The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex aka Essex and Elizabeth
Director: Michael Curtiz
USA 1939
106 min
Starring: Bette Davis, Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Donald Crisp, Vincent Price and Henry Daniell, among others.

Welcome to the misogynist version of the life of Queen Elizabeth I!

Nah, I won't complain too much. Just enough.

This film is, like the ones in my previous post, based on a popular play. This was Elizabeth the Queen from 1930, written by some bloke called Maxwell Anderson. Initially the film version had the same title, but pompous Flynn wanted his existence included in the title - and there you have the present title. The "aka" title is even worse, putting Essex's name before the queen's! It is with that title the film is listed at IMDb.

Misogynist points: +5p.

Bette Davis as Queen Elizabeth I. The likeness is astounding.

Errol Flynn as Earl of Essex. Uncanny resemblance.

One can of course not expect a Hollywood version of a play, based on real events that took place more than 400 years earlier, to be entirely historically correct. For one thing, when this film starts it is 1596 and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (Flynn) has just to returned to London after the capturing of Cadiz.
In short: he beat up some Spaniards and the British people was happy, even though Essex wasn't entirely successful. At this time Essex was 31 years old - Queen Elizabeth was 63. Bette Davis was less than half the real age of the queen! But it's Hollywood, and the studio probably didn't want to put Marie Dressler in a romantic lead opposite handsome Flynn. Perhaps because she had been dead since 1934, but I don't know.

Misogynist points (for not hiring Dressler): +2p.

Before I get carried away with bitchiness, I may add that I loved the dialog that obviously points to a great playwright. And although Bette Davis and Errol Flynn didn't get along (to say the least), they managed to fool me several times - pointing towards great actors. Donald Crisp is excellent as Sir Francis Bacon, even though he still haunts my worst nightmares since Broken Blossoms (1919) [blog post]. But the coolest of all: Davis had her forehead and eyebrows shaved for this role. A funny fact that all classic film devotees should know blindfolded while being eaten alive by plague smitten rats.

So, may I be a little cruel now that I have been a pleasant little girl? Good. Yes, the dialog was smoothly written and is delivered with elegance - but what the heck does Essex think he can say to a queen? She is of course quite a bitch sometimes, but she is the goddamn queen! Take for example when the queen asks him if he think he's rule England better just because he's a man.


"I do indeed. And that's exactly where you fail. You can't think and act like a man."

When she gets mad, he laughs and says: "Fiery wench, aren't you?"

I want to hit him. Hit him hard. Which Bette Davis amusingly enough did during their first scene, after Essex had had the guts to turn his back to the queen. The slap, with heavy rings and all, was real and not intended. (Perhaps intended by Bette, but not planned by the director or anyone else.) According to Flynn's autobiography he wasn't too happy, which really shows in the scene. He has to use all power not to strike back. Haha, he deserved it. Pig.


Misogynist points: +10p.

Essex goes to Ireland to fight (don't they ever stop?), but the Queen orders him home. (In reality, she had forbidden him to come home, but being accurate is so boring.) The whole messy relationship ends when Essex tries to overthrow the queen by taking her and the palace hostage. (In reality he suddenly turned up in her bedroom without her being properly dressed - this time being accurate was too fun. He did not invade her court until two years later, neither. Too boring a fact.) Queen Elizabeth forgives him after some romantic talk about how he will become a good king and she will rule by his side (yeah, right), after which she demands him taken to the Tower and be executed for treason. Sensible enough.

What I don't quite buy, though, is her calling him back the day of the execution to pardon him. He was obviously only after her throne (Queen Elizabeth was, like I said, 60+ years old and covered with smallpox scars), yet she wants him pardoned - and he refuses! Yes, the silly man refuses to be pardoned, turns his back on her (again) and leaves for the gallows. She falls to the floor, shouting after him:

"Robert... take my throne! Take England! It's yours!"

...yeah, about that. What the duck? Why a duck?
No, seriously. This is a parody of post-code Hollywood - to have goddamn Queen Elizabeth begging on the floor. We are talking about the woman who, apart from being the daughter of infamous wife-executioner Henry VIII, imprisoned and executed her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. The woman who became queen at the age of 25, and obviously had been able to handle her own for 40 years. Her... begging, with tears flowing down her face? She was obviously sad by the turn of events, but I will not buy that she couldn't keep it together at all and offering the throne to a traitor.

Misogynist points: +157

Result: A movie that does not fancy women.

Bette is disappointed with the view on women in Hollywood.

I hate when I sound like a feminist whiny bitch, but this is just too much. It's not a bad movie, Bette Davis is strong and awesome (most of the time... when she could)... but these little details annoyed the hell out of me. (Should one really take ten frustrated cigarette breaks and a glass of red wine during one movie?) To hell with it. And Errol Flynn (although he is quite handsome).

Fun fact: Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex was the only man to ever have a private execution on Tower Green (no family fun for the British people there), and it supposedly took the executioner three chops before his head was severed. That's karma, asshole.

Days of Wine and Roses (1962)

Danish film poster (transl. "Hectic Days").

Days of Wine and Roses

Director: Blake Edwards

USA 1962

117 min

Starring: Jack Lemmon, Lee Remick, Charles Bickford and Jack Klugman, among others.

See it on YouTube here.

Joe Clay (Lemmon) is a PR executive with a taste for bottled ethanol, who meets a pretty secretary, Kirsten (Remick, in what must be the best role of her career). After an unpleasant start, based on a misunderstanding from Joe's side, they eventually fall in love and get married. Kirsten, who at first never touches alcohol, is convinced by Joe that booze is the essence of life, and pretty soon their relationship is a ménage à trois with the whiskey bottle. (Do I use that expression too often? I happen to like it!)

After having a baby together, their relationship starts to depend more and more on huge amounts of alcohol, and one day (after having been fired from more than one job), Joe realizes that he has become a bum. Together, Joe and Kirsten tries to start a new, sober life together. They move in with her brusque father (Bickford) in the country and works hard. But it just seems a little too easy to have "just one more", and we get a frightening freakout scene with Lemmon desperately trying to find a hidden bottle in a greenhouse to top that off.

From this moment on the couple struggle to get up from the rock bottom, but someone is always wobbling and seem to bring the other one down too. Joe attends AA meetings, but Kirsten is too proud to admit that they have a problem.

This is an extremely painful film to see, and I will say the same thing as I said about mental illness and The Snake Pit [post] - those who will feel most for this film, are those who have seen alcoholism in close-up. They will immediately get uncomfortable at the classic excuses, the unworthy behaviour and helplessness that comes with it.

Jack Lemmon gives an incredible performance as Joe Clay - I was completely shocked. It was the first non-comedy film I ever saw him in, so you can imagine. It reminds me of when I saw Jim Carrey in The Truman Show (1998), not to mention Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004). The experience is almost surreal, and to see a comedian show his dramatic qualities makes you appreciate their comedy more - they've got something to back it up with.
I also need to highlight Charles Bickford as the grumpy but concerned father, and Jack Klugman as Joe's AA mentor. (You have probably seen Klugman before in 12 Angry Men, 1957, as "Juror #5".)

Trailer: Interesting trailer, including a special appearance by Jack Lemmon - waving a cigarette and telling us about how much he believes in this movie.

I surprisingly read a lot of complaints about the dramatization of alcoholism in Days of Wine and Roses, and that's where I go back to the "recognition argument" above. Some person answered one of the whining b*tches on the IMDb message board with the simple statement:

"You've obviously never hit rock bottom."

I couldn't have said it better.

Jack Lemmon was (rightfully so) nominated for an Oscar, and so was Lee Remick. They were however robbed by Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mocking Bird and Anne Bancroft in The Miracle Worker. But the competition was pretty rough, in this case. There was however Academy Award win, and that was for the title song "Days of Wine and Roses" by Henry Mancini (music) andJohnny Mercer (lyrics).

Interesting trivia: (I'm lazy, I'm quoting directly from IMDb!)

The cast and crew were very concerned that the bleak ending would be changed. Director Blake Edwards recalled for Entertainment Weekly magazine that studio head Jack L. Warner wanted a lighter ending, but he came into a screening with a very attractive date who blasted the decision. Warner reluctantly gave in. In addition, Jack Lemmon purposely flew to Paris after filming had wrapped so he would be "unavailable" for re-shoots.

I love when an actor concerns so much about his work, that he is willing to travel continents for it! After having watched this film I have gotten a deep respect for Jack Lemmon.

Jack Lemmon.

Lee Remick.

3 reviews for the price of 1

Swedish poster for Design for Living (transl: "Between us Gentlemen"), and two Italian posters for Dark Victory (same transl.) and The Old Maid (transl: "The Great Love").

I still have a cold (probably the swine flu, I really shouldn't socialize with all those strange men down at the docks), so there have been some film viewing.

When I had seen three really great films in a row, I felt it hard to decide which one to write about - so I thought I would try to make short reviews of all of them instead. Summarizing the plots in a few lines, and focusing on what I liked/disliked about them. And lots of pictures. Sound any good? I'll do it anyway.

The films: Design for Living (1933), Dark Victory (1939) and The Old Maid (1939).

Frequently used ingredients: Bette Davis, Miriam Hopkins, George Brent, Edmund Goulding and socially awkward situations.

Spanish film poster (transl: "A Woman for Two").

Design for Living

Director: Ernst Lubitsch

USA 1933

91 min

Starring: Fredric March, Miriam Hopkins, Gary Cooper, Edward Everett Horton and Isabel Jewell, among others.

See it on YouTube here.

Gilda (Hopkins) meets two young artists on a train in Paris: painter George (Cooper) and playwright Tom (March). Complications arises when both men fall in love with her, while she keeps up a liaison with both of them. She admits that she can't choose between them, so they make a gentleman's agreement: They will all three live under the same roof, but no sex can occur.

The ménage à trois seems to work, and Gilda becomes their artistic muse. But when Tom goes away to London to work on his successful play, Gilda and George are left alone with their frustrations. Around this time, Gilda proclaims that "It's true we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman.", and the carousel of relations suddenly spins at top gear, making all the contestants feel sick and confused, but no less a-mused.

What I like about Design for Living:

• The amazing actors and actresses, down to the bit parts. E. E. Horton is a comical genius playing the old friend of Gilda's, Max Plunkett, who only deeply cares about his social position. His stenographer is played by pretty Isabel Jewell, an actress that worked in a lot of great pictures (including Gone With the Wind. 1939), but seldom had any meaty parts. She is highlighted in Kate Gabrielle's Silents and Talkies [post] and Mark Clark's Film Noir Photos [post] blogs.
• Miriam Hopkins. When I first saw her in a film, I thought I would hate her. I always adored Bette Davis, and they are known to be each other's nemesises. But I can't avoid it - I like Hopkins. Her accent and voice is so charming, and she is a darn good actress with a lot of charisma.
• Tom's silly play. Hilarious.
• George's seriously good paintings. (I really want to believe that Cooper painted them in real life.)
• Two strikingly good-looking men in the leading parts. I understand Gilda's problem - I would have had trouble choosing too. I love their drinking scene, obstinately trying to find something to drink for every time they raise their glasses (which is frequently).
  
• "The Lubitsch Touch". Such a great picture! Probably impossible to get bored by, no matter how many re-runs of it you participate in.

What I don't like about Design for Living:

• Ehm... nothing? That I haven't seen enough of it, perhaps.

Italian film poster (transl: "Sunset).

Dark Victory

Director: Edmund Goulding

USA 1939

104 min

Starring: Bette Davis, George Brent, Humphrey Bogart, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Ronald Reagan, among others.

See it on YouTube here.

A spoiled 23 year old heiress, Judith (Davis), is faced with the fact that she is dying of a brain tumour. When Judith falls in love with her brain surgeon, she is afraid that he proposes to her out of pity.

Since we know from the beginning that Judith sooner or later has to die, the film focuses on the environment's inconvenient feelings toward the tragedy and how Judith tries to make the best out of the time she has left, rather than focusing on the question "Will they find a cure?" or "Will she really die?". A brilliant plot direction.

What I like about Dark Victory:

• A brilliant script, that doesn't chicken out with an un-realistic happy ending, as post-codes tend to do.
• Bette Davis in her probably best role. I can't see any other actress do the part of Judith as perfectly as Davis. Those big eyes of her hold a lot of emotions.
• Ronald Reagan. I mean, seriously. How mant other countried than the USA could make a presidant out of a, perhaps only decent, actor?
• Well, the rest of the amazing cast. George Brent is really growing on me as an actor (hadn't any opinion of him just a few months ago), and Geraldine Fitzgerald is amazing as the heartbroken best friend of Judith's.
• The ending. So sad, beautiful and artistic.

What I don't like about Dark Victory:

• How could Warner Bros do this to Humphrey Bogart? He is just so wrong as the Irish stableboy. His accent is embarrassing, and his part has really no great purpose in the film.

The Old Maid

Director: Edmund Goulding

USA 1939

95 min

Starring: Bette Davis, Miriam Hopkins, Donald Crisp, George Brent and Jane Bryan, among others.

See it on YouTube here.

A costume "woman drama" set in the days during and after the Civil War. Delia (Hopkins) is just about to be married when her previous fiancé Clem (Brent) comes home from the war. Delia breaks her engagement to him and goes on with the marriage, but her cousin and friend Charlotte (Davis) has feelings for Clem and spend time with him before he goes to war again. He is later killed in the war, and the next thing we know Charlotte runs an orphanage for children who lost their fathers in the war. Among those children are her and Clem's love child, Clementina, who for security purposes is adopted by Celia and raised as her own.

Charlotte moves in with Delia and her family and grows into an old maid, while her daughter Clementina only knows her as the stubborn, unsympathetic "aunt Charlotte".

What I like about The Old Maid:

• Donald Crisp. It feels almost surreal to watch him as a kind, child-loving doctor in this film, the day after I saw him as the tyrannic father in Broken Blossoms (see previous post)!
• Davis' and Hopkin's chemistry. They may not have likes each other in real life, but every scene they have together is almost magical. Perhaps the tension between them did it. Whatever the reason may be, we always feel the unsolved problems and unverbalized thoughts hanging in the air between them.
• Miriam Hopkins, again. She is a really great actress. I read that she was very difficult to work with, but you can't blame an artist for being eccentric, can you? Anyway, Hopkins is, like George Brent, growing on me big time.
• My Darling Clementine. The tunes of the song is played when Charlotte and Clementina have a scene together, and it's so heart tearing. Charlotte really loves her daughter, while Clementina never aknowledges her, except for complaining and yelling. (Nothing wrong with Jane Bryan, but the character is a horrible, spoiled brat.)
• Charlotte by the fire. When Charlotte practices her speach to Clementina when she comes home from the ball. At first she is the loving mother, then at an instant she changes into the strict aunt. An obvious proof of Davis' acting qualities.
• The final scene.

What I don't like about The Old Maid:

• George Brent dies. Okay, his characters can die, but not 20 minutes into the film! That was just brutal.
• Yes, the Clementina character. I want to hit her.

Female (1933)

"I know for some women, men are a household necessity; myself, I'd rather have a canary."

- Alison Drake in Female (1933)

Female
Director: Michael Curtiz
USA 1933
60 min


Oh, dear God - help me with this one. What the F-? If you haven't yet seen this film, see it and come back to me - I'm in pieces. If you have seen it, please help me to get this right.

First of all - who should I blame for the ending that ruined this totally wonderful film? Curtiz? Warner Brothers? The producer? Will Hays and company?




I'll sum up the plot before I go into the what-the-F-part more. Alison Drake, played by a brilliant Ruth Chatterton who is perfect for the role, is the president of an automobile company. She is cold, respectable and professional. She is not the marrying kind of a women, which early on is understood by a dialogue Miss Drake has with her childhood friend Harriet Brown (Lois Wilson). She is fully pleased with taking her fellow co-workers home for "discussing business matters over dinner", i.e. - by seeing Miss Drake indicatively throwing a pillow on the floor with a big smile, we understand perfectly well how she likes to pass her evenings.

Miss Drake is also sick of all the men who obviously only flatter her because they want her money, and one evening she decides to go out on town anonymously to see if she can attract a man without them knowing about her power and wealth. She lays her eyes on a handsome man named Jim Thorne (George Brent), and tries her seducing routine on him. Being a "dominant male", he isn't pretty impressed by being manipulated by a woman - he wants to put down his own prey. None the less, Miss Drake has got her eyes on Thorne, and does not give up too easily. When he starts at her company, she tries her best to get her hands on him.




So far the film is absolutely stunning. Provocative - yes. Superb script - yes. Fine actors - yes. Enchanting Ruth Chatterton - yes.

But now to the what-the-F-part.
The ending.
Seriously, what the F-?

All through the film we have been proven over and over that Miss Drake is an independant woman in no need of a man to rule her life. It is of course only natural that she eventually finds her soul mate, and maybe go through a crisis and doubt that she has made the right choice in life - I understand it that far.

Then Thorne takes for granted that Drake wants to marry him, and he gets furious when she hezitates and tears the marriage certificate into pieces. She has a breakdown at an office meeting seconds later, and yells out that she doesn't care about the company and that she is a pathetic woman. I understand the reaction that far, too. But she gets on her feet again when her loyal co-worker/butler/secretary Pettigrew (Ferdinand Gottschalk, the great comic relief in the picture) provoke her by sarcastically remarking that "of course she can't run an entire automobile company - she's just a woman!". Great.

Then she changes her mind again. She realizes that she wants Thorne, and go out on a car chase to find him. Okay, so it's real love then. Fine with me. At least, she has decided that she still wants to be a business woman. She finds him, tells him that she still wants to marry him if he hasn't changed his mind. He smiles, asks her about what time a certain business meeting, that she cancelled for chasing after him, is being held. He convinces her that they will get in time for it. Great! All he wanted was to know that her feelings were true - of course he can accept her as a devoted business woman. It's pre-code after all, right?


Look at this trailer and tell me how they could fuck up this concept. George Brent's character is a real arsehole:




Oh no. Now's the real f*cked-up moment - she tells him that she puts all the business in his hands, and that she now wants to be a loyal wife and mother.

What the F-! Is this a joke? If I understand this the right way, the moral of the film is that any woman that pretends that she can do anything else but being a man's loyal companion, is wrong and should realize that this is a man's world. Jesus f-cking Christ, I can't believe that film was made before the Hays Code was finalized! And I am the woman who always make fun of feminists and all the kerfuffle they always make, but this film was so absurd that it even pulled the trigger on me.

"What the F-", is all I have to say about this one. Sorry for my lack of words, but I can't put my feelings into more detail than that. "What the F-".


At least Ruth Chatterton was fantastic.

Baby Face (1933)

Baby Face
Director: Alfred E. Green
USA 1933
76 min


Goodness, my oh me - this is a simply amazing film experience! I just got the "Forbidden Hollywood Collection volume 1" on the mail today, and after having manipulated my boyfriend to watch it with me (Oh, it's a dirty, dirty picture! It was locked away in a bank vault for 70 years!), here I am, totally excited.
(This film convinced be that it's okay to alter the trith a bit to get your way, so I won't feel bad for using people around me to make me feel better. Thanks, Ruby Stevens.)

Barbara Stanwyck and Nat Pendleton in the beginning of the film. (Was there one 1930's film made in America that didn't include Nat Pendleton? No offence, I like him. But Jeez...)

The plot is quite simple. Lily (played by a lethal pre-code Barbara Stanwyck) runs a speakeasy with her father who sells her body to slimy business men to get the business running. After some inspiration from a wicked old man of a mentor, Lily realizes that a beautiful young woman can go a long way in her career if she just "crushes all sentiment" (way to go, Nietzsche!) and uses everyone for her own purposes.
In a previously cut-out scene, Lily offers a train inspector sexual favours (accompanied by the lovely singing voice of her maid Chico) to be able to get to New York. Wandering the streets with Chico (Theresa Harris), she stops in front of a skyscraper building. She understands that there must be a lot of money in that building, seducing an innocent young man at the employment office and starts her womanizing way of climbing the career ladder - literally from floor to floor. Along the way she seduces a young John Wayne (hey, he could actually be handsome!) and George Brent among others, and soon is covered with furs and diamonds.

One of the cut-out scenes, where the douchebag gropes Stanwyck's breasts and she knocks him over with a beer bottle.

I won't reveal more of the plot, if any of my precious readers haven't seen this marvellous film yet. But for any classic film devotee, this is a must-see - it was one of the main films resulting in a much more strict film cencorship called the Hay's Code. (Hail, Satan.)
The cencors at the time ran amuck about the story of a female sexual predator and her friendly relationship to her black maid Chico. And I must admit, even today one is quite shocked while viewing the film - even though I don't feel to ban it as much as I want to worship it. But the cencors weren't even a little bit thankful to this masterpiece (I mean, just see how tastefully done all the seductions are - obvious, but far from vulgar), and took out the scissors.

But did they stop with only the scissor treatment? Oh no, they had to add a new ending, totally destroying the feeling of the film as a masterpiece. I thought that the original ending was relatively happy and realistic, so that cencored one was... Crap! Total crap! Insulting! Meaningless! A piece of re-used dog shit, to be frank. Why, oh why, did they feel that they had to insult the audience's intelligence that way?
The restored version didn't exist until 2004 (poor people), and when the original, five minutes longer, version finally was discovered in a film vault by Library of Congress curator Mike Mashon (George Willeman is the man credited on Wikipedia), we knew that we would no longer have to suffer.


Trailer for Baby Face.



To sum this up: This is an incredibly innovative, clever and amusing film with as many laughs as chins dropped. I will report back on the other Forbidden Hollywood films, Red-Headed Woman (1932) and Waterloo Bridge (1931). (And when the tax re-payment arrives the next week: watch out, volume 2 and 3!)

A John Wayne youngster and some Baby Face posters, for ya!

Jezebel (1938)

"This is 1852 dumplin', 1852, not the Dark Ages. Girls don't have to simper around in white just because they're not married."

Jezebel
Director: William Wyler
USA 1938
104 min

See it on YouTube here.


High society, New Orleans, 1852.
Julie (Bette Davis) and Preston (Henry Fonda) are soon to be married, and they are constantly battling about the power over the relationship. When Preston has to break a promise to Julie to help her pick out a dress for a society ball due to bank business, Julie chooses a provocative red dress when all unmarried women are supposed to wear white. An unhappy Preston takes her to the ball, makes his best to embarrass Julie among the whispering society people (see film clip below), and after the ball breaks the engagement. A too proud Julie makes no effort to win him back, and he soon moves to "the North".



Time travels one year ahead. Preston is coming back to New Orleans, and waiting for him is a hopeful Julie who has been deeply depressed since he moved. She has realized that she was unfair to him, and now hopes to repair their relationship. But oh, no! He brings with him a wife. This leads to manipulation behind a friendly face, a social act that eventually ends with the shed of blood.



Partially this film is a masterpiece, and Bette Davis is at her very finest. I was, however, not really satisfied with the ending. I can't put my finger on it, but it felt like it was too easy and too quick. But otherwise, there's nothing to complain about. George Brent is just swell as the provocative gentleman Buck Cantrell, and Henry Fonda is great too. His character is quite flat and boring, it's true, but he's doing great - especially if you consider that he was a last minute choice for the part, and that his wife was in labour and about to deliver their daughter (Jane Fonda) and had to run off the set every now and then.

What is there more to say? A lot, I guess. But I'm satisfied with what is said, and that Bette Davis and Fay Bainter (aunt Belle) deserved their Academy Awards.

Bette Davis and William Wyler take a snack during the filming of Jezebel.

Fay Bainter, Jack L. Warner and Bette Davis at the Academy Awards, 1939.

Quotes:

Aunt Belle: Expecting a man to go to a dress makers with you! I declare, I hope Pres doesn't come!
Julie: He will.
Aunt Belle: But Julene!
Julie: Now dumplin', don't you fret about Pres - I've been training him for years!
Aunt Belle: Like that man-killing horse you bought!
Julie: Pres was outrageous! He had no right to tell me what I could ride and what i couldn't!
Aunt Belle: The horse showed you what you couldn't! You broke your collar bone and your engagement!
Julie: And they both mended, so I was right after all
[Smiles at Aunt Belle happily]

Julie: Why did you do it Prest?
Preston Dillard: Because I love her.
Julie: But you had my love.
Preston Dillard: And lost it.

Buck Cantrell: I like my convictions undiluted, just like my bourbon.



In reality (according to movie god Robert Osbourne), Julie's dress was bronze colored. It would look better in black and white than red. (But of course, I colorized it red anyway.)

Illicit (1931)

Illicit
Director: Archie Mayo
USA 1931
79 min

See the film on YouTube here. (There seems to be a little gap between the first and the second clip, but nothing disturbing.)


In this pre-code production Anne Vincent (Barbara Stanwyck), a modern woman, and Richard "Dick" Ives II (James Rennie), a member of a rich and respected family, is a happy young couple with only one problem: Dick wants to get married, but Anne doesn't. Her view of the holy sacrament is that people always seem to either unhappily married or unhappily divorced.
Anne is strong in her opinions and even challenges Dick's father Richard Ives I (Claude Gillingwater), but is after much ado about it convinced to become Mrs. Anne Ives.

Before the marriage Anne receives a telegram from an ex-lover, now friend, Price Baines (Ricardo Cortez), that he wants to see her. Dick tries to forbid Anne to receive him (an early sign of the destructive results of becoming a man's possession?), but being an independent woman she does exactly as she pleases. Price, of course, tries to convince her to stick to her principles.

See the brilliant acting and the perfected dialogue in the following clip. Do you feel the tension between the soon-to-be husband and the ex-lover? Gives me the creeps.

What you see in the clip above is also the beginning of another marriage problem - a woman friend, Margie (Natalie Moorhead), who keeps her eyes (and arms) open for Dick. Is she a threat? Is she more of a threat to a married couple who starts to get too casual with each other, than to a pre-marriage couple consisting of two independent people?
In other words, this drama between two people develops into a triangle drama, shifting into a different triangle drama - but in the most modern and untheatrical way.

The characters in this film are very well cast (see the wonderfully modern Joan Blondell as "Duckie") into the smallest bit parts, though I personally didn't care too much about Rennie as Dick (even though there's nothing wrong with his performance, what I can see). But maybe his part isn't very well written, neither. He whines about getting married, and when he finally gets what he wants he neglects his wife - making the viewer hope that she runs away with the latino lover instead (and I guess that was not what was intended).
But about Stanwyck, to quote Addison DeWitt from All About Eve (1950), you can really see her career rise in the East like the sun.

The female characters, l-r: Margie, Anne and Duckie.

Illicit seems like it wasn't given the credit that it deserved, it's a truly brilliant film. The characters are very down to earth, especially Stanwyck's. Her way of delivering the most heart breaking feelings by simply walking through a room, and barely move a facial muscle, is astonishing. The drama is professionally dimmed, a lot of the emotions are expressed by seemingly every-day talk.
And, the best of all (a thing I was quite worried about, but fortunately didn't come true) - the moral of the story does not seem to be "marriage solves all problems". Actually, the moral of the story didn't seem to have anything about marriage at all. As Stanwyck's last line indicates:

"What have theories to do with love?"

Quotes:

Richard 'Dick' Ives II: Dad, what would you do with a girl like that?
Richard Ives Sr: I'd grab her any way she'd have me.

Anne Vincent Ives: Why Georgie, you look a little emaciated!
George Evans: Well, I was just emaciated into the Elks Saturday night.

Confession (1937)

Confession
Director: Joe May
USA 1937
87 min


Original, rather corny, trailer for Confession.





Interesting, and unfortunately, enough, I can't find any information at all about this law suit! Please, feel free to alarm me if you find anything.
Before I go on describing the plot, I just want to explain the abundance of screen shots in some of my posts. My thought is like this: If a film, like this one, is not among the most accessible ones, I thought I'd share more of my own screen shots to give you a little more to it. At least I would appreciate it, so I hope it only makes you pleased!

The film (a close remake of the German film Mazurka, 1935, starring Pola Negri) begins with Lisa (Jane Bryan) bidding farewell to her mother at a train station. When the train has left the station she meets up with her friend, Hildegard (Mary Maguire). They soon notice the presence of a tall, handsome man looking at them.



A man at the station comes up to the young girls and hands over an envelope from the man, consisting of two theatre tickets. After some hesitation from Lisa's side, the girls decide to go.
They are, of course, expecting the man to turn up at a seat next to them, but they soon realize that he is the attraction - pianist Michael Michailow (Basil Rathbone). He sends them another note (see screen shot below), asking them to meet him outside the theatre after the performance.



When they meet him outside he asks them out for dinner. Only Lisa can go, so Hildegard leaves for home. Michael and Lisa go to a fancy restaurant to eat. Michael soon shows Lisa a lot of affection, making one think about his intentions (and how legal they may be).
The next day she finds that her piano teacher has been replaced by Michael. Alarming things happen...



Lisa is a bit troubled about this, especially now with her mother home again. She tries not to have any contact with him, but gives in after Michael has phoned her at home, pleading for him to meet her again.
They meet up at a night club, where singer Vera Kowalska (wonderful Kay Francis) works. The camera switches between the singing Vera and the discussing Michael and Lisa in their booth. Suddenly, the spot lights turns to the couple, now kissing. Vera sees it, catches Michael's eye and, quite unexpecting, faints.
Michael decides to leave the night club with a confused Lisa at his arm. At the top of some stairs they hear Vera shout for Michael, turns around and... Michael is shot dead.




This is where we get to understand that the first part of the film was a flash back, re-told by Lisa in court. The court now wants the accused, Vera, to tell her story, but she remains silent. It is not until the court decides to open a suit case belonging to Vera, that she agrees to co-operate. But she will not tell her story in front of an audience, but in closed court.

Vera confesses, in closed court, her history with Michael. (Don't worry, I won't reveal the ending! But it sure is a great twist of the story.)

Michael is the conductor of the theatre where Vera sings.

Dancing the Mazurka.

The party continues at Michael's place, where Vera gets quite intoxicated and is followed home by Michael.

What happens next is merely indicated by whirling pictures and Vera's despair and need to clean herself.

The question is: Why did Vera kill Michael?
We get to know the answer, by the suberb acting of Kay Francis that goes from a glorious, successful opera singer to a happy mother and wife, to an abandoned wife working in shabby night clubs.
I guess this film is shown once in a while on TCM (since the copy I got ahold of was recorded from that channel), so keep an eye open if you haven't seen it!
And of course, a special tribute to the wonderful Basil Rathbone, always capable of playing psychologically complicated and doubtful characters with such grace and control. He is my hero.

As usual, I'll end the post with a kiss.