The Mortal Storm (1940)

The Mortal Storm

I do not know if I have mentioned how much I am enjoying this. Watching the movies on the 1001 List and writing about them. I have seen about 140 of them on this mission and just passed 100 reviews and I can certainly say that it has been a treasure throve of movie experiences I never knew existed. I readily admit that my knowledge of early cinema (and we are talking pre-70) was close to zip so almost every movie until now has been a first. How often do you get that on an average evening in front of the television?

Last night was another interesting experience with an old, but for me new film. “The Mortal Storm” is in many ways a rather unique film. Let me give three examples:

1.       The storyline is multi-dimensional and not following typical templates. A family in Bavaria, Germany in 1933 is feeling the intolerance from the Nazi party newly installed in power. The family is headed by Professor Roth (Frank Morgan), who is “non-Arian”, whatever that means (Jewish?). Besides not being of the right race he also insists on tolerance and peoples right to think what they want and, oh horror, he insists that there is no difference in blood type between Arians and other races. This is not the party line. Because of this the family suffers harassment, prosecution and isolation and finally has to flee Germany. While this is simple enough, the circumstances are quite complicated: Two of Professor Roth’s sons (from his wife’s first marriage) join the Nazi party. His daughter Freya (Margareth Sullivan) ends her engagement to her fiancé since he totally ignores her reservations about the party line and instead hooks up with childhood friend of the family and outcast Martin (James Steward). The Professor gets arrested just before leaving and (Spoiler!!!) dies in prison and on the way to Austria Freya is detained for smuggling out the Professor’s manuscript containing the heretic claims about blood types.

 

2.       The movie is an ensemble movie rather than having a single or two leads. One can say that the story is the lead and the characters fit their place in the story. James Stewart being the megastar of the film is thus relegated to a secondary part and the lead we have followed intensely the first 20 minutes (Professor Roth) is killed half way through the film. In fact the story have no qualms what so ever in killing or removing important characters and I am sure this is against all Hollywood rules. After the initial discomfort this is actually refreshing and keeps you on your toes. Nobody is safe. I also like that the story gets the proper emphasis instead of just being a vehicle of some star actors going through a standard pattern.

 

3.       We have seen a ton of American movies telling the story of the horrors in Germany under Nazi rule, but they are all in retrospect. This is a contemporary film. America is not even at war with Germany yet and will not be for another year and the picture of what is going on in Germany is yet rather unclear. Still this movie treats Germany as an enemy. There is nothing neutral about the portrayal of the Nazi’s and their actions. It also looks with genuine sympathy on the refugees of prosecution at a time when borders were closing. There is a clear message in this movie that the world (America) needs to wake up and realize that the Nazi menace needs to be dealt with. You leave the movie with a rage against the evil bastards that kill innocent good people and feel little sympathy for a people that so readily adopt a political agenda that set them up against family and friends. It is curious that the “The Mortal Storm” could also be an indirect criticism of the McCarthyism raging through America 10 years later when great people like Chaplin left the country.

 

For all these strengths I can live with that the acting is strained at times with an overdose of pathos and melodrama. Some of the characters become a little too cliché. The professor does not have a single fault in his life except perhaps the vanity that he hoped somebody would remember his birthday. Elsa, Martin’s sister is a hysteric wreck that looks like she should cut it down to say three Red Bulls a day and Bavaria is thick with girdles, beer and quaint villages. Well, that is an image American movies have kept in all the years since, so I guess it is unfair to blame the movie for that.

However even though the Nazi’s are depicted very black and evil the movie is not even going far enough. No exaggeration would take it even close to reality which the world would soon find out. Compared to reality the SA mob here is almost gentle and polite and the family is getting a surprisingly long leash.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that Maria Ouspenskaya appears as Hilda Breitner, Martins mother and is as usual excellent. She keeps popping up in the movies on the list and must have been very busy or just had a lucky hand in picking her roles.

Yet another movie I am happy to have seen. Again I send my deepest gratitude to the List.

Zero de Conduit (1933)

Nul i opførsel

For some reason The Book is very excited about Jean Vigo. This French director has two movies in the Book, but I am less than impressed with any of them (Zéro de Conduite and L’Atalante). I may be too plebeian to recognize his genius, but I suspect that the real reason for his fame is the fact that he died young. That usually works as a catalyst for fame.

In the case of Zéro de Conduit (Zero for Conduct) I am left with an uncertain feeling of what the purpose and message of the movie really is. This of course places it right up there with the Nouvelle Vague films of a much later age and I cannot rule out that this contributes to its fame. A few things are clear though.

Obviously Vigo is less than impressed with the old black school. The idiocy and futility of that school system is constantly exposed. This is seen in the strict but futile discipline of the dormitory, in the random punishment issued mostly to demonstrate the power of the teachers, the pedophile science teacher and a curriculum that is not even mentioned. From the children’s point of view they are sentenced to a prison with the only purpose to oppress them. The attitude of the school is symbolized by the very small headmaster with the far too big beard.

To highlight the petrified school the new teacher Mr. Huguet (Jean Dasté) is the open-minded liberated type who shows some sympathy for their situation and gives them some slack to the horror of the established teacher class.

The boys, for they are all boys on the school, on the other hand are as unruly as they get and are entirely bent on rebelling on anything relating to the school. They readily break any rule and even counting in the excuse that the school has certainly pushed them in that direction, they are taking it far.

So far this good. This theme we have seen in other movies and will usually end in some sort of rebellion. The problem here is that the necessary rebellion is very unfocussed. The rebellion is mostly for the sake of rebellion and does nothing to improve their or their friend’s situation, but is pure sabotage too easy to dismiss as the product of unruly boys. Their achievements can be summed up in a massive pillow fight and the bombardment of the celebration of the annual commemoration day from the roof while displaying a pirate flag. Hooray for defiance!

If anything the movie shows that this sort of school system is not really working. Power corrupts the teachers and in their little kingdom they rule undisputed. For some children this school system is a total disaster and they should never be there in the first place.

To take it a bit far this could be a criticism of fascism, but the school is just too ridiculous to qualify. It is just a plain stupid place.

I am also uncertain whether this is a comedy or a drama. Some things are so far out and ridiculous that it tends toward comedy, but it never becomes funny. Likewise the pranks the boys are pulling are just too desperate and futile to be really funny and amusing.

It leaves me indeed with a very unresolved feeling. I am just happy I did not attend that school. In fact my school was a public day school, run by the municipality and open for anybody regardless of gender, wealth or qualifications. We turned out quite well and nobody went to the roof to throw garbage at anybody.

Pinocchio (1940)

Pinocchio

Here is one I have been looking forward to more than usual. It has been so long since I saw Pinocchio that pressed hard I do not think I could swear that I actually did see the entire movie before though I believe I have. Bits and pieces are very familiar, if for nothing else because “When you dream upon a star” and “I’ve got no strings” are featured in the annual Disney Christmas show I grew up with. But seeing it now a lot of it feels new to me. New and familiar. Like an old friend I have not seen since childhood.

It is totally amazing that “Pinocchio” was made only 3 years after “Snow White”. Technically the Disney studios came a long way in those 3 years. The small annoyances are gone, character drawing is less superficial and the flow of the story is so much smoother. Of course with “Fantasia” we saw what they could do now, but there they did not have to tell a story. That they do in ”Pinocchio”.

And what a story it is.

Even with the usual heavy dose of Disney sugar coating this is a gruesome story. We have got toys coming alive (nope, not Chucky), kidnappers of children, child slavery, deportation, children turned into animals, smoking and beer drinking children, monstrous whales and death.

Presented with this list I am not sure I would have let my son watch this movie. In fact I do not think anybody would get away with making it in this day and age. But then, 1940 was a very different world and while frowned upon I do not think many people back then were shocked to see cigar smoking children or a kuk-kuk clock with a child getting whapped in his butt by his mother.

My son took it in full stride and enjoyed it all. He was very impressed with the whale. It is biiig, he said making flying moves. After my initial surprise I also quickly enough fell into the movie and accepted it, but occasionally glanced at my son, checking up on how he was doing.

Pinocchio is a sweet boy, innocent and happy. So is Geppetto, Figaro the cat and Cleo the Fish. Jiminy Cricket, our narrator and appointed conscience for Pinocchio , is exactly as human as he needs to be. In this sugar sweet Disney world it is refreshing with a character with human weaknesses and sentiments even if he is a tiny cricket. That is also needed to counter weight the other perfect leads.

As is usual the case in this sort of films the villains are the real stars. Honest John and Gideon, the con men who twice lures Pinocchio off to trouble, are great and colorful. Sneaky and mean, but also wonderfully arrogant. Stromboli is in indeed a volcano and fireworks to look at and listen to and even the whale, Monstro, has wonderfully choleric traits.

But when all is said and done it is the music which is the real star of Pinocchio. Not just the two signature songs, but all the way through. These are classics now and work excellently also without the movie. Nothing puts me in a mood for the holiday season as “When you wish upon a star”. I can almost smell pine and cinnamon.

I am pretty sure I am going to see this one a few more times over the next weeks, willingly or unwilling. So far I do not mind.

Dance, Girl, Dance (1940)

Dance, Girl, Dance

With ”Dance, Girl, Dance” we are in the light comedy genre. This is not a particular great or big film and certainly the story is fairly predictable, but it is told with skill and charm and quite enjoyable. It is I suppose a “chick-lite” film anno 1940.

This is a classic Cinderella theme about a girl who dreams of the glory of dancing, but reality is performing in cheap and seedy bars. From here she goes on to be the stooge of the sassy Tiger Lilly (the jealous step sister) in a burlesque club all the while her fortune is just within reach if she could only see it. Which of course in the end after much hardship she does.

Maureen O’Hara is Judy O’Brien, the Cinderella girl or ugly duckling, who is self-effacing and shy, but also feisty and protective when provoked. In one of these seedy bars she meets the wealthy James Harris (Louis Hayward), who is going through a bad divorce and is desperately looking for diversion. He takes a liking to her, but she is quickly out maneuvered by Bubbles, the star of the troupe. Bubbles (Lucille Ball) is the cynical seductress. She uses men to get ahead and she is good at it. There is nothing self-effacing about her and she has that sassy sex appeal that is wanted by the clients of the troupe to make her the star of the show. From the beginning she has a thing with Judy. It is important for her to be superior to Judy in everything. When Bubbles becomes the star of a burlesque show she brings in Judy as the clown (stooge) that makes the crowd call for Tiger Lily, Bubble’s stage name.

So when Harris reappears at the shows and again takes a liking to Judy, Bubbles moves in and marries him while on a bender.

But somebody else is also looking out for Judy. Steve Adams (Ralph Bellamy) is the manager of THE dance troupe Judy dreams of but she does not know that. To her he is just a very persistent stalker she is trying to get rid of. Ah yes, the girl does not know what is good for her. And in the end when the burlesque show, Judy, Bubbles and Harris all end up in a meltdown he extricates her and restores her to glory.

The most interesting thing about this movie is that we witness the story from Judy’s viewpoint. There is something as rare as a female director behind this movie (Dorothy Arzner) and it shows. The relationship between Judy and Bubbles is in focus all the way through and the men are merely supporting cast. Even the star Bellamy is reduced to a fairly one dimensional prince on the white horse. Instead we get a lot of facets on Judy and Bubbles. The standard Hollywood movie of the era would be the other way round.

It is funny to see Bellamy as a young actor. He was in “His Girl Friday” as well and was one of the staple hunks in Hollywood in the forties. I looked him up and realized he actually was Randolph Duke in “Trading Places” as an old man in 83. Amazing.

Another interesting character is Maria Ouspenskaya as Madame Lydia Basilova. In her previous roles she was always the stately, beautiful woman as for example in “Dodsworth”, but here she is a wizened old hag of a former Russian ballerina. Ah, the wonders of make-up and costume.

The burlesque scenes are quite entertaining and interesting. As a direct opposite of the kind of dancing Judy dreams of this is a stage of cheap appeal to the more basic functions of men. Yet, this being a decent family movie during the reign of the Hays code everything is kept at an innocent level and the seediness is only hinted at in manners and song but we never actually see anything. That could easily have become a bit lame, but Lucille Ball is excellent at hinting at sex in a way that would make Mae West proud, but a lot more convincing than Mae West ever was.

This is a light movie. One should not think too deep on it and just accept the premises of the movie. If you do that it is quite sweet and enjoyable and thankfully the dancing this movie is all about is kept to a minimum.

Alphaville, une Etrange Aventure de Lemmy Caution (1965)

Alphaville

My first association when I saw "Alphaville" was a commercial for coffee. The commercial I have in mind is very dark, strange and very French ending with the line “Do you think this is black? Then you should try Café Noir”.

Of course the commercial is a spoof on arty and dark French movies, but here in “Alphaville” we got the real thing. Very dark, very arty and, well, French.

Mind you, I do not have a problem with either of those elements, but after having been entrenched in the thirties and early forties so long I was not really prepared for an opaque, new wave film so I felt quite lost at times. I was constantly left with the feeling that I must have missed that short bit that was the key to understand what was going on.

I think I got the bigger picture. Well, sort of.

The story takes place in Alphaville, claimed to be a city on a remote planet. The city is ruled by a computer, Alpha 60, who in turn is operated by a group of engineers. Alphaville is a queer sort of place. It is supposed to by ruled strictly by logic and that policy is enforced by rooting out any freethinkers by killing or brainwashing them.

Only, there is nothing futuristic about Alphaville at all. It is a current (well, in ’65) French city that appear very bleak and oppressive mainly due to the very dark and often grainy filming. Even the technology is very 65 and it all frankly look like Paris turned North Korean. I frankly do not understand this pretense of this taking place on a distant planet in some unknown future when the pictures show this obviously not to be the case.

Another weird thing about the city of Alphaville is that for a place that swears to logic it is a very illogical place. A lot of the happenings is outright strange like the execution of freethinkers who are shot in a swimming pool and then stabbed to death by 4 or 5 swimming girls to the applause of an audience.

Alphaville is also hell bent on world domination.

The citizens of Alphaville are zombielike brainwashed, almost robotic people, all under control by the main computer.

Into this world comes Mr. Johnson alias Lemmy Caution (Eddie Constantine). He is the almost cliché hardboiled, grumpy agent type, complete with trench coat, hat, gun and day long stubble. Johnson/Caution is travelling undercover as a journalist to contact to opposition in Alphavile, those who can still think outside the box, kill the chief engineer behind Apha 60 and destroy Alphaville. Yeah!

In the process he meets Natacha von Braun, a citizen of Alphaville and apparently daughter of the chief engineer. She is as zombie as any other citizen, but underneath the conditioning she is struggling to break free. She is played by the gorgeous Anna Karina and at times I felt that it was her alone that made it worthwhile to see the movie.

All this would make for a spectacular action movie. Instead it is film noir with emphasis on noir. The dialogue is obscure in the extreme. Often I simply have no clue to what they are talking about. Somehow poetry is intertwined in the dialogue and I suppose it is to symbolize the freedom of mind, but often it just becomes blabber. Actions taken by the characters happen out of the blue. Suddenly people are killed, suddenly there is urgency and running or people appear without any explanation. That all contribute to that unsettling feeling that I think I know the overall picture but the detail of the story is blurred into obscurity.

With the dark moody feel to it combined with the dystrophic sci-fi story I really want to like it, but when not even subtitles help me in understanding the pictures I feel a bit lost. You might call it a Lynch moment, but with Lynch at least I feel it can be decoded if I put my mind to it. Here it just becomes strange.

The second association I had watching this film was to Blade Runner. The 40’es style detective, grubby and tough, up against a bunch of almost human robots in a dystrophic future setting. He meets the daughter (maybe) of the big creator who is or is not human enough to be saved. Here Tyrell has become von Braun or professor Nosferatu (?!) and the cold wet city that kill the human spirit is Alphaville. It is not a complete analogy, but surely Ripley Scott saw Alphaville before making Blade Runner.

A third though: If Jim Jarmusch has made Blade Runner it probably would have looked like “Alphaville”. “Alphaville” is definitely stranger than paradise.

A Night at the Opera (1935)

Halløj i Operaen

The Marx Brothers were more than just an ensemble in showbiz. They became synonymous with disrespectful anarchy and chaos in the most positive and exasperating meaning of the words. Even today The Marx Brothers are frequently used as exponent for those concepts: “Who did I hire? The Marx Brothers?” Without a doubt the icon of the Marx Brothers will long outlive the memory of the films they made.

Before starting this voyage through early cinema The Marx Brothers were one of the few familiar names on the list. I had seen this one before and also “A day at the Races”, but it was a long time ago and I cannot say I remember much. What I do remember very well are the characters: Groucho, Harpo and Chico. They had real, more mundane names, but the world will always know them under their stage names and their unfailing looks that they carried from movie to movie. There were two other brothers, but they do not appear in “A Night at the Opera”.

As indicated above the style of the Marx Brothers is utter anarchy. You find something refined and pompous and the brothers will take is apart. In this movie it is the opera. What more refined backdrop can you find? They need such a stiff, inflexible opponent as counterweight to their shenanigans otherwise it does not work. Groucho Marx is funny when he runs corners on Mrs. Claypool (Margaret Dumont) or Gottlieb (Siegfried Rumann) exactly because they are uptight and inflexible. Had they been smiling, easy people Groucho would not have been half as fun. That is also why Dumont is sometimes considered (at least by me) the extra Marx Brother. She is always there, the prime victim of their pranks. And she is excellent.

Groucho Marx is Otis B. Driftwood, a particularly sleazy and opportune agent, currently engaged by Mrs. Claypool (just consider their names again: Driftwood and Claypool, priceless!) to promote her into society. She has a lot of money and do not know what to do with them, prime victim. Driftwood actually accomplishes the task somewhere in between a flood of hidden and not so hidden insults by introducing her to Gottlieb, the manager of the New York Opera. She is to sponsor the opera so they can hire the famous tenor Lassparri (Walter Woolf King) in Europe and bring him in for the new season.

Lassparri is a self-obsessed prima donna and thus a first class victim for Fiorello (Chico) and Tomasso (Harpo). He also has the hots for a female singer Rosa (Kitty Carlisle) who in turn is in (mutual) love with the chorus singer (and hidden gem) Ricardo Baroni. Fiorello is a friend of Baroni and arranges to become his agent.

When Driftwood learns what sort of money Lassparri can get per show he maneuvers to become his agent. He finds Fiorelli and they agree to share in being his agent in one of the most ridiculous contract negotiations ever. The clauses are all “the first party, known as the first party” mumbo-jumbo and they end up tearing the contract to pieces obviously having no clue what it says. Well, soon enough Driftwood realizes it is Baroni not Lassparri he has signed.

The whole ensemble travel by boat to America and here we witness the funniest scene of the movie. Gottlieb, who has already take a dislike to Driftwood has installed him in an ultra-tiny cabin. There is barely room for Driftwood’s oversize suitcase. When he opens the suitcase he finds Fiorello, Tomasso and Baroni inside. They need to go to America as well because Rosa is going and they have no money. They are hungry however so they talk Driftwood into ordering food. It ends up being an enormous meal with a lot (!) of hardboiled eggs. While waiting for the food the maid comes to make up the bed, the plumber to fix the pipes, the cleaner to mop the floor, two women to give manicures and probably I forgot some. When the food arrives the three waiters manage to get in as well somehow, but when Mrs. Claypool shows up all come tumbling out the door like a flood. The scene is impossible to describe, it has to be seen.

In America the three stowaways are illegal immigrants and as such being chased by the police, notably Sergeant Henderson (Robert Emmett O´Connor) resulting in two spectacular scenes.

First the three of them are disguised as three famous airmen and are received with music and speeches and are required to make their own speeches, which do not go down very well.

Secondly they manage to drive the poor sergeant crazy when he visit the place they live in. By moving the furniture around continuously they confuse him so badly he just gives up.

But the glory moment is when the three Marx brothers turn the glorious premiere of the New York Opera in to a circus. The opera is so utterly profaned that you do not know whether to laugh or cry. All to the end of ruining Lassparri and Gottlieb and placing Baroni in the lead. Never has Il Trovatore been abused to this extent and to such amusing end and again it is the refined setting that makes the Marx Brothers funny.

While the story thus allows for scenes that in themselves are funny, it is also largely a vehicle for the anarchistic comic of the brothers. Groucho cannot open his mouth without a pun, an insult or just an insane statement. Chico plays well up against Groucho and Harpy is, well, just anarchy. A big child causing endless havoc.

Of the two Marx Brothers movies on the list I am tilting toward this one (the other one being Duck Soup). Primarily because of the backdrop. It is the self-styled pompousness of the opera world that makes the gags so funny.

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

The Philadelphia Story

If you have Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and James Stewart in the same movie it cannot go wrong. No two ways about that. But you can also say that even a cliché, worn to pieces story can get reinvigorated if you just make the cast strong enough. If you then add a witty script you can even forget that you have seen this story a hundred times before. Et voilà, The Philadelphia Story.

I am so happy I got married in Denmark. Close to 40 years of watching American movies and TV series have made me fear that moment in the wedding ceremony when the attendants can object to the marriage or forever keep quiet. This is a most dangerous moment where roughly 2 out of 3 film weddings are called off or the cast is suddenly changed. Going into an American wedding must be the ultimate test of a relationship; you have no idea if you will actually get married and with whom. Fortunately this part is not a part of the Danish wedding ritual, neither in church nor at civil weddings so this is a safe place to get married.

In the Philadelphia story we for a change do not get to that moment, the last minute change in cast happens about 10 minutes before the usual critical moment, but otherwise the story fit the bill:

Woman is getting married for the second time. The ex shows up and brings the third guy along. In the proceedings the woman finds out (in the last minute) that she is marrying the wrong guy and the question is now if the groom will be replaced with the ex or the third guy and if the change of cast will be at that crucial moment in the ceremony or if they make up their mind before that.   

Now it is time to groan. Goddammit, not again, haven’t we had enough of those stories? I am personally fed up with this theme and this may be a major reason for me to avoid chick-flicks, the domain of this scenario.

Now enter our glorious trio of Hepburn, Grant and Stewart and a witty script and the nightmare turns into one of those happy moments where I can say that I really enjoyed the film. As much as I like James Stewart, the duo of Kat and Cary is so electric that they can get away with anything and they steal this show as well. Frequent readers of this blog will know that Cary Grant is my current favorite actor and while Katherine Hepburn has not been as frequently appearing on the list, the cases have been noteworthy. I loved her in “Bringing up Baby” and while her character in “The Philadelphia Story” is quite different, there is enough mischief and sassiness in it to fit the Kat. She is a force of nature in the Garbo caliber, but more enjoyable.

Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. She is of the old wealth families in Philadelphia, a haughty and aloof woman who divorced her former husband C.K. Dexter (Grant), a man of equal old lineage, for some vague fault involving drinking. Now she is marrying George Kittridge (John Howard), a successful man who worked himself up from obscurity to management in the Lord family corporation. He is also a wooden man, strictly adhering to form and utterly without a sense of humor.

Tracy dislikes the gossip tabloids with a vengeance so when Dexter arrives at the family estate shortly before the wedding for his obscure purposes it is with two representatives of that despised media in tow. Macaulay Connor (Stewart) is writer of fiction turned journalist to put bread on the table and Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) is his fellow photographer, who work for similar reasons. While Macaulay is fretting under the insidiousness of his job, Elizabeth is resigned to do what it takes to secure an income. They gain unprecedented access to the Lord estate through a blackmail scam involving exposing Tracy’s father’s escapades with a chorus girl.

What happens next is a little unclear, but through witty and very fast dialogue Dexter charms his way back into the family, Tracy discovers that Macaulay is actually a decent writer and Macaulay uncovers the true nature of Tracy which is just as human and faulty as the other person. This is a surprise to Tracy as well and a little late the trio realizes that George, who sees her rather as an ornament and a goddess, cool and correct, is hopelessly wrong for her.

So what then? Is the wedding off or will somebody else take the place of the groom?

Surrounding the main characters is a host of interesting figures. Tracy’s sister Dinah hopes for Dexter’s return and adds the own incitements to the participants. Tracy’s mother, living on/off with her husband is a bit of an enigma. She seems to accept her husband’s escapades, yet supports Tracy in her new marriage. Uncle Willie is the house clown, brewing moonshine in the basement and hunting women (in particular Elizabeth) when above ground.

I enjoyed this movie for the actors and the dialogue while I saw it, though in hindsight I am a bit surprised. This is not a movie I ought to have liked at all. Thus the power of a good cast.