Lust for Gold

The best new movie I’ve seen in a long time is Columbia's “Lust for Gold” (1949), a really gripping movie that is as much a noir as it is a western, as much a contemporary treasure hunt movie as it is a historical look at the real-life discoverer of the famous Lost Dutchman Mine in Arizona.

You may ask how a 1949 movie could be new. Well, I had never seen it before, so to me it’s a new movie.

The film is a real showcase for stars Glenn Ford and Ida Lupino. Ford has never been one of my favorite actors of Hollywood’s Golden Age. I have nothing against him, and like him in many movies, but he was never the most charismatic of actors.

Still, I think his best performance is as the villain in the riveting “3:10 to Yuma” (1957) and his bad guy turn in “Lust for Gold” runs a close second. Maybe M-G-M and Columbia should have cast him as a villain more often? Yet, he was on the top box office draws of the era, so who can argue with success.

(I understand he plays a psychotic type in another western, “The Man from Colorado” (1948), though I’ve never seen it. That’s another new movie I need to see).

“Lust for Gold” concerns itself with the discovery of the famed Dutchman mine of Arizona. The movie is book ended with scenes set in modern-day Arizona, and young Barry Storm (William Prince) on the lookout for the historic treasure. He hears the story of the treasure from the local sheriff (Paul Ford) and deputy (Will Geer).

The film is based on a book called “Thunder Gods Gold” by Barry Storm. I’ve never read it so I don’t know if Storm was a character in the book.

These opening sequences were so long, I thought the DVD cover art was a mis-representation, and the movie was set in the contemporary west.

But no, we soon get to central portion of the movie, set in 1880, where we meet Jacob “Dutch” Waltz (Glenn Ford) , a down and out immigrant who stumbles across the mine and cold bloodily kills his partner (Edgar Buchanan).

He celebrates his fortune in town and attracts the attention of everyone, including Julia Thomas (Ida Lupino), who runs the bakery. Julia is married to the weakling Pete Thomas (Gig Young).

Dutch won’t tell anyone where the mine is, and only Julia feigns disinterest in the mine. This gets the attention of Dutch, who doesn’t know that Pete is (pardon the language) pimping out his wife to Dutch to learn the whereabouts of the mine.

Julia may wear high-necked blouses and large skirts, but she’s a femme fatale in the best noir tradition. She’s convincing in her love scenes with Dutch and he’s all into her, the poor sap, while in the next scene she’s using her wiles on her husband, telling him he’s only playing with Dutch until he tells her where the mine is. One gets the impression Julia could care less about either of them, and once she gets the loot from the mine, she’ll be out of there faster than the Road Runner.

When Dutch finds out he’s played for a fool, he doesn’t explode, like I expected, but instead decides to tell her where the mine is. And he doesn’t plan to let Julia or Pete leave the mine alive.

Despite the unusual psychological underpinnings of these characters, there are still some good action scenes to satisfy the western fan. There’s a particularly brutal attack by Apaches in an even earlier flashback, with arrows and spears shot with gleeful abandon into the bodies of some ambushed miners. Heck, there’s even an earthquake sequence.

The movie doesn’t end with Dutch and Julia’s story, but continues in the present day, with Barry Storm determined to find the whereabouts of the Dutchman Mine. Someone feels he’s getting a little too close, and tries to kill him. Despite a warning from sheriff, Storm continues the search. The climax is an exciting chase through the rocks and cliff sides between Storm and the killer.

“Lust for Gold” was shot on location in Arizona’s Superstitious Mountains, supposed site of the real Lost Dutchman Mine. Cinematographer Archie Stout does a remarkable job of making the Arizona desert and mountains look beautiful and terrifying, often in the same scene.

Co-screenwriter is Ted Sheredman, best known for his script for “Them!” (1954). I don’t know what it is about the desert, but that milieu was responsible for arguably his best work.

However, the most intriguing name behind the camera is director S. Sylvan Simon, a name familiar to fans of M-G-M musicals and comedies, such as “Whistling in Brooklyn” (1943) and “Abbott and Costello in Hollywood (1945). I’ve always had Simon pegged as a lightweight journeyman director, so I was really surprised at the noir-like nature and duplicitous characters so effectively on display in “Lust for Gold.”

Perhaps he was thrilled to be working with a script that had some real teeth to it and was determined to show what he could bring to the party. Alas, “Lust for Gold” was his last film. He died prematurely in 1951, dead of a heart attack at the age of 41.

There was a recent biography of Glenn Ford which appeared, penned by his son Peter. I have it on reserve from the library, and will be anxious to read about this film. Ford did seem to crave these villainous roles, and when he’s partnered with someone of fierce intelligence like Ida Lupino, the result is first-rate entertainment. I really enjoyed “Lust for Gold.”

Mr. Soft Touch, The Desperadoes, Avatar

This is one of those blogs where one thought leads to another. I’ll start with a recent viewing of “Mr. Soft Touch” and end with a discussion of “Avatar.” With a big budget Technicolor western in the middle.

By sheer coincidence I happened to recently catch two movies starring Glenn Ford and Evelyn Keyes: “The Desperadoes” (1943) and “Mr. Soft Touch” (1949). Doing a little research, I was surprised to see they had co-starred together in three additional films, “Adventures of Martin Eden” (1942), “Flight Lieutenant” (1942) and “The Mating of Millie” (1948).

Not one of the great screen teams, but there must have been something in box office returns that Columbia Pictures kept pairing them. Ford has always struck me as a likeable enough actor, but sometimes so low key he’s almost catatonic. However, he does exhibit strong signs of life when playing opposite Rita Hayworth, and can you blame him?

TCM ran “Mr. Soft Touch” this month, and I wondered why they didn’t run it in December as so much of it is set during the Christmas season. In the film, Ford robs a casino and hides from the law in a downtown settlement house, run by Keyes. Of course you know Ford is going to reform thanks to Keyes and the poor but honest kindness of the house’s residents. Also, since his character’s name is Joe Miracle, it’s a foregone conclusion he’ll change his ways.

It’s pleasant enough, though hardly memorable. The huge Christmas tree that decorates the house’s gym is a real beauty however, and there’s an amusing scene where Ford escapes from the law by masquerading in a Santa Claus suit. All that’s missing is a giant stogie, like Edward G. Robinson had sticking out of his mouth while wearing his Santa Claus suit in the very funny Warner Bros. crime comedy “Larceny, Inc.” (1942).

For such a light hearted effort, the film does open with a bang – a pretty good car chase with Ford, in a desperate attempt to escape from a pursuing cop car, driving through a crossing gate and over a bridge just as its going up to make way for a passing boat below. Promise of a crime thriller is offset by the more gentle activities that follow.

“The Desperadoes” was Columbia’s first Technicolor film and it’s a real beauty to watch. There was a special quality to Technicolor photography under the Columbia banner that other studios could not match (though 20th Century Fox, I feel, rules as the pre-eminent studio with their Technicolor offerings. Some of that photography practically melts the eye balls, it’s so vivid).

Based on a novel by Max Brand, “The Desperadoes” is standard though enjoyable fare about two friends, one a sheriff (Randolph Scott) and his outlaw friend (Ford) who reunite to tame a wild frontier town. Keyes is the woman they’re both in love with. Good support from pros like the always welcome Claire Trevor, Guinn Williams, Edgar Buchanan and Porter Hall, as a seemingly respectable banker. Gee, didn’t any one in that town ever see “The Plainsman” (1936)? I wouldn’t trust Hall with the milk money, but that’s the fun of old movies.

Scott is one of my favorite actors, and it’s a pleasure to be witness to his quiet confidence. Sitting back on a cold winter’s evening watching a Randolph Scott western means all is right with the world.

I was thinking about “The Desperaodes” while watching “Avatar” Sunday afternoon. It was pretty spectacular, and the world director James Cameron was very impressive. Many are talking about the visual splendor of “Avatar” and rightfully so, but I feel that a three-strip Technicolor production from Hollywood’s Golden Age is every bit the visual wonder.

Look at what “The Desperadoes” gives us. Vivid blue skies, beautiful horses at full gallop (is there anything more thrilling to watch than racing horses in front of some of the more gorgeous scenery in the world), elaborate costumes – for me, westerns like “The Desperadoes” offer just as much visual pleasure as “Avatar” and its Technicolor photography is just as eye popping as the computer-generated imagery of “Avatar.”

Something else that occurred to me while watching “Avatar.” So much of the visuals are reminiscent of the John Carter of Mars novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Cameron has admitted in interviews that Burroughs was a huge inspiration in “Avatar’s” creation. (I’m assuming he means Edgar Rice and not William).

The first John Carter novel, “A Princess of Mars”, is about to begin production as the first live action offering from Pixar Studios. Release date is 2012. When it comes out, I’m sure there will be lots of complaints that it’s a rip off of “Avatar.” I’m hoping Pixar rolls out the publicity machine early on this, and let all the fanboys out there know that Burroughs was there first, all the way back in the 1912.

Which leads to another thought and that is watching 3D movies. It’s likely middle age (I’m 47), but halfway through “Avatar” during a lengthy dialogue sequence I had to take those glasses off and give my eyes a rest.

For me, 3D doesn’t add a whole lot to the experience. It could be my irritation at paying an extra $3 for a pair of glasses that likely cost all of 50 cents to produce. No wonder the studios are jumping on the 3D bandwagon. Good writing and characters can draw us into the story every bit as much as 3D images. The trailers for Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” (or the new Christopher Lee movie, as I like to think of it) look extremely promising and I can’t wait to see it, but I think I’ll forego the $3 extortion and just see it flat.

But…but…but…that beggars the question if seeing it flat is really what the director intended and shouldn’t I support the film in the process the director filmed it? I refuse to watch full-screen versions of widescreen films because I feel I’m missing too much of the visual information the director wishes to impart. So using the same standards, if a director films a movie in 3D shouldn’t I see it in that format?

On the other hand, I’m still seeing all the information as the director intended, just not in 3D. I don’t need to see the floating head of the Cheshire Cat in the foreground when I can still see it floating in the flat version.

So I’ll likely see “Alice in Wonderland” flat and see if I feel cheated. If I do, I’ll just have to pop a couple of aspirin before I don those glasses again.