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.