Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Romeo and Juliet (dir by George Cukor)

Posted on January 24, 2020 by Lisa Marie Bowman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoAgB_sbDOE

You know the story that’s told in this 1936 film already, don’t you?

In the city of Verona, Romeo Montague (Leslie Howard) has fallen in love with Juliet Capulet (Norma Shearer). Normally, this would be cause for celebration because, as we all know, love is a wonderful thing. However, the House of Capulet and the House of Montague have long been rivals. When we first meet them all, they’re in the process of having a brawl in the middle of the street. There’s no way that Lord Capulet (C. Aubrey Smith) will ever accept the idea of Juliet marrying a Montague, especially when he’s already decided that she is to marry Paris (Ralph Forbes). Things get even more complicated with Juliet’s cousin, Tybalt (Basil Rathbone), kills Romeo’s best friend, Mercutio (John Barrymore). Romeo then kills Tybalt and things only grow more tragic from there.

It’s hard to keep track of the number of films that have been made out of William Shakespeare’s tale of star-crossed lovers and tragedy. The plot is so universally known that “Romeo and Juliet” has become shorthand for any story of lovers who come from different social sects. Personally, I’ve always felt that Romeo and Juliet was less about love and more about how the rivalry between the Montagues and the Capulets forces the young lovers into making hasty decisions. If not for Lord Capulet throwing a fit over his daughter’s new boyfriend, she and Romeo probably would have split up after a month or two. Seriously, I’ve lost track of how many losers I went out with in high school just because my family told me that I shouldn’t.

Producer Irving Thalberg spent five years trying to get MGM’s Louis B. Mayer to agree to greenlight a film version of Romeo and Juliet. Mayer thought that most audiences felt that Shakespeare was above them and that they wouldn’t spend money to see an adaptation of one of his plays. Thalberg, on the other hand, thought that the story would be a perfect opportunity to highlight the talents of his wife, Norma Shearer. It was only after Warner Bros. produced a financially successful version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that Mayer gave Romeo and Juliet the go ahead.

Of course, by the time the film went into production, Norma Shearer was 34 years old and a little bit too mature to be playing one of the most famous teenagers in literary history. Perhaps seeking to make Shearer seem younger, Thalberg cast 43 year-old Leslie Howard as Romeo, 44 year-old Basil Rathbone as Tybalt, and 54 year-old John Barrymore as Mercutio, (In Barrymore’s defense, to me, Mercutio always has come across as being Verona’s equivalent of the guy who goes to college for ten years and then keeps hanging out on the campus even after dropping out.)

In short, this is the middle-aged Romeo and Juliet and, despite all of the good actors in the cast, it’s impossible not to notice. There were few Golden Age actors who fell in love with the authenticity of Leslie Howard and Basil Rathbone is a wonderfully arrogant and sinister Tybalt. Norma Shearer occasionally struggles with some of the Shakespearean dialogue but, for the most part, she does a good job of making Juliet’s emotions feel credible. As for Barrymore — well, he’s John Barrymore. He’s flamboyant, theatrical, and a lot of fun to watch if not always totally convincing as anything other than a veteran stage actor hamming it up. The film is gorgeous to look at and George Cukor embraces the melodrama without going overboard. But, everyone in the movie is just too old and it does prove to be a bit distracting. A heart-broken teenager screaming out, “I am fortune’s fool!” is emotionally powerful. A 43 year-old man doing the same thing is just not as effective.

Despite being a box office failure (it turned out that Mayer was right about Depression-era audiences considering Shakespeare to be too “arty”), Romeo and Juliet was nominated for Best Picture of the year, the second Shakespearean adaptation to be so honored. However, the award that year went to another big production, The Great Ziegfeld.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: 49th Parallel (dir by Michael Powell)

Posted on March 4, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hello and welcome to the TSL’s continuing coverage of Oscar Sunday! Today, along with some other Oscar-related things, I’m going to post reviews of some of the films that have been nominated for best picture over the years! Let’s start things off with the 1941 Best Picture nominee, 49th Parallel!

Before anything, I should clear up some confusion about this film. This is a British film about Nazis trying to reach the border between Canada and the U.S. When it was first released in the UK, it was named after the coordinates of the border. However, in the actual film, the Nazis never actually go to the 49th Parallel. Instead, the film concludes at Niagara Falls. However, it was probably reasonable assume that British audiences would not necessarily know or care whether Niagara Falls was actually located on the 49th Parallel. Considering that they were currently at war with Germany, they had more important things to concern themselves with.

However, it was apparently felt that American audiences would notice that Niagara Falls wasn’t actually located on the 49th Parallel. (Personally, I think the British may have been giving us too much credit.) So, when the film was released in the United States, the title was changed to The Invaders. When the film was subsequently nominated for Best Picture, it was nominated under the name The Invaders. I’ve actually come across some online sources that claim that The Invaders and 49th Parallel are two separate films. No, they’re the same film, it’s just that the film in question has two different titles. Out of respect to the people who actually made the movie, I’ve decided to use the original title in this review.

When watching 49th Parallel (it’s available on YouTube), it helps to know something about history. Today, there’s a tendency to overlook the fact that World War II had already been raging for nearly two years before the United States got involved. Though the U.S. was an ally to Britain, it remained officially neutral until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Up until that moment, many prominent Americans were isolationists and took the attitude that the war was Europe’s problem. (On the other hand, Canada, as a Dominion of the British Empire, followed Britain into the war in 1939.) Though the 49th Parallel may have been a British film that was largely set in Canada, it was also meant to frighten Americans and hopefully bring them over to the British side.

(When interviewed about the film, screenwriter Emeric Pressbruger said, “”Goebbels considered himself an expert on propaganda, but I thought I’d show him a thing or two.”)

Directed by Michael Powell, 49th Parallel opens with a German U-boat creeping into the waters around Canada. The Nazis are hoping to disrupt shipping operations but it turns out that they’re no match for the Royal Canadian Navy. (GO CANADA!) When the U-boat sinks into the Hudson Bay, only six Nazis manage to survive. Led by the arrogant Lt. Hirth (Eric Portman), the Nazis attempt to make their way to the border and to the safety of America.

Of course, it doesn’t turn out to be an easy journey. Not only are the Germans in an unfamiliar country but they also keep running into Canadians. Without fail, nearly every Canadian they meet is polite but willing to fight and die for his country. The Canadians themselves are played by actors who, in the 40s, would have been familiar faces. Laurence Olivier plays a fur trapper, getting top-billing for his cameo appearance. Raymond Massey, who was best known for playing Abraham Lincoln, shows up as a Canadian solider. Leslie Howard is the writer who discovers that Nazis have no respect for art. Anton Walbrook is a German-Canadian farmer who rejects the attempts of Lt. Hirth to bring him over to the Nazi side. The Canadians are so sympathetic that one of the Nazis is even moved to reject the Third Reich and is promptly executed by his compatriots, showing the audience the foolishness of hoping that the “good Germans” would ever be able to overthrow the bad ones.

It’s pure propaganda but it’s anti-Nazi propaganda so that’s not really a problem. Powell keeps the story moving at a steady pace and all of the actors get impassioned performances. You can tell this movie was more than just a job for them. Instead, it was their way of fighting for their country and hopefully inspiring others to join in the battle against Hitler. The film is both a love letter to Canada and a plea to the United States to renounce neutrality. (Interestingly enough, by the time 49th Parallel made it to U.S. screens, America had finally declared war on the Axis Powers.)

49th Parallel was nominated for best picture but it lost to another World War II propaganda film, Mrs. Miniver.

Embracing the Melodrama Part II #7: Of Human Bondage (dir by John Cromwell)

Posted on April 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

“I don’t mind.”

— Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis) in Of Human Bondage (1934)

For the next three weeks, I will reviewing, in chronological order, 126 cinematic melodramas. It’s a little something that I like to call Embracing the Melodrama Part II. We started things off yesterday by taking a look at the silent classic Sunrise. Today, we continue with a quick look at the 1934 literary adaptation, Of Human Bondage.

Of Human Bondage opens with Philip Carey (Leslie Howard) living in Paris and struggling to make a living as a painter. The son of a prominent doctor, Philip is self-conscious about both his club foot and his abilities as an artist. When he invited an older artist to take a look at his work, Philip is informed, “There is no talent here. You will be nothing but mediocre.” Philip gives up his artistic ambitions and instead enters medical school.

Philip turns out to be just as miserable and moody as a medical student as he was when he was a painter. (Indeed, Philip may be one of the most miserable characters in cinematic history.) However, he does meet and becomes rather obsessed with a waitress named Mildred (Bette Davis). For her part, Mildred has little use for Philip or any of the other men who are constantly hitting on her. Whenever Philip asks her out, Mildred replies, “I don’t mind.” When Philip asks if he might kiss her goodnight, Mildred coolly replies, “No.”

Philip remains obsessed with Mildred, to the extent that he nearly flunks out of medical school because he can’t stop thinking about her. Mildred, however, eventually leaves Philip for the far more wealthy Emil Miller (Alan Hale). Eventually, Philip meets Norah (Kay Johnson), a romance novelist who falls as deeply in love with Philip as he did with Mildred. However, when the now pregnant Mildred reenters his life, Philip abandons Norah and goes back to her.

And so it goes for the next few years. Philip obsesses over Mildred. Mildred abandons Philip. Philip moves on. Mildred reenters Philip’s life. With each reappearance, Mildred appears to be growing weaker and sicker but she’s never so weak that she can’t yell at Philip and ridicule him for having a club foot…

It’s a little bit strange to admit to enjoying a film like Of Human Bondage because, when you get right down to it, it’s an unpleasant story about an unlikable man being manipulated by a heartless woman. But, interestingly enough, it’s Mildred’s unapologetic anger that make her such a compelling character. If Philip was in any way a sympathetic character, the film would be almost unbearably grim. But since Philip is such a weak-willed character and is so full of self-pity, you can’t help but be happy that Mildred is around to call him out on his bullshit. Everyone else in the film is so awful and boring, that you can’t help but appreciate the fact that Mildred never holds back.

Have you ever wondered why, every Oscar telecast, the Academy makes a point of letting us know that an independent accounting firm counted all of the ballots? Well, it’s because of this film. Or, more specifically, it’s because of Bette Davis’s ferocious performance. In 1935, when Davis somehow failed to be nominated for best actress, there was such outrage and so many people assumed that the nomination process had been rigged that the Academy actually allowed people to write in her name on their ballots. (Davis still lost to Claudette Colbert.) In order to avoid any future controversy, the Academy hired a private accounting firm to count and hold onto the ballots. (And if you’re curious about how that desire to avoid controversy is working out for the Academy, I was one words for you: Selma.) When, the next year, Bette Davis won the Oscar for best actress, it was widely assumed that it was largely to make up for being snubbed for Of Human Bondage.

If you want to see a good Leslie Howard film, go with Berkeley Square. But if you want to see a great Bette Davis film, watch Of Human Bondage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j6eBs-coEQ

Embracing the Melodrama Part II #6: Berkeley Square (dir by Frank Lloyd)

Posted on April 6, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For today’s final entry in Embracing the Melodrama Part II, we take a look at the 1933 film, Berkeley Square.

Berkeley Square opens in 1784. An American named Peter Sandish (Leslie Howard) has come from New York to England. Stopping off at an inn, he explains that he’s on his way to London. He has distant relations who live in a mansion located in Berkeley Square and it’s been arranged that Peter is going to marry his cousin, Kate Pettigrew (Valerie Taylor). As Standish talks, he’s interrupted by another man who excitedly announces that a Frenchman has flown across the English Channel in something called a “balloon.”

“It’s beginning,” Peter says, “A new age of speed and innovation…”

Suddenly, the film jumps forward over a hundred years. In 1933, Standish’s descendant — also named Peter and also played by Leslie Howard — has inherited the family’s old house at Berkeley Square. He’s spent several days locked away in the mansion, obsessively reading the first Peter’s diary and refusing to see his fiancée, Marjorie (Betty Lawford).

It turns out that Peter — much like Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris — is frustrated with the modern world and desperately wants to live in the past. He believes that if he continues to stay in the house, he will eventually be transported back to 1784. When a friend points out that, even if time travel was possible, Peter would end up changing the past, Peter explains that he’s memorized the first Peter’s diary and, therefore, he knows everything that he needs to say and do.

And then, one night, Peter suddenly does find himself in 1784. Having taken his ancestor’s place, he meets the Pettigrews, makes plans to marry Kate, and attempts to adapt to 18th century London society.

Unfortunately, this turns out to be not as easy as he thought. Despite his best efforts, Peter keeps using 1930s slang and alluding to events that will happen in the future. At first, he explains away his habit of using modern phrases by saying that he’s using common New York expressions. However, the increasingly suspicious Kate takes a list of Peter’s phrases to the U.S. Ambassador (who is none other than future President John Adams) and is informed that nobody in New York speaks that way. As well, Peter’s insistence on regular bathing is viewed as odd by the members of upper class London society. (“I heard he used three buckets of water,” someone accusingly whispers.) Soon, Kate is convinced that Peter has been possessed by a demon.

An even bigger problem for Peter is that he’s not in love with Kate. Instead, he’s fallen in love with Kate’s headstrong younger sister, Helen (Heather Angel). When Helen discovers that Peter is from the future, Peter is forced to decide whether to continue to stay among the “living ghosts” or whether to return to his own time.

Berkeley Square shows on up on TCM fairly frequently and I absolutely love it. To a certain extent, of course, this is because I’m a secret history nerd and there’s a part of me that will always wish that I could travel in time and experience the past firsthand. (That said, after watching Berkeley Square, I don’t think I could handle 18th century hygiene. Agck!) But the main reason that I love Berkeley Square is because I love a good romance. And this is such a romantic film! Heather Angel and Leslie Howard have a really sweet and likable chemistry and, with his performance here, Howard shows why he would be the perfect choice to play the earnest, well-meaning, and ultimately tragic Ashley Wilkes in Gone With The Wind.

Keep an eye out for Berkeley Square. You won’t be sorry.