Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) **

Let me start off by saying that I don’t like this movie. It isn’t because the acting is bad—it’s quite good, actually . And, it has nothing to do with poor writing--Vina Delmar’s screenplay is indeed superb.  Perhaps it is because it lacks a strong directorial hand—no, that can’t be it, either, because Leo McCarey does a fine job as well. In fact, this is most probably one of his strongest films—he thought it was the strongest of all. So, what is it that I don’t like about this film?  Quite frankly, it’s despondently depressing.  It was like watching Soviet Realism with a bottle of vodka and a handful of Quaaludes. Now, don’t think I don’t like downer films—The Hours (2002) is one of my favorite films, and anyone who has seen it knows it has its Zoloft moments. Yet, the depressing difference between the The Hours and Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) is this: there is some light at the end of the tortured tunnel with The Hours. There is only darkness in the end with Make Room for Tomorrow.  The film haunts me, and not in a good way.

Victims of the Depression and callous children, elderly couple Barkley and Lucy Cooper (Victor Moore and Beulah Bondi) find themselves separated from one another when they lose their house and have to go live with their adult children.  They have FIVE children, but none of them can take both parents into their homes.  Really?  Somebody couldn’t roll out a cot or let one of them sleep on the couch?  And, if that wasn’t bad enough, then they are faced with the fact that they aren’t even wanted individually. One son’s wife convinces him that they need to put Lucy in a rest home; and, a daughter convinces Barkley that he should move to California and live with another daughter because the climate will be better for his health.  It’s difficult to believe that these two sweet, old people could have raised such ungrateful children. I’m sure this is the root reason why I don’t like this film.  I would NEVER treat my parents like this, but I know countless others who would and they make me physically ill.  The film is just too realistic a portrait of selfishness on an unfathomable level.

I would like to say that the only enjoyable part of this movie is when the couple reunites for one day before being shipped off to their separate destinations. They visit all the places they went on their honeymoon fifty years earlier and are unabashedly happy to be with one another.  They get better treatment from the strangers they meet out that day than they could ever get from their children. Yet, alas, even this slight respite from despair is ruined when the couple part ways at the train station.  They, and you the viewer, know that this is the last time they will EVER see one another.  I’d rather watch Ed Harris jump out that window in The Hours one-hundred times than watch this pitiful couple say their final goodbyes “just in case something happens.”  I really felt ill after I watched this. 

Both Bondi and Moore are heartbreaking in their roles. I suppose I could blame their too spot on portrayals for my displeasure with the movie, but that doesn’t seem fair.  I find it hard to believe that neither was nominated for an Academy Award—in fact, the film garnered no nominations at all. Really?  Luise Rainer wins for portraying a Chinese peasant with a really bad accent in The Good Earth, but Beulah Bondi, who personified a granny put out to pasture, doesn’t even get nominated?  Funny thing, when he won the Oscar for Best Directing for The Awful Truth (an excellent film, by the way) McCarey said thanks but that he got the award for the wrong film. 

Final verdict: if you really love your parents don’t watch this movie.  It will make you angry and depressed.  Still, if you are someone who wouldn’t think twice about dropping them at the “home” and visiting them only on holidays (if that), please watch this film to see how loathsome you really are. If I have offended anyone with this—Good.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1937

1937

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Janet Gaynor in A Star is Born

I can say that Janet Gaynor is very good as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester but I can't say that she really is great. She's very charming, she's very loveable but the limits of her role prevented her from being truly outstanding in this part. As I said, she's really enjoyable but I couldn't help wanting a little bit more. It's lacking work but a good one, at least.

4. Luise Rainer in The Good Earth

This is a great performance and I can really understand thos who love it but I also understand the arguments against it. Still, Luise Rainer gives a very loveable and truly great performance as O-Lan which may not be for the ages but it is certainly very memorable and its emotional nature is truly impressive. Well done work with some incredible moments by a great actress.

3. Greta Garbo in Camille

I have to say that Garbo really succeeded in creating a very complex and likeable character and a great performance despite the fact that she obviously has her flaws. Still, Garbo's luminous presence and wonderful personality might make up for the weaker sequences. Overall, it's a great performance that I really liked, I am still feeling a bit strange about her.

2. Barbara Stanwyck in Stella Dallas

This is the weakest one of Barbara's nominated performances but I still really loved her performance as Stella Dallas. Although the character is quite unlikely and even a little bit confusing, Barbara makes her so entertaining in a very weird way. I can't explain why I liked her this much but I was really blown away by some of the scenes.

1. Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth

When I almost gave up on 1937, along came Irene Dunne to charm me with this incredible performance as Lucy Warriner. Not only does she give, what I consider one of the funniest performances ever, but she also breaks your heart a little bit as you really start to care about Lucy and her life. It's really incredible work and it's 100% right what Cary Grant said about Irene.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Irene Dunne

in

The Awful Truth

Ready for your speech?

Final thoughts: A good year but not a great one. Irene was an easy winner and the ranking of the nominees was incredibly easy. Only Irene was truly fantastic but Barbara was really-really close to that. Garbo might have even inspired Maria Callas with this role but she left me a little bit colder. Luise was very nice but not enough and the same goes for Janet Gaynor. Overall, I liked this year but it wasn't outstanding in any way. Plus, I had to say goodbye to Barbara Stanwyck as I've written about all of her nominated performances and that makes me really sad. :(

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 1959
6. 2006
7. 1996
8. 1964
9. 1939
10. 1977
11. 2010
12. 1997
13. 2009
14. 1980
15. 1941
16. 1972
17. 1963
18. 1966
19. 1973
20. 1983
21. 1937
22. 1990
23. 1978
24. 1954
25. 1948
26. 2002
27. 1957
28. 1940
29. 1998

About the next year: Wow, I looked for a special year to celebrate the first anniversary of the reviews and I found it. But before that, I'm doing a less special but interesting year. It's gonna be incredibly obvious after the clue :):

• I want to win! :@ GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH...
• I feel like a ..t on a .o. ..n ..o.!

What do you think?

Barbara Stanwyck in Stella Dallas

Barbara Stanwyck received her very first Best Actress nomination for playing the title role of Stella Dallas. Brilliant Barbara Stanwyck. She's widely considered to be the greatest actress never winning an Oscar and rightfully so. Yes, she got that Honorary award much later but I don't think that her loss for Double Indemnity, one of the all-time best performances, is forgivable. I wonder with the words of Norma Desmond about the Academy. "Don't they know what a star looks like?". Stanwyck herself thought that she should have won the coveted award for this role as Stella Dallas. I think she didn't have very much chance over Garbo, Dunne and, of course, Luise Rainer. It's interesting that 1937 was "the time" for three of the nominees and yet none of them won. That makes me sad and I guess that fact makes people dislike Rainer's win so much.

Stella Dallas is such an unlikely and yet interesting movie. It's a typical 30s melodrama with all its drawbacks but I think some of it works quite well. Although it's not a stylish soap opera like many of the later melodramas. It's definitely not King Vidor's best work but I still liked it and I don't think it's as bad and trashy as many people say. The performances are (except for Barbara) quite horrible, especially the one by John Boles who plays Stella's husband. Anne Shirley is not much better, either. Sometimes I felt as if she played the lesbian lover of Stella Dallas, not her daughter. And when she was really "girlish", she was annoying as hell.

Thanks to my reviews on this blog, out of nowhere, Barbara Stanwyck became my favorite movie actress along with Jane Fonda (Deciding between them would be so tough. Interesting enough, I once asked Jane Fonda about Barbara Stanwyck and she said she really liked her but I'll tell about that later, if you're interested.). She has a presence and a voice like nobody and she's probably the most versatile actress of her era. Even the big shots like Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn were quite repetitive sometimes but I never felt that with brilliant Barbara. Her range covers the femme fatale, the soap opera matriarch (not a trashy diva like Joan Collins and such), the insufferable bitch, the foul-mouthed dancer and the self-sacrificing mother.

Walter Matthau once said about Barbara that when she was good, she was great but when she was bad, she was terrific. Nothing could sum up Barbara's performance in Stella Dallas better. Stella is definitely a soap opera character (and a very unlikely one) and yet Barbara somehow made me feel sorry for Stella and care about her. Barbara didn't suffer from the movie as much as she could have and even more, she achieved real greatness in some of the scenes.

Many people are bashing her earlier scenes because it's overacted by Barbara. I have to both agree and strongly disagree. Yes, she was a bit hammy in some of the scenes but I always felt that it came mostly from the bit trashy character and it wasn't completely Barbara's fault. At first, Stella is a dreamer who wants to be a rich, sophisticated lady. She becomes rich, but not sophisticated. I guess Barbara brilliantly showed all the changes in this woman and how she gradually gave up herself. And only because of one thing: motherhood. Somehow, motherhood turns Stella into something very unlike her. She remains the same person but she also becomes very caring, loving and protective.

The previously mentioned hamminess works well, however, in the scene at the train where she's laughing in a very rude way and everybody's looking at her (that's where I saw the parallel between Stella and myself :D). Many would say it's a very embarassing moment but for me, it all worked.

Still, the real greatness in this performance comes after Stella's sacrifice. Interesting enough, her sacrifice is not as sentimental and melodramatic as I expected, it's much more quiet than I thought. After her over-the-top behaviour, Stella listens to a conversations where two girls are laughing at her. Barbara's face is so expressive and brilliant there. I was totally astonished by that sequence. Same goes for the one, where she's lying to her daughter about why they cannot be together. I don't want to give away much but it's really heart-breaking to see her. If I'm talking about heart-breaking moments I cannot forget the very last minutes of the movie when Stella is watching her daughter's wedding from the street. There was a small nuance that I observed that was totally amazing. Barbara bit her handkerchief. I don't know why but I think it was a moment when Barbara's genious came to surface.

Yes, this is the weakest one of Barbara's nominated performances but I still really liked her performance as Stella Dallas. Although the character is quite unlikely and even a little bit confusing, Barbara makes her so entertaining in a very weird way. I can't explain why I liked her this much but I was really blown away by some of the scenes. The really brilliant Barbara showed her greatness that had yet to bloom after this movie. Really great early work.

This was my last review of a nominated Barbara Stanwyck performance. I'm incredibly sad. Incredibly sad. :( :( Who's gonna make me feel good? :( :D

What do you think?

Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth

Irene Dunne received her third Best Actress nomination for playing Lucy Warriner, a woman going through one of the funniest divorces in the history of movies in the Best Picture nominated classic comedy, The Awful Truth. It's such a scandal that Irene Dunne never won an Oscar, not even an Honorary one. With Barbara Stanwyck and Garbo they actually had the courage to admit having been crazy that they hadn't gave them awards. Dunne, however, was cheated in every possible way. I think she got closest to winning with I Remember Mama and The Awful Truth. I think she received many votes from Academy members and she might even have got ahead of Garbo though that's not very probable.

What can you expect from a movie in which two of your all-time favorite performers star? LOVE! LOVE! LOVE! The Awful Truth is one of my absolute favorite movies and the reason for it is that it has terrific actors giving terrific performances, a brilliant director, a great script and fabulous lines. I wish there were comedies like this nowadays and we wouldn't have to laugh at things like The Hangover (which is BTW good). The Best Director Oscar was richly deserved and it's a shame that the movie didn't win every award it was nominated for and that Cary Grant wasn't even nominated. Shame. I mean people love and remember this movie and what about The Life of Émile Zola?

Irene Dunne is a delightful presence and I love her so much. No matter what she does, she can't go wrong (OK, I had my problems with I Remember Mama) and I love that she could play any role. She could be a Sunday school teacher writing sexy novels, a caring mother, a heartbroken lover or you name it. In each and every role of hers you can observe what I call the Irene Dunne radiation, which can have fatal effects on you because you can easily get addicted to her and then you just can't get enough of her. I remember that after watching Love Affair, I watched two other movies of hers in a row. As you see, I'm a fan.

But if you're a huge fan, you get to worry if you dislike a certain performance of a favorite. And you're terrified if you don't like a performance that much for a second time. Ever since I saw her in The Awful Truth for the first time, I announced it to the whole world everywhere how brilliant she was. No imagine what a slap in the face it could have been if I hadn't liked her this time. However, it is a could have. I shouldn't have worried. She was just as good, if not better than the first time.

One word sums up this performance the best: laughter. Irene laughs, Cary laughs, you laugh. It's just fantastic how much laughter you can experience. Irene shows several ones: giggling, chukling, cackling and all of them are just brilliant. Just imagine the scene where Lucy gives a concert and Jerry falls with his chair. Irene's laugh after the song is so brilliantly timed and its so damn funny. She gradually cracked me up. First, I was smiling when Cary Grant fell, then I started laughing and when Irene laughed I almost died.

I must also mention Irene's brilliant singing. She could play with her voice so well and that's so immensely cool. I must say, though, that Irene's whole performance is very colorful and playful. I didn't feel that any of her work was forced or planned. Naturally, she was confident but this only helped her. She let herself go and played along with her co-stars and yet she held herself back from looking like an idiot. I think it was incredibly difficult to find the perfect balance with this character. Lucy is not a complicated personality but playing her is a very complicated and tricky task. Just imagine someone less talented than Irene as Lucy. It would have been a total disaster. I picture a remake (God forbid!) with for example Jennifer Aniston as Lucy. She's a good comedienne but I could never imagine her delivering the lines like Irene.

And yes, those line readings are brilliant. When Ralph Bellamy says he can't sleep at nights because he's so in love with her, Irene asks why doesn't he try hot milk. That's one of the funniest lines ever.

If you think that nothing funnier could come, there comes the scene where Lucy plays Jerry's sister. And Irene reaches the real highlight of her performance. That's the top and she just cannot go further, she reached the stars with this role. Moreover, the little drama that she adds to Lucy is also fantastic and it just makes her work even more amazing.

When I almost gave up on 1937, along came Irene Dunne to charm me with this incredible performance as Lucy Warriner. Not only does she give, what I consider one of the funniest performances ever, but she also breaks your heart a little bit as you really start to care about Lucy and her life. It's really incredible work and it's 100% right what Cary Grant said about Irene: "Her timing was marvelous. She was good that she made comedy look easy. If she'd made it look as difficult as it really is, she would have won her Oscar".

What do you think? Time for your last predictions!

Luise Rainer in The Good Earth

Luise Rainer received her second nomination and second consecutice Best Actress award for playing O-Lan, a slave becoming the wife of a poor Chinese peasant in The Good Earth. By this, Rainer become not only the first double winner in history, but she also caused very much controversy. I guess much of that comes from the fact that she won over huge stars like Greta Garbo, Irene Dunne and Barbara Standwyck who didn't go to win Oscars. They only had movies for the ages. Still, this win remains quite strange, very much like Hilary Swank's second win (though I really don't want to compare them).

The Good Earth is a very good but a bit too long (and maybe even boring) movie about the struggles and sufferings of a Chinese peasant family. I'd say that this movie really must have touched the members of the Academy and the viewers at the time. It shows a really devastating and (for its age) realistic portrait of poverty. Many people despise it for being politically incorrect as it features European actors as Chinese people. Yes, that's not the best but I think it was only because studios wanted to attract people with the names of the stars. In my opinion, this movie talks about Asian people with deep, real respect. So, overall, I can really recommend you this movie. It's really worth watching it at least once.

Luise Rainer is an actress that most people know as the one who won two Oscars first. Indeed, it's quite surprising that someone who didn't have a big Hollywood career was the first one in that. She didn't have many film roles after The Good Earth and that's probably because she rebelled against all the rules of Hollywood. Back than, Hollywood didn't tolerate rebels (even less than today) and that damaged Ms. Rainer's career in the motion picture industry. Still, I think that she's a truly great actress and it's no wonder that some of her scenes are shown at acting classes.

As I was watching Rainer's performance The Good Earth for the second time, I was looking for parallels with other works that I've reviewed on this blog in order to help me totally understand this work. To tell the truth, the very recent past came to my help and namely, Jennifer Lawrence. Yes, it's a very strange comparision but I think it's quite true. O-Lan and Ree Dolly are distant relatives in their strength in heart, their determination to fight for their family. Ree is more cheeky, however, and O-Lan is extremely humble. O-Lan is someone who (like Ree) experienced the darkest sides of life, humiliation and despair.

Luise Rainer didn't have to learn many lines for this movie but I think this was a really difficult part. O-Lan doesn't speak much and yet she communicates everything with her eyes and face. Rainer's excellent at playing with her face. Sometimes we don't even have to wait for what O-Lan might say, we can read from Rainer's face. Every thought, every emotion is right there and Luise, fortunately, never overplays the reactions of O-Lan. It can seem exaggerated, of course, but I think that fit O-Lan's personality. O-Lan had very strong emotions and Luise's firmness helped me understand that much easier.

I think what people don't realise is how strong O-Lan really is. Just picture the scene where her husband cannot kill the ox and then she does it. Because she has to. Yes, in a way, O-Lan is quite clichéd but somehow that never bothered me because of the purity of the character and Rainer's performance. O-Lan is a really unselfish and extremely loveable person and she wins over the audience's sympathy instantly, so Rainer's work is not thankless here.

However, the overall effect of the performance could have been stronger. It's mostly the fault of the screenplay as it didn't give enough time to Rainer to fully develop O-Lan's personality. She just doesn't have enough time and there could have been so brilliant moments and O-Lan had so many other great possibilities that Luise couldn't live with as the screenplay didn't let her.

This is a great performance and I can really understand thos who love it but I also understand the arguments against it. Still, Luise Rainer gives a very loveable and truly great performance as O-Lan which may not be for the ages but it is certainly very memorable and its emotional nature is truly impressive. Well done work with some incredible moments by a great actress.

What do you think? Irene is going to be next.

Janet Gaynor in A Star is Born

Janet Gaynor, the first Best Actress winner received her second and last Oscar nomination for playing Esther Blodgett aka Vicki Lester, a young woman who comes to Hollywood with the hopes of stardom in the original version of A Star is Born. I'm pretty sure that Janet Gaynor wasn't that far behind her competition. She was probably last but her movie actually received seven nominations and it was a real success. The fact that Janet Gaynor wasn't the biggest star and she had already won took some votes away from her, I'm sure.

Out of the many remakes and versions, this one is the least known and talked about. I guess the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason is the one that's considered a true classic despite the fact that it wasn't a financial success at the time. This original version was, however, a real success and it even received a Best Picture nomination. I think Fredric March gives a really great performance as Norman Maine. I'm not saying that he's totally worthy of the Best Actor Oscar but I preferred him to the two other nominees of his adversaries that I've seen (Muni and Tracy). The movie itself is a little bit slow and even boring and yet I really liked it because it was way less sentimental and much darker than the 1954 version. All in all, it was just great and the Oscar win for its story was richly deserved.

It seems really impossible not to compare Janet Gaynor's performance to Judy Garland's now legendary work in the 1954 version. Judy Garland left her mark on that role and if anyone says A Star is Born, you immediately think about her. Therefore, it might be dangerous to see her before Gaynor. But if I'm perfectly honest to myself, I was never really thinking about Garland while I was watching Gaynor (how funny, the initials of both of their names are J.G.). I can announce it here to the world that this performance of Janet Gaynor is a totally independant and memorable one.

Janet Gaynor's role might seem to be very meaty but in fact, she's not really given truly great material. I mean, the whole story of the movie (and the movie itself) is just excellent and yet she never really got really huge scenes like Fredric March. It was obvious all the time that I had to see March because he was so great and after a while, the story was really about him and Gaynor got stuck in the background. Unfortunately, I might add as I firmly believe that had she been given more to do, Gaynor could have given a truly brilliant, unforgettable performance. This way, she's only really good but I guess that can be enough sometimes. This time, it was, at least for me.

This Esther Blodgett is not very showy, she doesn't have extremely long musical numbers so Janet Gaynor had to work with what she had (which wasn't exactly that much). Gaynor was primarily a silent screen actress and she wasn't as renowned for her talkies as she was for her silent pictures. However, her previous experience helped her a great deal here. She could really play with her face and she showed so many emotions with little smiles and slow tears. There's nothing exaggerated about her and yet there's also some purity. At the beginning she gives the usual "country girl with a dream" that gives me creeps every time but here it wasn't that bothering. Boring yes, but never annoying.

There are something incredibly funny elements in Gaynor's performance that's quite often ignored. And those are the great impressions of the great stars in her day. She gives a brilliant Mae West, for instance. Actually, I might even say that the humorous parts are the best ones.

There's one exception, of course, and that's the scene at the Academy Awards. I actually felt that Gaynor showed Esther's humiliation really well and it was indeed a very heart-breaking moment without huge tears and such. I guess that was the moment where I realised how much better this performance could have been had Gaynor been given a little bit more to do.

So, I can say that Janet Gaynor is very good as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester but I can't say that she really is great. She's very charming, she's very loveable but the limits of her role prevented her from being truly outstanding in this part. As I said, she's really enjoyable but I couldn't help wanting a little bit more. It's lacking work but a good one, at least.

This might change to a 4 later but now I'm most comfortable with this rating.

Luise is next.

Greta Garbo in Camille

There cases when an Oscar win is locked. It usually happens when you're at the peak of your career, the critics are on your side and you're even considered overdue. Well, that was the case with Greta Garbo's third Oscar nomination. And shockingly, the winner was Luise Rainer who received her second consecutive Academy Award. I don't know how that could happen. I guess the Academy members loved The Good Earth more than Camille (it certainly received more nominations). I don't think that Garbo was very disappointed, though. She publicly dismissed the glamour of Hollywood and she was not the easiest person, I guess.

Camille is a movie that I really wasn't able to totally warm up to. On the one hand, it has some really great aspects about it, like the great supporting players or the techincal part. On the other hand, it's really slow and sometimes quite boring and I'm not really keen on these romantic stories. Mr. George Cukor's sugar coating on this movie didn't help that much, either. I always feel that he went a little bit too over the top with his movies. They are a bit too much for me. After a while, Camille becomes too sentimental and a little bit ridiculous. Just like Robert Taylor's performance.

However, it's really up to Greta Garbo to elevate the material and make this a better movie. She both succeeded and failed, in a way. Greta Garbo is someone that I do not admire that much as an actress but I do love her as a movie star. She wass always so aware of herself but always in a very good way. She was born to be a movie star. She always showed her beauty to the camera and yet she added very much of her persona to her roles. Garbo herself was a very mysterious person just like most of her characters and that helps her performances so much. And her star never shone brighter than here, in Camille. It's pretty much a legendary performance that's immensely loved by most of the people and it's always kind of strange to notice that you're not that blown away by her. Because I wasn't.

OK, I might withdraw that statement as Garbo had some really terrific moments but I'd prefer to talk about the negative things about performance since I feel that she had an overall positive effect on me, so I really want to make this review a positive one. But my first problem about her was that she made Marguerite a little bit too jovial and those smiles were a little bit annoying after a while. Furthermore, I felt that she could have made Marguerite a little bit darker and colder. I think something like the initial Ninotchka would have helped a lot.

However, I must admit that I was totally taken away by Garbo's luminous presence. She may not have been the best actress ever but she was a real, 100% star. When she's on the screen, you cannot take your eyes off her because of her unique beauty and shining personality. Some could be complaining that she relies on her charm too much but I don't think that with a performer of her greatness it's that much of a problem. I think she was just using what she had. And she did it beautifully.

Moreover, it was great to see Marguerite change from a carefree/careless woman to a responsible lady. I loved the way that Garbo gradually developed Marguerite. That's something that I noticed with her before, namely in Ninotchka. Just like the Russian agent, Marguerite also goes through a complete transformation and she's just blossoming. When she falls for this young man, Marguerite illuminates the screen. There's so much harmony and Garbo's just wonderful at showing happiness. I actually felt good for Marguerite. It's interesting that my favorite scene of the movie wasn't the last one but her walk with Robert Taylor in the middle. Somehow, right there I was so taken away by the great Garbo. It was just amazing.

It might be surprising that I actually loved the moments of Marguerite's sacrifice and ultimate death. Naturally, the were wonderful and really moving. I must underline the accuracy and brilliant timing of her last scene (though if you look at her eyes, her death is a bit funny) and it was certainly quite an effective sequence. Still, I loved Marguerite's happiness the most.

So I have to say that Garbo really succeeded in creating a very complex and likeable character and a great performance despite the fact that she obviously has her flaws. Still, Garbo's luminous presence and wonderful personality might make up for the weaker sequences. Overall, it's a great performance that I really liked, I am still feeling a bit strange about her. This is a true superstar performance with all its advantages and drawbacks.

A 4 might be surprising but I'm trying to be less lenient.

What do you think? Janet Gaynor is next.

The Next Year

1937

So the nominees were:

• Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth
• Greta Garbo in Camille
• Janet Gaynor in A Star is Born
• Luise Rainer in The Good Earth
• Barbara Stanwyck in Stella Dallas

A fantastic looking year. All five of them are interesting in their ways and I can't wait to take a closer look at them. Unfortunately, this will be the last reviewed performance of the brilliant Barbara Stanwyck, so I'll write her review last. I'm curious about how I will react to Rainer, Dunne and especially Garbo for the second time and if I'll like Gaynor more than Garland. We'll see.

Could Barbara gain another win from me or will it be someone else? What's your ranking? What's going to be my ranking? The predicting contest is naturally on.

Song at Midnight (Ye Ban Ge Sheng) 1937 **

To say Song at Midnight (Ye Ban Ge Sheng) is completely unknown to contemporary film audiences would be an understatement. Yet, it is considered by many film historians to be one of the best Chinese films of the early sound era. There are many things to admire about this 1937 picture, but I would like to focus on its unusual take on a classic tale and its outstanding set design.

There have been many film adaptations of Gaston Leroux’s novel The Phantom of the Opera (most notably the 1925 classic starring Lon Chaney), but Song at Midnight is perhaps the most unusual. Director and screenwriter Ma-Xu Weibang took a chance when he took liberties with Leroux’s original story, but his gamble paid off in the end. Instead of making the protégé a female opera singer, Ma-Xu decided that the story would work better if the singer were a male.  This really changes the story’s dynamics and it also ends up making the Phantom a more sympathetic character.

The story takes place at a run-down theater, where 10 years earlier the great opera singer Song Danping (Jin Shan) died.  Well, he didn’t really die, but everybody thinks he did. Evidently he has been skulking about making the locals believe the place is haunted, while waiting for someone with a voice as gifted as his own to make into the greatest opera singer in China.  You see, Song was once a great singer, as well as a  revolutionary himself, but then he went and fell in love with Li Xiaoxia (Woo Ping), the daughter of a vindictive feudal lord and the would-be girlfriend of Tang Jun. This is also an important element of Ma-Xu adaptation, because in the 1930s China was in the midst of political turmoil. In the end, Tang throws nitric acid in Song’s face and he is horribly disfigured. He decides to let the world (besides a few friends), and Li, think he’s dead. And, so when Song hears the voice of Sun Xiao-au he has the “voice” and face he needs to make a comeback—and to bring love back to Li.  This is what makes the adaptation so unusual, Song and Sun are more like Cyrano and Christian from Cyrano de Bergerac than the original story of the Phantom and his case of unrequited love with Christine. Of course, things turn a bit nasty when Song learns that Sun has his own fiancee, but in the end, the Phantom of this story ends up being a hero, even though he doesn’t have a happy ending.  Quite simply, it is wonderfully woven story and such a great spin on the traditional Phantom tale.

Besides having a great story, Song at Midnight is also a visual treat. Ma-Xu was a not only a fan of Tod Browning’s Universal monster films, he was also an admirer of German expressionism, most notably the works of Fritz Lang and Robert Wiene. Ma-Xu put together a film heavy with gothic atmosphere and haunting images. Ma-Xu sets the mood from the very beginning, by introducing the audience to the cobweb infested theater at night, and having a mysterious man lurking in the shadows. From that point on the scene is set and what follows truly comes from an artistic mind.

One of the most notable images is when we first see the Phantom’s face. Via flashback and with a handheld camera, we watch over Song’s shoulder as he slowly unrolls his bandages in front of a mirror.  Not only his reaction is captured in a pristine moment, but the framing of the reactions of those around him are superbly done as well. You can almost feel the recoil of those looking at his disfigured face. When he smashes the mirror it means so much more than just shattered glass all over the floor.

Overall, this is an interesting film to watch.  I’m always curious to see how certain genres took form in different countries.  Ma-Xu borrows heavily from the Universal monster films, especially the opening sequence and the finale with the torch wielding crowd. Of course, it is the reinterpretation of Gaston Leroux’s story that I find the most intriguing.  Sometimes when screenwriters make changes to original stories things don’t work out well, but in this case it was a refreshing retelling of a classic tale.

Stella Dallas (1937) **1/2

Throughout her storied career Barbara Stanwyck played every female character produced by Hollywood: ingénue, seductress, bad girl, gangster moll, heroine, entertainer, con woman, socialite, etc. While she carried every role off like a true professional, it was the working class girl who wanted to make good role that she most excelled at.  This most probably had to do with her meager, but colorful, upbringing. Orphaned at the age of four, she spent time in foster homes, but was primarily raised by her showgirl sister, Mildred. It was on the vaudeville circuit with Mildred that Stanwyck learned what it took to get ahead in life: strength, determination, and ambition. These, of course, are the same characteristics that many of Stanwyck’s working class roles required—especially Stella Dallas.

Considered one of the best female character roles of all time, Stella Dallas earned Stanwyck the first of her four Academy Award nominations for Best Actress. The daughter of a mill worker, Stella schemes to marry her father’s boss, Stephen (John Boles).  Although they are from two very different backgrounds—he is reserved and refined, while she is loud and crass—they find themselves married and raising a daughter. As Stella finds herself bored with Stephen’s ways, she begins to revert to her tacky ways.  Eventually Stephen leaves her, but leaves their daughter Lollie (Anne Shirley) with Stella because he knows that she is a good mother. As time passes, Stephen finds a much more suitable (and wealthy) woman (Barbara O’Neil) to marry, but Stella doesn’t want to give him a divorce because she’s afraid she’ll lose Lollie. In the end, when she realizes that she cannot give Lollie the life she wants her to have, she makes the ultimate sacrifice.
Of all her roles, and there were many to choose from, this was Stanwyck’s favorite. What’s interesting about this is that Samuel Goldwyn didn’t want to give her the part. He thought she lacked the necessary sex appeal for Stella and wanted Ruth Chatterton for the role. All I can say is: Really? Thankfully director King Vidor and hunky Zeppo Marx (her agent—yes, really) finally convinced Goldwyn that Stanwyck was the right woman for the role.

Based on the Olive Higgins Prouty’s popular novel of the same name, Stella Dallas is considered one of the greatest tearjerkers ever produced. It is a melodramatic film, but it isn’t schmaltzy. This, of course, has to do with Stanwyck’s multifaceted performance. At times, she plays her character as a conniving shrew and you just want to slap some sense of decency into her. Then, she plays Stella as a loving and devoted mother and you just want to wrap your arms around her and give her a hug.  I suppose the scene where she convinces Lollie that she wants to get rid of her so she can run off to South America with her salesman boyfriend is my favorite because Stanwyck plays it with such raw emotion.  Knowing that the only way she can get Lollie to leave her is to convince her that she doesn’t want or need her, Stella is almost ruthless in the act she puts on for Lollie. Not every actress could pull this off, but Stanwyck does a wonderful job of having the audience both hate and admire her at the same time in this scene. It is difficult to watch this, but at least the final scene in the film heals some of the hurt that the audience has endured by Stella’s sacrifice.

This is a film ruled by women---the men are totally forgettable.  Besides Stanwyck’s great performance, the audience is treated to two standout offerings by Shirley and O’Neil. Nominated for Best Supporting Actress, Shirley does a nice job of playing a young woman who loves her mother but is conflicted by her desire to live a more respectable life.  This may have been the finest performance of her career (I do like her in Murder, My Sweet though), but sometimes it is difficult for me to suspend my belief that Stanwyck was old enough to play her mother (they were only eleven years apart in age). That said, she does give a touching performance. An interesting aside about the Stanwyck/Shirley connection is that Shirley played Stanwyck’s younger self in So Big (1932). In addition to Stanwyck and Shirley, O’Neil also does a fine turn as Stella’s polar opposite. I enjoyed watching her scene with Stanwyck.  It was one of those only another mother could understand moments that pull at your heartstrings.

In the end, Stella Dallas is a film you don’t want to watch without a box of tissues.  It is a prime piece of evidence that Stanwyck was one of the greatest actresses to grace the silver screen.

A Day in the Country (Une Partie de Campagne) 1937 **

Well, maybe not an entire day—more like 40 minutes—but time, like age, is a matter of attitude anyway.

This 1936 French short film was directed by Jean Renoir about a year before his The Rules of the Game made him a top tier director. This was supposed to be a full-length film, but Renoir encountered some sort of mental block that led him to leave the film unfinished for ten years. In 1946, he turned the surviving footage into a short film. Full-length or short, as per usual, Renoir employs poetic realism to tell a simple but poignant tale (based on a Guy de Maupassant story) about illicit love and lust.

Again picking on the bourgeoisie, Renoir has a Parisian industrialist (Andre Gabriello) take his family to the country for a Sunday afternoon of mingling with provincial types and communing with nature. Evidently this happens a lot, because two male adventurers, Rodolphe (Jacques Borel) and Henri (Georges D’Arnoux) eagerly await the acquaintance of the industrialist’s daughter Henriette (Sylvia Bataille) and his wife Juliette (Jeanne Marken). What transpires is an interesting study of age and class.

On the one hand, you have Juliette and Rodolphe. He is witty and outright blatant about his intentions, while she is keenly aware of the situation and quite happy to be the object of his affection for this one afternoon. To her, it is a nice day in the country with a man who is the total opposite of her husband. Plus, she can have her lustful afternoon adventure and return to her Parisian lifestyle without any regret. On the opposite hand, you have Henriette and Henri.  She is betrothed to the idiotic Anatole (Paul Temps), but has a romantic streak that leads her into the arms of a poor man. While Juliette and Rodolphe are quite content with their fun ending at the end of the day, Henriette and Henri have the soul-crushing knowledge that what could have been a deep, abiding love for the rest of their lives must come to an end with the setting sun.

When I watched this film I remembered what I had read in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book about the ending. Adrian Martin writes, “So what started, in Henriette’s words, as ‘a sort of vague desire’ that calls forth both the beauty and harshness of nature, ends badly, as the ‘years pass, with Sundays as melancholy as Monday.’” While it is a short film, it conveys a powerful message about class expectations and the stupidity of youth. Renoir knowingly uses a beautiful setting to tell us a very a harsh-ending story. 

Just 40 minutes long, and usually found on YouTube, A Day in the Country (Une Partie de Campagne) is a good introduction of Renoir’s style and manner of storytelling.

Captains Courageous (1937) **

There are times when I think Spencer Tracy would have been better off if he’d never been paired up with Katharine Hepburn in 1942, when they co-starred in Woman of the Year. Now I know there are many fans of this duo, which made nine films together. I, myself, enjoy many of their films. Yet, the problem I have with this pairing is that there are so many movie fans who don’t recognize (or know about) the great work Tracy did without Hepburn. For way too many, his career is overly defined by the work he did with her. This is a shame, because he gave some of his best performances without her. As a matter of fact, in his illustrious career he was nominated for nine Academy Awards (winning twice), and only one of these nominations, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, co-starred Hepburn. Perhaps this oversight is tied to their off-screen romance. Whatever the case, I wish more people appreciated his non-Hepburn films.

Captains Courageous is one of those non-Hepburn films in which Tracy gives an outstanding performance. He won his first Oscar playing Portuguese fisherman Manuel in this classic MGM film, directed by Victor Fleming. An adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s novel of the same name, the film garnered four Academy Award nominations (only winning Best Actor) and is considered one of cinema’s classic coming-of-age adventure stories.

In the beginning of the film, spoiled rich boy Harvey Cheyne (Freddie Bartholomew) and his widowed, inattentive millionaire father (Melvyn Douglas) are aboard the Queen Anne and headed for Europe. Harvey is a world-class brat who thinks it’s okay to drink six ice cream sodas. Punished by the gods of the high seas for his childish gluttony, Harvey becomes nauseous and leans a little too far over the rail to spew the remnants of his tasty treat. Splash! Into the ocean goes Harvey and nobody seems to notice. His body is rescued by Manuel (Tracy), a Portuguese sailor working on an American fishing ship captained by Disko Troop (the great Lionel Barrymore). Evidently Harvey didn’t sustain a concussion, because when he wakes up he’s as pompous as ever. He demands that Captain Troop drop everything and turn the ship toward shore. Troop missed the memo that said Harvey is lord and master and so he tells the boy a foreign word—NO. Instead, Harvey is informed that he must spend the next three months aboard a ship inhabited by dead fish and unrefined sailors. Plus, he’s told he must work on the ship if he wants to eat. Oh, the inhumanity!

Put under the supervision of Manuel (who calls Harvey his little fish), Harvey refuses to do any work at all and shuns the friendly overtures of Dan (Mickey Rooney), the captain's son. Once hunger kicks in, Harvey starts working in the ship galley. Over time, Harvey learns to perform various jobs and is eventually taught by Manuel how to fish. On one of their fishing trips in a skiff, Harvey fouls the line of other fisherman in order to catch a large halibut and win a contest. While Harvey is basking in the glow of success, Manuel is throwing the fish back in an effort to teach his little fish a lesson. This incident provokes an amazing result: Harvey actually feels ashamed and apologizes. From this point on, the salty, singing fisherman and the young would-be sailor form a bond. As a matter of fact, Harvey grows so fond of Manuel that he doesn’t want to be returned to his father.

Later, when the ship learns that a rival fishing ship is trying to beat them to port in an effort to get the best prices, Captain Troop decides they must make some bold moves. He orders the sails unfurled in dangerous weather conditions. Manuel volunteers for this task. Unfortunately the weather causes the mast to crack and Manuel is mortally wounded and trapped by the sails’ canvas and ropes in the water. In a heart-wrenching scene, it is decided that Manuel must be cut loose, sending him to the bottom of the sea to his death, This scene alone was most probably enough for Tracy to win the Oscar. His tearful goodbye to his little fish just break your heart. Bartholomew is also very moving in this scene. As a matter of fact, Bartholomew is exceedingly good for the remainder of the film. When the ship arrives at Gloucester, Harvey is reunited with his father. A moving memorial service is held for Manuel. It is here where the gulf between Mr. Cheyne and Harvey is closed. Mr. Cheyne sees that his son is no loner a spoiled brat, but a young man who has been profoundly changed by his experiences with Manuel.

Overall, this is a moving coming-of-age film. Tracy’s portrayal of the salt-of-the-earth (or sea in this case) Manuel is wonderful. Like many of his earlier roles, Tracy really develops this role into a memorable character. He gives Manuel many edges and does a good job of not over-playing his character into too much of a stereotype. In addition, Bartholomew is a delight to watch. Yes, his character is annoying in the beginning, but the personality changes he undergoes throughout the film seem believable. It is not easy to go from one of the most-irritating brats in screen history to a child who makes your heart break by the end of the film. Of course, Bartholomew had an excellent, seasoned co-star to help him along this difficult path. It is a shame that this film is not as well-known as it should be.