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.)