea of this happening now is unlikely, even with the field being widened to 10 nominees.  For some reason comic books just don't command the respect they deserve.  Even when there are great adaptations (Road to Perdition, Persepolis), they don't get nominated for Best Picture.  Perhaps the Academy was bolder in its youth; nominating films and actors that were unique in their source material, perspectives, and age.

Honestly, I don't think Skippy is the best example of a Best Picture nominee, but it is a cute movie.  I could definitely see myself showing it to my future kids.  Of course, I will point out that Jackie Cooper was a working actor and an Academy Award nominee when he was nine.  At the very least it might motivate my kids to clean their rooms once a week, right?

*Hell, what am I doing at this age?  Writing this silly blog, that's what.
**Anyone who has ever seen Old Yeller or Marley & Me will know what I mean by a "dog movie."

Trader Horn [Nominee ~ 1931]

"I'm not fool enough to believe any thing's impossible in Africa."

How would I describe Trader Horn?  It's part action-adventure biopic, part nature documentary, with a touch of romantic melodrama thrown in.  It's also an inaccurate, racist view of colonial Africa, which features a great deal of exploitation and real-life danger.  This is one of those films that preserves a moment in time, warts and all.

Based on the book by real life adventurer Alfred Aloysius "Trader" Horn (played by Harry Carey), the movie follows the ivory trader and his young protege as they trek through the African wilderness in search of a missionary's missing daughter.  Danger is around every corner, in the form of wild animals and angry natives.

While the plot itself is nothing special, the story behind the production is.  This was the first non-documentary to be filmed on location in Africa.  And after the ordeal the cast and crew went through making it, it's a wonder any movie was ever filmed on location again.  Many crew members contracted malaria, including female lead Edwina Booth.  It took her six years to fully recover, effectively ending her acting career.  Wildlife often attacked the crew, and led to two deaths: an African crewman was eaten by a crocodile after falling into a river, and another was killed by a charging rhino.  (Which was captured on film and included in the final movie.  Classy.)  Carey's leg was nearly bitten by a crocodile while swinging across the river by vine (also included in the final cut), and a second unit filming animal footage in Mexico allegedly starved lions to provoke vicious attacks on deer and hyenas.  Some footage also shows crocodiles and rhinos being shot at, the latter appearing to be an actual rhino death.

Along with authentic wildlife footage, this film also features indigenous tribesmen and women.  The inclusion of native peoples is a complicated issue, to say the least.  The locals are described as "savages," "monsters," or "happy, ignorant children."  Horn's gun bearer, played by Kenya native Mutia Omoolu, is the only African who receives anything close to respect, yet he's still referred to by the pejorative "boy."  The divisive issue of "ethnographic" nudity is also presented: topless native women are seen throughout the film, yet Booth's chest is strategically covered by a feather necklace.

Despite these issues, this movie is a visual gem.  The more authentic wildlife scenes are riveting.  The imagery of tribal people in costume is beautiful, especially while performing native dances.  As Africa moves into the 21st Century, tribal culture is in danger of being lost, and wildlife is threatened by industrialization.  Trader Horn captures a moment in time, when a continent was still wholly untamed, and the rules of filmmaking were almost non-existant.

East Lynne [Nominee ~ 1931]

Does anyone out there have connections at UCLA?  I could really use them to see this movie.

Only one copy of East Lynne is known to exist, and it's under lock and key at the UCLA Film & Television Archive.  A recommendation and an appointment are needed to view it.  There are no plans to release this film on DVD, mainly because restoring it will be very expensive and Fox (who owns the rights) is reluctant to fork over the money.

I'll just come right out and say it: that sucks.  Movies are meant to be enjoyed.  East Lynne and other rare films are not serving their purpose if they are left to sit on a shelf.  Shouldn't they be made available to the public for no other reason than to honor those who worked on these films?  Everyone, from the actors to the lighting crew, worked hard to create this movie, and now it can only be enjoyed by a handful of people.  Furthermore, with restoration and the creation of DVD copies, East Lynne can be spared the same fate as The Patriot.

Kudos to UCLA for preserving it, but come on Fox... pony up some of that Simpson's money you've been collecting and bring East Lynne to the masses!

(Gorgeous movie poster, by the way.  I'd love to have a framed copy on my wall.)

All Quiet on the Western Front [Winner ~ 1930]

"There are millions out there dying for their countries, and what good is it?"

Of all the books I read in high school English classes, only three were books I truly loved: The Great Gatsby, To Kill A Mockingbird, and All Quiet on the Western Front.  I remember silently crying while reading the final chapters of each of these books, and trying hard to fight back tears when watching their respective films in class.  But that was over a decade ago (oh my God...), and I've changed a lot since then.  Can these novels and films live up to my memories, or will they disappoint?

Gatsby and Mockingbird* will have to wait for their reevaluations, and if they are lucky they will be held in the same regard as All Quiet on the Western Front.  To prepare for this viewing I reread Enrich Maria Remarque's 1929 novel.  It was surprisingly just as I remembered: a beautifully written story about the futility of war.  If anything, I think I appreciated the book (and the movie, which is a surprisingly accurate adaptation) more now than I did as a high school sophomore.  War was something that I knew was wrong, but I had no real connection to.  I was too young to remember the Gulf War, and September 11 was still over a year away.  My world was peaceful.  Because of this, my view of All Quiet was skewed completely to the historical aspect.  I recognized that WWI was as futile as any conflict can get, and I mourned the loss of the men who gave their lives, but it had no real connection to my life.

My, how the world has changed.  For the past eight years American troops have been stationed in Iraq, a war that has left many as confused and disillusioned as Paul Baumer and his German comrades.  So many of the questions posed in this movie strike home with me today: Who wanted this war?  What are we fighting for?  When will it end?  Maybe the world should follow Katczinsky's suggestion: decide conflicts with a fist fight between the leaders of the countries involved, rather than fought by armies of innocent soldiers.

It's not surprising that this is one of the most banned films of the 20th Century.  Nations gearing up for war would not want this shown.  The gritty realism of life in the trenches and death on the battlefield are haunting, and enough to dissuade even the most eager youth from enlisting.  On its release, Variety magazine wrote: "The League of Nations could make no better investment than to buy up the master-print, reproduce it in every language, to be show in all the nations until the word 'war' is taken out of the dictionaries."  This is the best praise and most accurate review of a movie I've ever read.  And while I do believe there are legitimate reasons for nations to go to war, perhaps viewing this movie would at least make world leaders think twice about it.

This film is definitely on my list of favorites, and recommended viewing for everyone (after you've read the book, of course!).  The only flaw in this movie is the lack of German accents.  Yes, it's an American film starring American actors, but it is about German soldiers in WWI.  The lack of German is a little distracting at times, especially when the characters speak about the Kaiser, reference German cities, or even address each other using surnames.  Still, the fact that this movie could have been made in 1930s America-- when anti-German sentiment was still quite high-- is remarkable.  (A remake slated for a 2012 release date is in the works, so maybe it will strive for more dialectical accuracy.)

All Quiet on the Western Front is, thus far, the best movie I've watched for this blog.  It's also the most deserving of its win.  I still have many films yet to watch, but I doubt most of them will live up to this drama.  So often movies with such a strong message and point of view become quickly dated, but All Quiet only becomes more relevant with time.  As long as war is a part of the world, this film is needed to remind us of the people who are really doing the fighting, and the real sacrifices they are asked to make.

*To Kill A Mockingbird was nominated for Best Picture in 1962, so eventually I will get to that movie.  Neither the 1949 or 1974 films of The Great Gatsby were nominated for Best Picture.  Still, I'll probably rewatch the '74 version purely for my love of Robert Redford.

The Divorcee [Nominee ~ 1930]

"Marriage was the one thing in the world I thought ought to be perfect.  And when mine wasn't, I quit."

Ahhh... some redemption for the ladies of 1930.  After watching The Love Parade, I expected The Divorcee to glorify many of the same gender stereotypes.  It does, but in a much more palatable way.

Jerry (Norma Shearer) and Ted (Chester Morris) marry and share three happy years as husband and wife.  But when Ted has a one night stand, Jerry decides to balance their relationship by doing the same.  Their infidelities prove too much to overcome, and the couple files for divorce.  Jerry and Ted struggle with their lives and loves post-divorce, but ultimately find themselves in the process.  (I promise the actual movie is not as cheesy as this clunky summary.)

This movie was a surprise from the beginning.  I'm fairly certain divorce was severely frowned upon in the 1930s, and yet in the opening scene there are ladies cheerfully discussing and joking about their ex-husbands.  No stigma.  Just a piece of their lives that these women have gracefully put behind them.  Ted and Jerry are also quite the progressive couple: she has a job which she keeps after marrying, and she jokes with him about all the sex he had before they met.  Now, I'm not naive-- obviously premarital sex has always happened-- but I would think that most women in the era of this film would have just pretended their husbands were virgins on their wedding night.  Perhaps I'm just shocked at the frankness of some of the movie's dialogue?*

What I found most interesting is the film's discussion of adultery.  It feels so much like a contemporary discussion of the topic. Infidelity is still a huge barrier to couples, and how it's treated by the sexes seems to have changed little over time.  Ted explains his lapse as a meaningless tryst that should be excused because "it didn't mean a thing."  However, when his wife does the same he cannot forgive her.  Men are expected to slip up, but women must remain faithful.  Even how the two deal with the news of the other cheating is hardly surprising: Jerry pulls herself together and pretends nothing is wrong (for a few hours at least), while Ted gets drunk and makes a scene at a friend's wedding reception.  Sure, this is more flattering representation of women than men, but it still goes back to the same expectations of the sexes.  Men should get mad and fight for their woman, while women should just shrug it off and pretend nothing is wrong.  Women are intrinsically viewed as a man's property, while men are nothing more than roving sex monsters.

Despite the gender stereotypes pertaining to love and sex, I enjoyed this film for one reason: Jerry is a strong, independent woman, and remains so throughout the movie.  None of this take-everything-I-own-so-you-can-be-happy crap from The Love Parade.  Jerry tries to move on with her marriage, and when it's clear that Ted cannot do the same, she leaves him.  She comes to regret it, but she takes the time to be sure.  She sees other men, she has fun with her friends, and she even earns a promotion at work.  Her decision to divorce never comes across as a flippant one.  In fact, she even urges another not to do the same despite his own unhappy marriage.  And even though it was Ted who started all the trouble, Jerry knows they are both at fault, and she deals with her guilt admirably.

The Divorcee deals with a sensitive topic with great maturity, and for that it has stood the test of time.  Perhaps a remake is in order?

*  "I like to make love to you until you scream for help!" ~ Ted to Jerry

(Things are going to get a bit boring once the Pre-Code films end, huh?)

The Love Parade [Nominee ~ 1930]

"When royalty marry they don't quarrel like common people.  They can't afford to."

Royalty has always fascinated me.  This is in large part due to my mother, a self-professed "royal watcher," who's always good for gossip about the British monarchy.  As an American, I probably shouldn't care about these people.  They are, after all, the direct descendants of the monarchy that my ancestors fought to gain their freedom from.  But I just can't help myself.  Their regimented lifestyle is interesting, if only because I cannot fathom what it would be like to live that way.  They are philanthropic, and use their influence to further some excellent social and environmental causes.  And some of them are pretty good-looking, which never hurts (Harry's gotten quite handsome, hasn't he?).

While my fascination with the British Royal Family began as a school-girl crush on Prince William (which has mostly ceased due to unfortunate pre-mature balding), it has evolved to include more sociological issues.  My primary question being: how does it feel to be the consort of the Queen, in a world where men are expected to be the dominant partner?

The Love Parade addresses this issue, in a not-so-subtle gender roles-reinforcing way.  Maurice Chevalier plays Count Alfred Renard, the military attache to the Sylvanian Embassy in Paris, who is recalled due to a string of affairs.  Meanwhile, Queen Louise of Sylvania (Jeanette McDonald), is annoyed by her country's preoccupation with her marriage prospects.  Predictably, Alfred and Louise fall in love and marry, and then things get complicated.  [SPOILER ALERT: The rest of this post pretty much gives away the ending of the movie.  I apologize, but there's really no way to make my point without doing so.]

As Prince Consort, Alfred basically becomes a glorified sperm donor.  He's expected to spend his days playing tennis, and napping to "keep up his strength."  Alfred must also vow to be an "obedient and docile husband," and his wife takes precedence over him in all matters.  This riles his male sensibilities so much that he chooses to divorce Louise.  So how does the bereaved Queen get him to stay?  By giving him command of affairs of state and of her, basically elevating him to the title of King.

I'll come right out and say it: I'm probably waaaaaaay over-thinking this film.  It is a comedic "battle of the sexes," after all, and over 80 years old.  It's position on gender norms really must be taken with a grain of salt by modern viewers.  But I think that's what really bothers me about it; some things haven't changed all that much since 1929.

For all the advances we've made toward gender equality, women are still expected to become subservient to their husbands on some level.  Even if women do not do this, the cultural expectation for them to do so is still there.  Every time a sitcom husband is annoyed by his nagging wife, or a man is derided for being a stay-at-home dad, society is showing its discomfort with strong, independent wives who have a life outside their home and family.  Even Kate Middleton's choice to omit the words "to honor and obey" from her wedding vows caused more of stir than it really should have, in my opinion.  (Honestly, how many women actually include this portion anymore?  And how many of those who do are just saying to for traditions sake?)  And it really shines a spotlight on the marriage of Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip.  Being married to a woman so powerful and revered must be daunting, but he rarely seems to rankle under the pressure.  Really, who would have thought that a union so steeped in tradition could also be progressive?

Setting my feminist turmoil aside, The Love Parade was a rather cute film.  It's considered the first true musical, fully integrating songs as part of the story line.  Maurice Chevalier gives a great performance, and once again it was nice putting a face to the name.  So definitely watch it if you get the chance.  Just don't take it as seriously as I did.

The Big House [Nominee ~ 1930]

This is another film I'll need some help seeing.  It aired this past February on TCM, but I was unable to record it as it conflicted with an episode of The Office.  (Cut me some slack; it was Steve Carrel's final season and I've been watching the show from the beginning.)  I also see that it's for sale through the TCM website, but since I do not have $20 to spend on it just yet I thought I'd send out the call for help.

Contact me if you're willing to lend a copy (details to the right), and hopefully I'll be updating this post soon!

Disraeli [Nominee ~ 1930]

"Perhaps you think that because no war clouds darken the present horizon that there is no danger."

So here is where my history teachers have failed me.  Prior to watching Disraeli, I had only a passing idea of who Benjamin Disraeli was and why he was famous.  His name pops up in the Jeopardy! category "British Prime Ministers" from time-to-time, and his quotes are favorites in those Penny Press puzzle books (which, yes, I very much enjoy despite being 30 years younger than their average customer).  Beyond that I was ignorant of the man.

Though perhaps there was no reason for me know anything about him?  History in the US is taught from an American perspective, which many feel is egocentric, but I feel is probably pretty common.  (A friend who grew up in England was taught that the American Revolution was a "small skirmish" and that Great Britain "gave us our freedom."  Talk about spin.)  So while I'm sure Disraeli is an important figure in British history, from what I can tell he wouldn't really merit mention in the US.

The focus of this biopic, the first of this blog, was Disraeli's purchase of the Suez Canal.  If this sounds less than exciting, you're kind of right.  This is a perfect "talkie," in that there's a lot of talking and little action.  Not that that's always a bad thing, but in this case I just wasn't into it.  I will, however, praise George Arliss.  He won the Best Actor Oscar for this role, one which still stands up today.  Often I find myself cringing or laughing at the acting style of old movies, but this one felt much more natural.  This was Arliss' "talkie" debut, and his transition from silent film seems effortless.

Other than being a bit of a snoozer, this movie was OK.  I'd praise it more, but I can't seem to separate the on screen Disraeli from the real life Prime Minister.  This was a man who bought a canal simply to secure a nation for monetary reasons.  Forget the people already there and their feelings on the matter, the Queen needed the title "Empress of India."  So while the character Disraeli was witty and likable, I couldn't fully root for him knowing what was to come.  Hell, I'll probably outright hate him by the end of Gandhi (assuming this blog lasts that long). 

In Old Arizona [Nominee ~ 1929]

"When this Cisco Kid does a job, he does it right."

I am really enjoying some these old movie posters, especially the above gem.  "You hear what you see while enjoying..."  Awesome!

One would think that a girl raised on Gunsmoke and Bonanza reruns would love Westerns, but oddly I don't.  The only Westerns I actually like are Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma.  I'm a huge history buff, but the Old West just isn't my bag, so to speak.

All things considered, I fully expected not to like In Old Arizona.  However, I found it to be quite enjoyable.  It took a little time for me to get into the story, but the ending has a good enough payoff to redeem its flaws.  The story follows the Cisco Kid, a lovable bandit with a substantial bounty for his capture.  His love, Tonia, a fickle gold digger who cheats on him while he's away, gladly takes his money when he comes to call.  She soon takes up with Army Sgt. Mickey Dunn, and the two hatch a plan to collect the bounty on the Kid's head.

My post-viewing research revealed that this was the first talkie filmed outside.  It also made use of authentic locations, including Mission San Fernando in Los Angeles.*  This makes Arizona stand out from the other 1929 nominees, which were filmed on sound stages.  The on location shooting lends an authenticity to this film that the others just didn't seem to have.

While Arizona was ahead of its time in regards to production, it still retains elements that haven't aged well.  The primary issue being that the leads, Warner Baxter and Dorothy Burgess, are white actors playing Latinos.  The accents are bad stereotypes (this applies to the Italian barber, as well), and it appears as though Burgess is wearing a thick coat of foundation to darken her skin.  Still, the film could have been much more offensive.  In fact, I will give it props for using Latina extras and including several lines of dialogue that are completely in Spanish.  (I cursed myself for not working harder in high school Spanish; it would have been nice to know what they were saying.)

Another issue are the "sound for sound's sake" scenes that pop up throughout.  This is something I've noticed in the other early sound films I've watched.**  Random mariachi bands, crying babies, sizzling ham and eggs... these no doubt thrilled audiences in 1929, but leave modern viewers scratching their heads.  I imagine some 1950s 3-D movies would be viewed in the same light (and maybe a few current ones as well).

Finally, I'd like to leave you with the number one piece of trivia from this movie:  Raoul Walsh, the original star and director, was forced to drop out of the movie because he lost his eye in a driving accident.  A jackrabbit jumped through the windshield of his car, and safety glass wouldn't be introduced until the following year.  Ouch.



*I mistakenly thought this was Mission San Juan Capistrano.  My family recently visited Cap, which also features a small fountain courtyard beneath the mission bells, as is depicted in the opening scene of this film.  I definitely want to visit the San Fernando Mission now, and highly recommend seeing San Juan Capistrano.  It's a very gorgeous place.


**Particularly the opening scene of The Broadway Melody.  It's a cacophony of sound.

Alibi [Nominee ~ 1929]

"Well you would think so, Tommy.  I beat you to it."

First off, this is a very trippy movie poster for 1929.  The colors, the typography, the floating heads...   I kind of like it.  Which also pretty much sums up my thoughts about this movie in general.

Alibi is the story of mobster Chick Williams, who finds himself wanted for the murder of a police officer.  His alibi almost checks out, but detectives are eager to poke holes in his story.  Things are further complicated when Williams marries Joan, a police officer's daughter who has also caught the eye of an overzealous detective.

What I found most interesting about this film is how it completely blurs the line between hero and villain.  The mobsters are initially portrayed in a sympathetic light (Williams' is released from prison in the beginning, and insists he was framed by crooked cops), and the policemen stoop to objectionable and often brutal methods on the job (a cop threatens to murder a man if he doesn't identify Williams as the murderer).  This questioning of right and wrong perfectly reflects the atmosphere of the 1920s.  Prohibition was probably the most flouted law in American history.  Political corruption was rampant in many large cities.  Al Capone, though clearly a criminal, was viewed as a modern-day Robin Hood for funneling his ill-gotten gains into charity work.  Alibi shines a light on these issues, which have never completely left the American landscape.

What I didn't care for was the story's pacing.  The film clocks in at just under 1 hour 30 minutes, yet somehow drags.  The most exciting scenes last a few minutes, while boring bits are allowed to carry on for far too long.  (There is one death scene in particular that is ridiculously long and over the top.  I hope that even the 1929 audience cringed a little while watching this.)  The short runtime also means there is little character development.  Joan particularly suffers from this.  She is introduced as a naive girl, and never amounts to anything more.  It was also frustrating to receive almost no back story on her and Chick's romance.  How did they meet?  What drew her to him?  Why would she wait for him while he was in prison?  These are details that could have fleshed out her character, and developed further audience sympathy for Chick.

Alibi also offers some nice visuals.  The opening scenes use highly stylized sets that feel very ahead of their time.  I also enjoyed a nearly silent montage where two detectives test Chick Williams' alibi.  Scenes like this really highlight the transition that was being made from silent films to "talkies."  Directors were experimenting with new storytelling techniques, but often still relied on old standbys to pass information to the audience.  Finally, a couple performance numbers are thrown in to showcase the use of sound, but what I really enjoyed were the hideously unflattering costumes and Rockettes-style dance numbers.

All things considered, Alibi is a pretty good film.  I rather liked it, and feel it probably should have won the Best Picture Oscar over The Broadway Melody that year.  It's certainly a more engaging story, and dealt with serious issues of the day.  Definitely worth watching, though I will warn you that the audio quality on the DVD is terrible.  (The dialogue is often too low to hear, and gets drowned out by crackling static in the films soundtrack.)

The Broadway Melody [Winner ~ 1929]

"They were plenty smart when they made you beautiful."

1929 is shaping up to be a pretty terrible year.  So far the nominees list includes a movie you can't watch, a movie with no plot, and The Broadway Melody.*


I felt like I was missing something the entire time I watched this movie.  I could see it being a box office success (it was the highest grossing film of 1929), but a Best Picture winner?  Surely I was missing something huge.


Or not.  According to filmsite.org, 1929 was not a banner year for the Oscars.  The winners were all closely associated with the Academy's Board, making the awards questionable at the very least.  Then there was the not-so-small matter of "talkies" being made eligible for the first time.  To quote filmsite: "The films nominated for this year's awards were some of the weakest films in the history of American cinema, reflecting the chaos of the transition from silents to sound films."  So my best guess is that the Academy wanted to honor it's own and promote what it viewed as the future of film, even if the overall quality wasn't up to snuff.


Melody's story is a cliche backstage look at performers.  Two sisters, "Hank" and Queenie, move to New York to follow their dreams of being Broadway stars.  A love triangle develops between the siblings and friend Eddie Kerns.  Kerns gets the sisters into a Francis Zanfield show, where Queenie catches the eye of Jock Warriner, a well-to-do society type.  This film includes many staples of the "behind the scenes" genre, including: a spoiled actor, under appreciated stagehands and musicians, a gay costume designer, and jealous chorus girls starting a cat fight.  I can't help but thinking that even in 1929 these stereotypes were less than fresh.


That being said, I don't think The Broadway Melody is a waste of time.  As someone who loves musicals it was fun to see one of the first.  The big production numbers are lively, and some of the songs are cute.  Also, anyone looking to spice up their wedding ceremony should check out "The Wedding of the Painted Doll" sequence, because let's face it, everyone has already seen that Chris Brown wedding entrance. (But it's still fun to watch.)





*Plus there was all that Depression business right around the corner, but this isn't Planet Money and I haven't watched The Grapes of Wrath yet, so let's just save that discussion until later.

The Hollywood Revue of 1929 [Nominee ~ 1929]

For this "project" I decided on one major rule: Don't read the plot synopsis before watching the movie.  While I almost always know the general plot of today's movies before seeing them, I thought it would be fun to go into these movies blind.  Easy enough, given that I'm not constantly bombarded with trailers, commercials, and Hollywood news for 80+ year old films.  I really only need to avoid the Netflix sleeve.

Unfortunately, I've already begun to cheat.  I've started reading plot synopses of films I haven't gotten or can't get a copy of.  It's pure curiosity-- I just have to know what I'm missing.

My curiosity for The Hollywood Revue of 1929 was mostly sparked by an early search for the film.  While I have yet to locate a copy, I did find several clips on YouTube.  After watching a few I quickly deduced the plot of this movie: there is no plot.  Further reading on IMDB and Wikipedia confirmed my suspicions.  This is essentially a feature-length showcase of MGM's biggest stars.  (Perhaps the word "revue" should have tipped me off to this sooner?)

Even though this doesn't really seem like a Best Picture nominee to me right now, I will reserve judgement until I see the entire movie.  From what I have seen, it at least looks fun.  Buster Keaton doing 'The Dance of the Sea' was a neat look at a star I previously only knew by name, as was Laurel and Hardy's magic act.  And I'd also be remiss not to mention Joan Crawford's 'Got a Feeling for You.' I really enjoyed her singing and dancing routine.  Too bad I couldn't stop thinking "That's 'Mommie Dearest?'" during the entire clip.

The Patriot [Nominee ~ 1929]

I'm sure there are a million more eloquent ways of saying this, but I've chosen to go with my gut reaction: Lost films kind of freak me out.  Try as I might, I just cannot wrap my head around the idea of recorded footage going completely missing.  "Backing things up" is second nature to anyone raised in the Digital Age, and maybe it's in small part because of films like The Patriot.  But before I delve too much deeper into this, let's step back in time...

By 1930 silent films had gone the way of the dodo.  "Talkies" were all the rage, and silent movies were no longer a sound financial investment.  Furthermore, they were actually starting to cost studios money in the form of storage space.  The decision seemed simple (and innocent) enough: throw out the silent movies that nobody wants to watch anymore and make room for newer sound features.  No thought was given to preserving film history because films weren't viewed as being valuable beyond their theatrical run.  Though many silent films were also lost due to the extremely flammable nature of the nitrate film used extensively throughout the era, the main culprit was intentional destruction.

Though an estimated 80 percent of American films from 1894 to 1930 are considered lost, there are some lucky exceptions.  Popular stars, like Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford*, saw their films reissued many times, meaning copies resurfaced even if the originals were destroyed.  Which is why the concept of something ever being completely lost is so difficult for me to understand.  With the rise of television, home movies, and the internet, there are potentially infinite copies of all media currently available.  Even if a film's original and backup are lost, millions of people could step forward with a DVD.

While the concept of lost films in general is haunting, The Patriot's lost status is even more troubling.  This was a popular film, and a well reviewed one at that.  It was nominated for five Academy Awards in 1929, and was the last silent film ever nominated for Best Picture.  It is also the only Best Picture nominee for which there is no complete copy.  How this happens, at a time when film was first being honored as a legitimate art form, is unfathomable.

So people, please check your attics and basements.  Your great-great grandfather may have loved Emil Jannings' portrayal of Czar Paul I so much that he bought a copy.  Crazier things have happened.



*According to Pickford's Wikipedia page, audiences were outraged when she cut her trademark long curls, and her career began to wane shortly after.  Somebody should have warned Keri Russell.
Also, Pickford was Canadian.  Apparently the Great White North's invasion of American media goes back further than I thought.

Seventh Heaven [Nominee ~ 1928]

"It's wonderful the things I feel ~~ sometimes I could reach out and touch a star!"

I took a much longer break after Wings than I had originally planned.  The spring semester started, I'm working more hours, and my mom was dying to watch the final season of The Tudors.  But the break might have been a blessing in disguise, as it gave me time to reflect on silent films.

After viewing Wings, I felt like maybe I was missing something.  As someone who has been raised watching nothing but "talkies," I worried that enjoying a silent movie was perhaps beyond me.  Spoken dialogue is half the story, sometimes even more.  In the past week and a half I've really started to notice how I watch TV and movies, and the truth is, I don't.  It's rare for me to fully invest my attention in what I'm watching.  I grew up in the age of multitasking, and I do it even when I'm supposedly relaxing.  The dialogue and sounds become the primary storytellers, and if I do miss an important visual, I just hit rewind on the DVR.

Silent films are an investment.  You must commit real time and attention to the movie in order to understand what is happening.  Today's media isn't an investment, because we don't want it to be.  We expect things to be concise and easily digested in a few minutes.  If it can't be viewed while surfing the internet, flipping through a magazine, or running on the treadmill, then it will just have to wait.  Even in theaters I see more and more people peeking at their cell phones during the movie.  It's sad to think that going to the movies is no longer a true escape from our daily lives.

Seventh Heaven was well worth the commitment I made to it, and I hope you will be inspired to give it the full attention it deserves as well.  The film tells the story of poor Diane (Janet Gaynor), an orphan living with an abusive sister.  Diane is saved by sewer worker Chico (Charles Farrell), who reluctantly falls in love and marries her.  However, their joy is cut short by the outbreak of WWI.

While both Wings and Seventh Heaven share the backdrop of WWI France, the stories could not be more different.  Wings is a war/buddy movie with a dash of romance.  Seventh Heaven is a romance movie with a dash of war.  I liked Heaven a lot more.  From the very beginning I cared about Diane, and grew to like her more as the story progressed.  Same for Chico, who starts out pretty cocky, and... well he's pretty cocky the entire time, but in a likable way.  (Farrell actually reminded me of actor Nathan Fillion, especially as Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.  Something about the jaw line and eyebrow movements.  Keep this in mind for the remake.)

My favorite scene of the entire movie also happens to be a visual representation of the title's meaning.  When Diane first visits Chico's apartment, the pair ascend several flights of stairs to the seventh floor, which Chico describes as heaven because it is so close to the stars.  The scene is a vertical tracking shot, following the actors as they climb their way to the top.  I love how the lighting dims as they climb, and at one point Chico strikes a match to light their way.  It's just a really cool shot.  There's no other way to put it.

There were also a few fun tidbits throughout this film I very much enjoyed:

1. Diane's sister is a prostitute.  This is never actually stated.  The sister is arrested along with a group of other women and accuses Diane of being "just as bad as she is."  I love when old movies beat around the bush like this, especially since they probably weren't fooling anyone back then either.

2. Cars were being named at least as far back as 1927.  Chico's friend owns a taxi he calls "Eloise."  Awesome.

3. This story could easily be changed into a romantic comedy if you take out all the depressing abuse and war stuff.  A woman is rescued by a stranger who pretends to be her husband to help her avoid arrest.  The two must live together until the police investigation is over so as not to arouse suspicion.  Though they dislike each other at first, they soon realize they are soul mates.  This has Kate Hudson written all over it.

In all seriousness, I really enjoyed this movie.  A wonderful, moving story with beautiful imagery.  And now that I understand how to really watch silent films, I may have give Wings a second chance.

The Racket [Nominee ~ 1928]

In order to see this movie, I'm going to need some help.  As far as I can tell, it is not currently on DVD, VHS, or online.  Which is not surprising given the fact that it was thought to be a lost film, until a copy was discovered in Howard Hughes' personal collection after his death.  Turner Classic Movies aired it in 2004 and 2006, and I'm hoping some kind-hearted movie buff recorded it and would be willing to lend me their copy.

If you have any information, please contact me at sallymackart [at] yahoo [dot] com (full contact info listed to the right).

Wings [Winner ~ 1928]

"Attaboy!  Them buzzards are some good, after all!"

Prior to viewing 1927's Wings, I had never watched an actual silent film era movie.  My only exposure to them were short clips seen on TV, usually accompanied by some sort of narrated commentary about the film or actor.  Other than that, Mel Brook's Silent Movie and the first half of Pixar's Wall-E are the only things I've viewed in their entirety that come even remotely close to the concept.  Having relied on sound to tell the story my entire life, I worried about losing interest or becoming easily bored.

Well... I did get bored at times, but it had nothing to do with a lack of sound or spoken dialogue.

First, a brief plot synopsis (No Spoilers*):  Jack Powell (Charles "Buddy" Rogers) and David Armstrong (Richard Arlen) are two aspiring American pilots about to leave for war.  Both are in love with the same girl, Sylvia Lewis (Jobyna Ralston), who actually prefers David.  Meanwhile, Jack's neighbor, Mary Preston (Clara Bow), is infatuated with him, but he doesn't know it.  The two head to training where they eventually become friends, and are shipped off to France to aid the Allies.  During a mission, David is gunned down and presumed dead.  The climax of the film is an epic dogfight, where Jack vows to avenge his friend's supposed death.

I love a good war movie, and even more, I love a good WWI movie.  I've always been drawn to the "Great War."  Probably because it was just so aggravatingly futile, making it a perfect backdrop to the sort of bittersweet storytelling that I love.  This is touched upon in Wings, though much too briefly for my taste.  Sure there's a messy love triangle and the potential for unrequited love, but that is not what this movie is about.  This movie isn't even about the futility of war, despite its sometimes gory depiction of death (more on that later) and melancholy intertitles.  This is an action movie-- plain and simple.

The boredom I experienced happened mostly during the overly long dogfights.  While these scenes are impressive, they get old real quick.  In fact, the first real air fight scene is the best in the entire film, making the concluding dogfight seem weak by comparison.  (I was interested to read that several of the actors cast had WWI flying experience, and flew the planes themselves in order to shoot the closeups.  Now that's some real "doing-your-own-stunts" cred.)

As for the romance, this subplot is mostly relegated to the very beginning and end of the movie.  The character Sylvia is introduced in the beginning, setting up the love triangle aspect, but then not seen again until the end (and hardly mentioned in between).  Mary Preston fairs much better thanks to Clara Bow's fame, but it's pretty obvious that the movie was rewritten to include the studio's biggest star. Mary becomes an ambulance driver in France, and pops up from time-to-time throughout the story.  While Bow's appearances are a fun break from the seriousness of the war scenes, they often seem like afterthoughts to the main plot.

Going into this movie I was expecting it to show some age, primarily in the form of cheesy special effects and a certain amount of chasteness.  Boy, was I wrong!  The special effects are actually good, with death defying aerial acrobatics that are very thrilling.  And as for those gory deaths I mentioned earlier: during one dogfight a pilot is shot from behind and blood gushes out of his mouth.  Seriously, it gushes.  Later, you're treated to an eyeful in the form of Clara Bow's breasts.  Yes folks, there's even brief nudity!  Needless to say, I was shocked.  Didn't Hollywood have rules prohibiting this sort of thing back then?  Well, not yet, but I bet this was one of the movies that helped shape the infamous Hays Code that would dominate the film industry for several decades.

So, where do I stand on Wings, the first Best Picture winner and only silent film to earn the title?  I like it, but I don't love it.  Maybe I'm just too reliant on sound to tell a story.  I noticed early on that the actors were saying way more lines than were written in the intertitles, making me wish I could read lips to know exactly what was being said.  The love triangle started out promising, but wasn't given time to develop.  Poor Sylvia becomes a throw away character, and Mary's just... there.  Still, the entire movie is surprisingly entertaining, and a great glimpse into the past.

Oh, did I mentioned I watched this on YouTube?  It's certainly a much different world today than it was 84 years ago.



* Even though these movies are decades old, I will do my best not to spoil the endings.  Any plot details I do give will be as minimal and superficial as possible.