Film Review: Mean Johnny Barrows (dir by Fred Williamson)

Posted on February 13, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

“Dedicated to the veteran who traded his place on the front line for a place on the unemployment line. Peace is Hell.”

— the end credits of Mean Johnny Barrows (1976)

“He’s not that mean.”

— Me, while watch Mean Johnny Barrows

Who is Johnny Barrows? As played by blaxploitation star Fred Williamson, Johnny Barrows is a former football great who later served in Vietnam and won several silver stars. As a soldier, he killed an untold number of people but he is always quick to explain that he wouldn’t do the same thing as a civilian. Even after the war ended, Johnny remained in the army, teaching new recruits. He was good at his job but, one day, a racist officer decided to play a stupid trick on Johnny. During a training exercise, that officer put a live landmine out on the training grounds. After defusing the mine, Johnny promptly punched the officer. The result? A dishonorable discharge and the lesson that peace is Hell.

Johnny returns to Los Angeles and discovers that the country he fought for isn’t willing to fight for him. Because of his dishonorable discharge, Johnny can’t find a good job. Because he can’t find a job, he can’t afford a place to live. Johnny stays on the streets. His only friend is a self-described philosophy professor (Elliott Gould, in an amusing cameo) who teaches Johnny all about soup kitchens.

When Johnny steps into an Italian restaurant and asks for food, he is shocked to discover that the owner, Mario Racconi (Stuart Whitman), knows who he is. Mario says that he played against Johnny in a high school football game. (Perhaps Johnny’s shock is due to the fact that Mario appears to be at least ten years older than him.) Mario gives Johnny something to eat and even offers him a job. Realizing that the work is mob-related, Johnny says that he’s not interested. He’s not going to break the law…

And here’s where we run into a problem with the film’s title. The film is entitled Mean Johnny Barrows but, so far, he’s been almost painfully nice. Then again, Mild Johnny Barrows doesn’t have much of a ring to it.

Anyway, Johnny does try to stay out of trouble. He even manages to land a demeaning job cleaning the toilets at a gas station. But his boss (R.G. Armstrong) is a real jerk and Johnny has his dignity, no matter how much the world wants to take it away from him. Finally, Johnny agrees to work with the Racconi Family. Not only does he become friends with Mario but he also falls for Mario’s girlfriend, Nancy (Jenny Sherman).

Unfortunately, not all Mafia families are as kind-hearted and generous as the Racconi Family. The Da Vinci family wants to flood Los Angles with drugs. It’s all the master plan of Tony Da Vinci (Roddy McDowall). Tony is eager to prove himself to his father and what better way to do that than to smuggle heroin? Tony also loves flowers because … well, why not? Anyway, when the Racconis object to Tony’s scheme, a mob war erupts. Nearly all of the Racconis are killed. It looks like it’s time for Johnny Barrows to put on his white suit, pick up a gun, and get vengeance for his surrogate family.

There are some pretty obvious problems with Mean Johnny Barrows, not the least of which is the casting of Roddy McDowall — perhaps the least Italian actor in the history of cinema — as a ruthless mafioso. After having starred in several successful blaxploitation films, Fred Williamson made his directorial debut with Mean Johnny Barrows. Williamson’s inexperience as director shines through almost every minute of Mean Johnny Barrows. Though he does well with the action scenes, there are other parts of the film where Williamson doesn’t even seem to be sure where he should point the camera. With almost every role miscast, the performances are pretty inconsistent but Williamson gives a good performance (it’s obvious that he understood his strengths and weaknesses as an actor) and Elliott Gould is an entertaining oddity as the Professor.

If anything saves the film, it’s that Williamson’s anger at the way America treats its veterans feels sincere. The heart of the film is in the first half, which details Johnny’s struggle to simply survive from one day to the next. Even if Williamson’s direction is often shaky, the film’s rage is so authentic that you do get caught up in Johnny’s story. The film ends on a properly down note, suggesting that, for men like Johnny Barrows, there is no hope to be found in America.

To quote the film’s theme song: Peace is Hell.

An Olympic Film Review: Downhill Racer (dir by Michael Ritchie)

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For the past few days, like all good people, I have been totally obsessed with the Winter Olympics! Last week, I asked my friends to suggest some Winter Olympic-themed movies that I could watch and review. More than a few of them immediately recommended that I check out a film called Downhill Racer.

First released in 1969, Downhill Racer tells the story of David Chappellet (a very young and very handsome Robert Redford). When we first meet David, he’s just arrived in Switzerland. An alternate to the U.S. ski team, David has been summoned by Coach Eugene Claire (Gene Hackman) to replace an injured skier. From the minute that David arrives, it’s obvious that he’s not interested in being anyone’s friend. He’s upset that he was an alternate. He’s upset that he’s going to be skiing so late in the competition. He’s upset about … well, almost everything. Unlike the rest of his teammates, he’s a loner and he rarely has much to say. He cares about one thing: winning championships and being recognized as the best. David is not a particularly likable character. However, the fact that he doesn’t seem to care what anyone thinks about him is one of the things that makes him compelling. Add to that, David quickly proves himself to be one of the best. He may be arrogant but, more often than not, he can back up his pride.

Why is David so driven? We get some clues when David returns to his hometown in Idaho. Even though everyone in the town knows him and he doesn’t have any trouble convincing a former girlfriend to go off with him, David still seems out-of-place. When he visits his father, the taciturn man is not impressed by David’s success. As his father puts it, the world is full of champions. Why should David deserve any more praise than anyone else?

Standing in contrast to the reservered David is Coach Claire. Whereas David is reserved, Claire is passionate. Whereas David is an unapologetic loner, Claire is willing to fight for every member of his team. Whereas David reacts to a crash by refusing to accept that he made a mistake, Coach Claire is always brutally honest. David couldn’t be a champion without Claire’s help but, in the end, the Coach is destined to remain in the background while David signs lucrative sponsorship deals and becomes a hero to television viewers everywhere.

It’s a familiar story, though perhaps it wasn’t as familiar in 1969 as it is today. Today, we’ve grown accustomed to the idea that celebrities can be jerks and that “heroes” are often just manufactured idols. (Downhill Racer has a good deal of fun with the shallowness of the media’s coverage of David Chappellett’s career.) That said, familiar or not, there’s a good deal of authenticity to be found in the performances of both Redford and Hackman. It takes a bit of courage to play a character who is as narcissistic and arrogant as David Chappellett but, even more so, it takes talent to make that character compelling. As for Hackman, he’s the ideal coach. He knows both how to get the best out of Chappellett but also when to call him out on his crap. From the minute we meet the Coach, we knows that he cares but we also know that he’s seen a lot of David Chappelletts come and go over the years.

Of course, the main reason to watch Downhill Racer is because of the racing scenes, many of which were filmed as a point-of-view shot, putting you in the skis as the frozen landscape flies past you. They are amazing to watch. I’ve never been skiing, which is probably a good thing when you consider that I’m a bit accident-prone. But the skiing sequences in Downhill Racer left me breathless, shaken, and exhilarated.

Downhill Racer is definitely one to watch, during the Olympics or any other time.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Dodsworth (dir by William Wyler)

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(With the Oscars scheduled to be awarded on March 4th, I have decided to review at least one Oscar-nominated film a day. These films could be nominees or they could be winners. They could be from this year’s Oscars or they could be a previous year’s nominee! We’ll see how things play out. Today, I take a look at the 1936 best picture nominee, Dodsworth!)

Dodsworth is the type of film that makes me thankful for both TCM and my own obsession with Oscar history.

Based on a Sidney Howard-penned stage adaptation of a Sinclair Lewis novel, Dodsworth tells the story of an American couple abroad and how their travels change them as both individuals and as a couple. Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) is a wealthy man living in the middle of the United States. 20 years ago, he founded Dodsworth Motors and now, he’s finally reached the point where he can sell his company and retire. Sam doesn’t have any big plans, not yet anyway. Mostly, he just wants to visit Europe with his wife, Fran (Ruth Chatterton). They’ve never been.

Walter Huston is perfectly cast as Sam Dodsworth. When we first meet Sam, we’re not really sure whether we’re going to like him or not. He seems to be a decent human being but he also seems to be rather resistant to change. He’s a self-made man. He’s smart but he’s not well-educated. He’s honest but he’s stubborn. He’s rich but he’s hardly sophisticated. He says that he wants to experience new things but we can’t help but wonder how he’s going to react when he actually has the opportunity.

The cracks in Sam and Fran’s marriage become obvious as soon as they board a luxury liner heading for England. Sam meets another traveler, Edith (Mary Astor). Edith is divorced and lives in Italy, two things that make her very exotic to a proud product of middle America like Sam Dodsworth. Edith and Sam immediately hit it off but there’s no way that Sam would ever consider having an affair. Meanwhile, Fran finds herself attracted to a series of different Europeans, played by David Niven, Paul Lukas, and Gregory Gaye. While Fran loves Europe, Sam finds himself yearning to return to the small town world that he knows best.

For a film that was released 82 years ago, Dodsworth remains a remarkably watchable and involving film. Along with featuring brilliant lead performances from Walter Huston, Ruth Chatterton, and Mary Astor, Dodsworth touches on universal themes that remains as relevant as today as when the film was first released. Though neither Sam nor Fran would probably recognize the term, their trip to Europe leads to an existential crisis that will be familiar to anyone who has ever looked at their life and wondered, “Is this all there is?” At the start of the film, both characters believe that they’ve found perfection in their marriage, their family, and their money. By the end of the movie, both of them realize just how wrong they were.

If not for my love of Oscar history, I never would have seen Dodsworth listed among the films nominated for best picture of 1936. And, if not for TCM, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to DVR Dodsworth this morning and then watch it earlier tonight. That’s why it pays to know your history and to take chances on films of which you previously may not have heard.

Dodsworth was nominated for 7 Academy Awards but it only won the Oscar for Best Art Direction. It lost Best Picture to a far less memorable film, The Great Ziegfield.

A New Orleans Film Review: J.D.’s Revenge (dir by Arthur Marks)

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Ike (Glynn Turman) is a nice guy. He’s a law student living in New Orleans. When not studying, he makes money driving a taxi cab. He has a beautiful and loving wife named Christella (Joan Pringle). He has a nice but modest apartment. When we first see Ike, he is calmly and rationally breaking up a fight. Perhaps the only real complain that can be made about Ike is that he’s actually too nice. There’s nothing dangerous about Ike. He works hard. He studies. That’s about it.

When Christella and their friends tell him that he needs to take a night off from studying, Ike is reluctant. However, he finally agrees to go out with them. They start out at a strip club in the French Quarter and eventually, they end up watching a hypnotist. Ike is one of the men randomly selected to go up on stage. Amazingly, rational and mild Ike is easily hypnotized. The audience loves watching as Ike and the other men all reacts to hypnotic suggestion. What they don’t know is that, while in his trance, Ike has been … possessed!

That’s right! The ghost of J.D. Walker has entered Ike. Who is J.D. Walker? As we learn from a series of gauzy flashbacks, J.D. Walker was a gangster in the 1940s. He wore a fedora. He wore nice suits. He was every bit as flamboyant as Ike is mild. But then, one day, J.D. was killed, gunned down by his former business partner, Theotis Bliss (Fred Pinkard).

Soon, Ike starts to act … well, not like himself. Suddenly, Ike is using 1940s slang. He’s wearing 1940s clothes. He’s gambling. He mugs an old lady who gets in his cab and then abandons her on the wharf. When his wife asks him why he’s acting like a 1940s gangster, he gets violent. Soon, Ike is speaking in a different voice and dancing.

What does J.D. want? He wants revenge against not only the man who shot him but also Theotis’s younger brother, a popular preacher named Elijah (Lou Gossett, Jr.). As wild as the possessed Ike may be, he’s got nothing on Elijah. Elijah was a boxer before he became a man of God and he’s still liable to throw a punch or two during his sermons. Elijah, however, is also rather naive and has no hesitation about inviting J.D. to become a member of his congregation. Theotis, who is now Elijah’s manager, is a bit more suspicious…

An oddly paced film that never quite escapes the lengthy shadows of all of the horror films that inspired it, J.D.’s Revenge is worth seeing for the performances Glynn Thurman and Lou Gossett, Jr. Gossett is all energetic charisma in the role of the reverend, giving a performance that features just enough ambiguity that you’re never sure whether you should trust Elijah or not. Meanwhile, Thurman is very good as the mild-mannered Ike but he seems to be having an absolute blast whenever he gets to play the psychotic J.D. During the final confrontation between Ike/J.D. and the Bliss Brothers, Thurman’s performance is so bizarre and over the top that you simply cannot stop watching him.

J.D.’s Revenge was filmed in New Orleans, which add a little bit of gothic atmosphere to the film. As I write this, a lot of our readers may currently be in New Orleans for Mardi Gras. I wish them all well but I hope they’ll remember the lesson of J.D.’s Revenge. Just say no to hypnosis!

Scenes that I Love: The Iguanas On The Coffee Tables From Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

If you’re in New Orleans for Mardi Gras, please be sure to keep an eye out for the iguanas.

Ever since Werner Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans was first released, people have debated the symbolism of the iguanas on the coffee table. Are they just a sign that Nicolas Cage’s bad lieutenant is totally high or do they have a deeper meaning? Myself, I’m not even going to try to guess. All I know is that the lieutenant eventually came to appreciate their presence.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Shanghai Express (dir by Josef von Sternberg)

Posted on February 11, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to China, circa 1931. The country is beautiful, mysterious, and dangerous. Civil War has broken out and living in China means being caught between two equally brutal forces, the government and the Communists. Captain Doc Harvey (Clive Brook) is scheduled to ride the so-called Shangai Express, the train that will take him from Beiping to Shanghai. The Governor-General is ill and Doc Harvey is the only man in China who operate on him.

For Doc, it’s a matter of duty. However, soon after boarding, he discovers that he is traveling with the infamous Shanghai Lily (Marlene Dietrich). Though Doc has never heard of her, everyone assures him that Shanghai Lily is one of the greatest courtesans in China. When Doc does finally meet her, he’s shocked to discover that Shanghai Lily is his former lover, Magdalen. Did his decision to break up with her lead to Magdalen becoming a courtesan?

“It took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily,” she replies.

However, Doc and Lily aren’t the only two people with their own personal drama taking place on the train. The train is full of passengers, all of whom have their secrets. Some of the secrets are minor. One woman spends most of the trip trying to keep anyone from discovering that she’s smuggled her dog onto the train. Other secrets are major. It is suspected that one of the passengers might be working for the rebels. And then there’s people like Sam Salt (Eugene Pallette), who is addicted to gambling and Eric (Gustav von Syffertitz), the opium dealer. Looking over it all is a Christian missionary (Lawrence Grant) who considers both Lily and her companion, Hui Fey (Anna May Wong), to be fallen women.

It’s not an easy journey, no matter how nice and romantic the train may be. If the express isn’t being stopped by government soldiers, it’s being hijacked by a warlord who not only wants to stop Doc from performing the operation but who also wants to take Lily back to his palace…

Shanghai Express is pre-code drama at its best. Director Josef von Sternberg delivers an ornate mix of opulence and melodrama, never shying away from the story’s more flamboyant possibilities. Marlene Dietrich, appearing in her fourth film for von Sternberg, gives a strong and unapologetic performance as Shanghai Lily. Just as Lily never apologizes for who she is, the film both refuses to judge her and condemns anyone who would try. The film’s sympathy is purely with Dietrich and Wong as they do what they must to survive in a world dominated by men who are either judgmental, brutish, or weak. (Within just a few years, the Hays Code would make it impossible for a film like Shanghai Express to be made by an American studio.) With one very important exception, the entire cast is strong, with Warner Oland and Eugene Pallette especially turning in strong support. The only exception is Clive Brook, who comes across as being a bit too dull to have ever won the the heart of Shanghai Lily.

Shanghai Express is not the best von Sternberg/Dietrich collaboration. That would be the brilliantly insane Scarlet Empress. However, it’s still a wonderfully entertaining melodrama. It was nominated for best picture but lost to another entertaining melodrama, Grand Hotel.

An Olympic Film Review: Miracle (dir by Gavin O’Connor)

Posted on February 11, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(Back in 2011, Chris Mead — who wrote under the name Semtex Skittle — reviewed Miracle for this site. At the that time, I had not seen the film. Below are my thoughts but please, also be sure to read Chris’s review as well.)

Like all good people, I’m currently obsessed with the Winter Olympics. Earlier this week I asked a couple of friends if they could recommend some good Winter Olympics movies. A lot of movies were suggested but, without fail, everyone thought I should see Miracle. (A lot of people also suggested Cool Runnings, which I’ll be watching next week.) Having watched Miracle earlier today, I can see why everyone recommended it.

The year is 1980 and two hockey teams are about to face off at the Winter Olympics in upstate New York. (The location, to be exact, is Lake Placid. Fortunately, the giant alligators are nowhere to be seen.)

On one side you have the Russian team (or the Soviets as they were known back then). They are widely considered to be one of the greatest hockey teams in history. They are big, fierce, and determined. Coming from a system that has declared individuality to be a crime against the state, the Soviet team plays like a machine. The Soviets have won the gold in the last four Olympics. As one American coach puts it, their greatest strength is that every other hockey team in the world is terrified of them.

On the other side, you have the American team. However, this isn’t the type of American dream team that one would expect to see today. In 1980, professional athletes were not allowed to compete on the U.S. Olympic team. Instead, the 1980 hockey team is made up of amateurs and college players. Unlike the Soviet teams, the American don’t have a government that grooms and supports them. Instead, win or lose, they have to do it on their own.

Of course, it’s not just two hockey teams that are about to face off. It’s also two super powers and two very different ways of life. In 1980, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were the two most powerful rivals in the world. The Soviets were trapped in an endless and unpopular war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the economy was shaky, American citizens were being held hostage in Iran, and an ineffective President gave long-winded speeches about how unhappy everyone in the country appeared to be. Both countries needed a victory but only one could win.

And it would take a miracle for that winning team to be American…

I don’t think it requires a spoiler alert to tell you that’s exactly what happens. I mean, after all, I’m reviewing a film called Miracle! On top of that, it’s based on true events. The U.S. hockey team — made up of college students and led by Coach Herb Brooks (played, in one of his best performance, by Kurt Russell) — not only managed to defeat the highly favored Soviet team but they went on to win the gold medal.

Even if you didn’t know that the Americans beat the Russians, you would never have any doubt about how Miracle is going to end. Miracle is a film that utilizes almost every sports film cliché but it manages to do so with such sincerity and such style that you don’t mind the fact that the movie doesn’t exactly take you by surprise. Is there any actor who is as good at project sincerity and human decency as Kurt Russell? Whenever he says that he’s going to make his team into champions, you believe him. When he says that he’s being hard on them because he wants them to be the best, you never doubt him or his techniques. When he says that he’s proud of his team and his country, it brings tears to your eyes. If there’s ever a movie that deserves a chant of “USA! USA! USA!,” it’s Miracle.

Mardi Gras Film Review: Mardi Gras Massacre (dir by Jack Weis)

Posted on February 11, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(Note: The Trashfilm Guru reviewed this film on his own site in 2012. Check out his review by clicking here!)

With this being Mari Gras weekend, I imagine that thousands of people are currently flooding into New Orleans and hoping to have a good time. In honor of their commitment, I have been reviewing Mardi Gras-themed films. Today’s film is low-budget 1978 “shocker” called Mardi Gras Massacre.

A serial killer is stalking New Orleans and…

Wait a minute. Does this sound familiar? Hmmm … okay, sorry, let’s continue.

…the police are powerless to stop him…

Okay, I swear, I think I’ve described this situation before. But, anyway, to continue with Mardi Gras Massacre:

…despite being the most obvious serial killer in history, the murderer is able to move undetected through the Big Easy. His motive? Human sacrifices to an evil power…

OKAY, STOP! I just realized that I’m basically rewriting my earlier review of Mardi Gras For The Devil. Despite the fact that there’s a 15-year age difference between the two films, both Mardi Gras Massacre and Mardi Gras For The Devil have the same basic plot. A psycho wanders around New Orleans and commits occult-themed murders while an intense cop tries to stop him. Eventually, the cop’s lover is targeted by the killer…

I mean, it’s the exact same plot! The only real difference is that Mardi Gras For The Devil starred recognizable actors like Michael Ironside and Robert Davi while Mardi Gras Massacre was a low-budget obscurity starring no one that you have ever heard of.

In Mardi Gras Massacre, the killer’s name is John and he’s played by an actor named William Metzo. John spends all of his time looking for prostitutes and strippers who he can sacrifice to an Aztec God. John has an altar in his apartment. The altar, of course, is surrounded by red curtains. As I watched the film, I wondered where he got the altar. Even more importantly, I wondered how he could fit that huge altar into what appeared to be a pretty small apartment.

John manages to sacrifice quite a few women without anyone becoming overly suspicious of him. This is despite the fact that John spends almost the entire movie wearing a three-piece suit and glaring at everyone he meets. When John steps into a bar, the first thing that he asks the bartender is where he can find the “evilest” prostitute. No one seems to find that strange. Then again, New Orleans is a very forgiving town.

Anyway, Sergeant Frank Herbert (Curt Dawson) is in charge of the investigation and, as soon as he shows up with his porn stache and his hairy chest, we know that we’re watching a movie from the 70s. Sgt. Herbert falls in love with a prostitute named Sherry (Gwen Arment). Halfway through the film, we get an extended falling in love montage. New Orleans looks really pretty in the montage but, at the same time, the film has just spent 45 minutes establishing it as a city where a serial killer can ask for the “evilest” prostitute without raising any suspicion. So, romantic montage outside, I have hard time believing that Mardi Gras Massacre did much for New Orleans tourism.

I should point out that, much as with the case of Mardi Gras For The Devil, there’s not really a whole lot of Mardi Gras to be found in Mardi Gras Massacre. Towards the end of the movie, we get a chase through a Mardi Gras parade. It’s obvious that the filmmakers filmed the chase during the actual parade so, from a historical point of view, it’s interesting to see how Mardi Gras was celebrated in the 70s. At the same time, throughout the entire scene, drunk people are waving at the camera. (One person even tries to grab the lens as they walk by.)

On a positive note, Mardi Gras Massacre features one of the best trashy disco scenes ever . As well, the version that I watched had Spanish subtitles and I’m happy to say that my Spanish is apparently getting pretty good! As for the rest of the film, it’s a movie that will be best appreciated by grindhouse aficionados. It’s a low-budget, poorly acted, thoroughly silly film and its obviously fake gore managed to get the film banned in the UK. It’s a historical oddity and, like many grindhouse films, its appeal mostly comes from watching it and saying, “Someone actually made this and managed to get it into theaters.” At the very least, it will hopefully remind you to not admit to being the “evilest” anything during Mardi Gras.

Scenes That I Love: The New Orleans Funeral from Live and Let Die

Posted on February 11, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

If any of our readers are in New Orleans for Madi Gras weekend, a word of caution.

If you see a funeral procession, don’t ask who the funeral is for.

Seriously.

This scene is from 1973’s Live and Let Die. It’s a scene of many emotions. It may start out with the sond of a sad tune but everyone’s pretty happy by the end of it.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Kitty Foyle (dir by Sam Wood)

Posted on February 10, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Kitty Foyle opens with a title card informing us that, before the film can tell us the story of Kitty Foyle, it is necessary to remind audiences of how Kitty Foyle — and so many other “white-collar” girls — arrived in their present (which is to say, 1940) situation.

We then get a strange little montage of life at the turn of the century. A woman meets a man. The man marries the woman. They’re a happily married couple. The man goes to work. The woman takes care of the house. The man comes home. Everything’s perfect. Then suddenly — oh my God, it’s the suffragettes! They’re holding rallies! They’re parading around with signs! They’re demanding the right to vote! They’re demanding prohibition! Suddenly, women are expected to be independent and to have careers…

Which leads us to New York in the 1940s, where a bunch of women in an elevator discuss how difficult it is to find a good husband, especially now that they’re all busy working as salespeople and administrative assistants. Apparently, this is the price that we all had to pay for the right to vote. On the one hand, the women who cast their first votes in 1920 elected Warren G. Harding and spared the nation from another four years of Wilsonianism. On the other hand, it’s now difficult to find a husband.

Fortunately, Kitty Foyle (Ginger Rogers) doesn’t have that problem. She has a wonderful suitor, a man who has just asked her to marry him. His name is Dr. Mark Eisen (James Craig). He may not have a lot of money but he’s handsome, he’s considerate, and he spends all of his time providing medical care to the poor and indigent. When Mark asks her to marry him, he asks her if she’s sure that she’s over that man from Philadelphia. Kitty says that she is.

Of course, as soon as Kitty returns home, that man from Philadelphia is waiting for her. Wyn Stafford VI (Dennis Morgan) is handsome, rich, and totally in love with Kitty. Of course, he’s also married to his second wife. (The identity of his first wife isn’t revealed until late in the film but you’ll be able to guess who she is.) Wyn is in love with Kitty and he wants her to run away to South America with him. Kitty says yes.

However, as Kitty is packing to leave, her reflection in the mirror starts talking to her. It turns out to be a pretty judgmental mirror. The rest of the film is an extended flashback, showing us how Kitty was raised by her single father (Ernest Cossart), how she first moved to New York, and how she met and fell in love with both Wyn and Mark. Will she run off and live in wealthy sin with Wyn? Or will she stay in New York and marry honest, hard-working Mark?

The main problem with Kitty Foyle is that there really isn’t much suspense as far as the film’s central dilemma is concerned. Mark is a living saint who heals children. Wyn is a heel who wants to abandon his wife and son so that he and Kitty can live in South America. About the only thing that Wyn has going for him is that he’s got a better sense of humor than Mark but, in 1940, that wasn’t necessarily considered to be a good thing. There’s really no question about who Kitty is going to pick and, in fact, the answer is so obvious that you kind of lose respect for Kitty when it takes her so long to make up her mind. It’s like being told you could either marry a Nobel Peace Prize winner or someone who embezzles from a charity and replying, “Let me think about it…”

Of course, the main focus of Kitty Foyle is less on the love triangle and more on Ginger Rogers’s performance as Kitty. This was one of Ginger’s first films after she stopped making films with Fred Astaire and it’s obvious that the film’s main theme was that Ginger Rogers could do more than just dance with Fred. In Kitty Foyle, she gets to make jokes. She gets to cry. She gets to fall in love. She gets a huge dramatic scene in which she mourns the loss of a child. She does it all and yes, she does it very well. Still, Kitty Foyle is never as much fun as the movies that she made with Fred.

Ginger Rogers won the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance in Kitty Foyle, beating out Katharine Hepburn, Joan Fontaine, Bette Davis, and Martha Scott. Kitty Foyle was nominated for Best Picture but lost to Hitchcock’s Rebecca.