The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)

I guess I’ve seen about 20 or more Hitchcock films now, but still there is something to get from this guy, although I might be scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Lady Vanishes was one of his British films, before he decided to go to America. The film therefore has a different feel to it than his Hollywood productions, particularly those of the 50’s. What is interesting, though, is that we can already see in this early film, elements which would become very prominent later in his career, and hailed as hallmarks of his cinema.

The film has a very “British” sense of humour, my two favourite characters in the film are two Englishmen who constantly talk about cricket and how they have to get in time home for the big cricket tournament. Most of the film takes place on a train, and Hitchcock does well to keep the film interesting despite the limited space he can tell his story in. The narrative is about a woman who vanishes, as the title says. It is actually quite disturbing when she does disappear, and a strange sense of the uncanny and questioning one’s self mind come to the fore. It is a thriller, though, in typical Hitchcock style, with all the recognizable narrative ploys he usually uses, for example having a conversation while eating, or the classic romance. What made this one stand out a bit more than the rest of his films that I have seen is the focus on the comedy, which there is a lot more of here than usual. All of Hitchcock’s films have quite a bit of humour, but it is usually subtle or just for short moments. Here, though, it takes centre stage and is a big part of what the film is. I also found the interplay between the two romantic leads very good and playful, although the acting is never anything spectacular in itself, at least not on the level such as It Happened One Night.

I did think though that the film lacked a bit of the depth that Hitchcock’s films usually have. Not to say that the film isn’t subtle, because it is quite subtle at times, and explores some interesting themes on denial psychology. What the film misses, most crucially, is the cutting edge in narrative that some of Hitchcock’s later films such as Vertigo, Rebecca, Notorious, Rear Window, and to a lesser extent, North by Northwest had. Still, the film works wonderfully in its own way, and is still high above the average of similar films from that time period. The 1930’s are a difficult era in film to analyse, because the move from silent to sound put the films technologically back a couple of years, and one can see the raw crudities in some of the early 30’s films. In The Lady Vanishes, however, there is little sign to this, and the sound design is also quite impressive for its time. Watching this makes me a bit nostalgic; as I feel I am starting to draw dry the amount of good films that Hitchcock still has to offer. That I have seen well over 20 of his films, though, and still being able to look for more material he directed, only stands as a testament to his immense quality and consistency as a director. Sure, there were a couple of stinkers, but overall the amount of quality films he has put out is nothing short of impressive.

There are always re-evaluations of directors. Recently I have felt that many have started to vindicate Hitchcock to be not all he was made out to be, much like Citizen Kane. Of course, though, Hitchcock is one of the finest directors of all time, he made some fantastic, deep and entertaining classics, and some of the best camerawork and sound design you will ever see or hear. This one was good, and while a classic, not quite up to speed with his very best. Not as if that says much.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (Frank Capra, 1936)

Another film by Frank Capra, and this, just like its title, reminded me a lot of his other film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It has much of the same elements; a young naive man acquires a new post of status and has to adjust himself to the new environment and expectation, but in the end learns that he was better of as he was before the film started. Oh yes, there is also the obligatory love interest.

But Mr. Deeds Goes to Town lacks one major thing that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington had, and that is: Jimmy Stewart. Gary Cooper takes the role as the naive protagonist here, and to say the least, he lacks barrels of charisma. It is so natural with Jimmy Stewart that one almost doesn’t think about it when he acts, but I came tumbling right down to reality when I was watching Gary Cooper, and at times wished I was rather watching a Capra film featuring Stewart. Generally, I don’t rate acting that highly, but in Hollywood films, this is often a very essential part, and that is why I felt the story suffered a lot. But, while the film might have been much better with Jimmy Stewart in the main role rather than Gary Cooper, it still wouldn’t have been as good as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Generally, it lacks the usual flair Capra’s films have, and his directing seems somewhat conservative, and not as spectacular nor as interesting as his films seem, especially his best. So, even though I still enjoyed the previous film I reviewed by Capra, it was still fairly weak for a Capra film. This, though, was quite weak overall, and didn’t have the overall Capra joy or enjoyment that we are usually treated to.

The ending of this film, particularly, is quite weak compared to the fantastic and epic ending of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It all feels fairly contrived, and again, the script seems to be the weak link here. But, the film suffers further from the lack of inventive or interesting directing from Capra’s part. The black and white cinematography is quite nice, but the film doesn’t have that great nostalgic feel that I love so much about classic Hollywood films. The only fairly interesting part of this film is, strangely, the love interest of Gary Cooper. She kind of reminds me of the guy in It Happened One Night. She is a reporter, and tricks her way into his way to get an exclusive on his story to the big times. She is probably the most developed element in the film, but of course, she takes the usual route these characters take, she starts out as a cynical reporter who just cares about the story, but then subsequently falls in love with the protagonist and repents her ways. Of course, here we just see it from her point-of-view, while in It Happened One Night we saw it as a development between both of the two characters, and it was thus even better developed and believable. Well, so what I mean is that, while she is the only interesting character in the film, the relationship itself is not very interesting.

I didn’t really enjoy this film, and it was really a weak film from Capra. Again, it lacked the usual depth his films have, but here, it also missed the charm and joy that he manages to capture, and it thus lost most of my interest throughout. It seems to have a high score on IMDb, so I guess somebody seems to see something in this. Not me though.

You can’t take it With You (Frank Capra, 1938)

Frank Capra is probably one of the finest and one of my personal favourite directors of the classic Hollywood era. Then there is You can’t take it With You, a film I was left fairly unimpressed with, which is quite a disappointment, because it is the first time I’ve ever been unimpressed by a Capra film. Well, not quite, though, but it wasn’t right up there with his best, and, indeed, there were a lot of issues, particularly with the narrative, that irritated me. It is in many ways good fun, but lacks in some of the elements that makes Capra so great.

So this film deals with a family which is quite out of the ordinary. They believe in doing whatever they want, and have fun. This film also features Jimmy Stewart in his probably least inspired role, as the son of a rich guy who is mean and cynical, I liked him a lot. Yeah, you can already see where this review is going. Anyway, the family house is quite crazy; they even manufacture fireworks down in the cellar. Although they aren’t wealthy, they are very happy. One of the girls in the house is in love with the James Stewart character. You can easily see what way the film will go from here. Two people in love, one of a fun loving family without many riches, and the other of a family of cynical rich snobs. Will the crazy family learn complacency in the end, or will the cynical learn some compassion? Well, take your guess. Anyway, while I always like the themes and ideals Capra tries to express in his films, this film left me confused, as it actually seems to blatantly promote anarchy. The narrative contains some annoying plot-holes and at times doesn’t make much sense, particularly psychologically. The characters, though, are pretty colourful and likable, and the casting, as always with Capra films, is spot on.

Capra does, however, manage to evoke the feeling of joy, which is one of his greatest strengths, and there are many such moments in this film, which gives it an overall likability and makes it really watchable. What it does lack, though, is the wonderful subtlety and depth that Capra’s films usually contain, beneath the layer of the narrative. This might be more to the somewhat blatant screenplay, and less to Capra’s sensibility as a director, because the film, in pure technical terms, is pretty much on the same level as Capra’s other films, or indeed Hollywood in general. So it’s not really a bad film, it’s just quite shallow. There is indeed a message beneath the film, but it is not very subtle, nor is it very interesting. It is life affirming and the kind of “do what you can with your life” philosophy. And while most will probably agree with this nice assessment, the film doesn’t treat its subject with the seriousness it deserves. Well, don’t misunderstand, the film isn’t very serious, and is quite silly, but this shouldn’t stand in the way of a serious message, and this is the other main problem with the film. It knows what it wants to say, but doesn’t really have the means to explore this to its true depths, and thus remains fairly uninteresting in this right.

Still, though, it is an enjoyable film, and a fine entry into the work of Capra. I just wish more could have been done with the screenplay, which I thought was quite lacking. The film is based on a play, so I guess it is there where the problems are coming from. Essentially, it is a mainstream comedy, with little to no greater ambition, but for what it is, it’s still worth watching, and the comedy in itself is quite good.

City Lights (Charles Chaplin, 1931)

The famous tramp, Charlie Chaplin, is such an icon that I’ve seen references to him almost everywhere. The charm and comedy of Chaplin is undeniable, but what is more interesting is his skill as a filmmaker, as an artist. Indeed, Tarkovsky who I recently reviewed saw Chaplin as one of the greatest and most poetic filmmakers of all time, and this came from a man who generally hated Hollywood and the studio system. One of my favourite films of all time is the hilarious and poignant The Gold Rush (Charles Chaplin, 1925). Indeed, Chaplin has all the elements that makes one an auteur; he writes and directs all his films, star in them and created the iconic character of the little tramp. I was quite looking forward to seeing City Lights.

City Lights is seen as one of Chaplin’s greatest masterpieces. And indeed, the film consists of all the elements that make a great Chaplin film. It is very funny, but still has place for heartfelt emotions. His films also have a slightly dark undercurrent, and are sometimes quite depressing, albeit making fun of this depression, which is one of the main things that makes his films so poignant. One thing about City Lights that is notable is that, while most of Hollywood was turning towards talkies, Chaplin continued to make his films silent. I think that such an iconic character, which made his name on his physicality, this was a good call on Chaplin’s side, although The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) was an astounding achievement even though it was a talkie. The physical humour is fantastic in this, from the first scene where the tramp causes havoc at a gathering, going out to drink and eat with a wealthy drunk, or in the famous boxing sequence. Much of the best comedy, though, works by juxtaposition of sentimental moments with silly gags at the expense of the tramp. For example when he is deeply in love and a cat knocks over a flowerpot that hits his head. These kinds of gags make the film stronger, as it manages to create an assortment of emotions while yet keeping the humour up throughout the whole film and creating a strong bond between the audience and the protagonist. Most comedies, not just today, but ever, have always had a hard time doing this. The tramp character is silly, but ever resourceful, set on his tasks and never gives up. Chaplin early on clearly sets out the characters goal, and he sticks to this throughout the whole film. This kind of persistence is what makes him so lovable for audiences, even today.

The film is sweet at heart, but there is also some darkness in there. This was made during the depression, and this fits well with the tramp. A great scene, which symbolises this in a great way, is where the tramp has acquired fine clothing and an expensive car, yet he has no money. He sees a rich man on the street throw a cigar on the street. Chaplin charges for this and takes it, beating another tramp to it, goes back into his car, exchange looks with the other tramp and drives off. It is a hilarious moment, but also has some true resonance for the time. The film is a love story, and a sweet one at that. The tramp falls in love with a blind flower girl, a very interesting choice for a love interest. This creates further resonance and bonding with the audience, as they identify with the tramp trying to help someone fairly helpless. Another highlight of the film is the tramps friendship with the rich man. Although it is a fairly unstable friendship, as the rich man only recognises the tramp when he is drunk. When he wakes up sober, he becomes a mean man who usually throws the tramp out of his house. The tramps confusion over this is hilarious. Audiences love to know more than the characters, and Chaplin has often recognised this to create some very funny situations. Chaplin’s timing is also for most of the time impeccable. Particularly when the tramp is walking back and forth on a sidewalk, and right behind there is a trap door in the pavement that opens and closes. This creates great expectation with the audience, then retracts it, and gives it again. Chaplin is also a master of sustaining a laugh, repeating gags with subtle differences and makes them seem fresh every time. But at the heart of his films, what is important with Chaplin is the poignant moments, and while the comedy is great, it is these poignant moments which elevates his films above the rest, and become more than mere comedies for a laugh.

City Lights is a great film, a masterpiece in fact. It has the perfect blend of humour and subtlety, with the charm and naivety of the tramp as a way of driving the film forward. These are some of the reasons why Chaplin is still so well remembered today, because he can create great emotional resonance in his audience, unlike almost all other comedians and comedy films. They are more than comedy films, and I hope to see more of these great films.

Die 3 Groschen-Oper (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1931)

I watched this curiosity due to my fascination with the German playwright Bertolt Brecht. This is a filmed version of his play The 3-penny Opera, a musical. It is not the kind of musical one is used to, such as Hollywood musicals. Regardless, the film and play are an indictment of bourgeoisie society. It uses irony and satire to creating its scathing criticism of society and individuals. The Brechtian technique is not too apparent here, but that is reflected in that Brecht subsequently sued the company and the filmmakers for ruining his work. Still, I found there was more than enough interesting stuff in the film to keep me from turning off.

The film presents an almost apocalyptic view of society, penetrating through all the filth and hypocrisy. For a film made in the 30’s, this film is quite remarkable. The filmmaking craft is impeccable; the shots are extremely well created. Then again, Germany at the time was one of the cinema powerhouses of the old days, so it is not too surprising. For a film based on a play, it is quite far removed from theatre. This is a musical, so there are a few musical numbers, but very different from what one would expect, being mostly used to Hollywood musicals. But the songs themselves are really good, the score is good, and the lyrics are great. Somewhat, though, they don’t seem to fill the gap enough, there could surely have been more songs. Still, what goes on screen is enough to create the drama, although this could hardly be categorized as a drama film. The sometimes quiet moments are contrasted with scenes of high intensity. The film is also very funny, in its own way. The hypocrisy and evil is so wonderfully portrayed, the characters are for the most part a blast, particularly the main character, who is a schemer and ladies man. The characters antics are quite amusing, and this is one of the main attractions of the film. Brecht has always been great at using stereotypes in a very unique way, and this shows clearly here. Another amusing character is the beggar’s king. He basically runs a business where he makes poor people dress up as dreadfully as possible to make people have pity and give money, then take in some of the profit. A wonderful character, in a quite unusual business, and it summarizes much of what the film is about.

Brecht hated this film, and to some degree I can see why. Yeah, it is true that Brecht didn’t quite appreciate the full extent of the artistic value of cinema. The film doesn’t quite utilize the techniques of Brecht’s Epic Theatre, and it doesn’t try to alienate or create the effect that theatre was supposed to, according to Brecht. Other than the musical numbers, the film doesn’t use any techniques such as Brecht used. In this respect, the film is fairly classical and uses techniques already fairly established in cinema. And actually, the film could have been stronger if it used the techniques of Brecht, to create some fluency between the source material and the film. The film doesn’t quite work according to the ideas and theories of Brecht. Although I am usually adamant that films should be liberal when adapting source material, such as literature or theatre, in this instance it could have helped. I still like the film, but one feels if it should ever have been made in the first place, it is a bit unnecessary. Still, some of the greatest directors of all time, in particular Mizoguchi and Kurosawa, made their best film based on literary source material. The problem here though is that while the film doesn’t adhere to the rules of Brecht, and don’t enlarge his themes, the film in itself doesn’t really say that much otherwise, which is its biggest flaw. Although I do think that Brecht did go a bit out of his way in suing the filmmakers, as they in many ways did do quite a good job, and in the end, so what, they created a film out of his play, but it doesn’t really hurt his original material, and in the end, it seems like he is nitpicking a bit.

There are lots of merits to this film, but overall it wasn’t the greatest film experience I’ve had. There is a lot of wonderful stuff here, but mostly as a result of the great source material the film adapted. I feel the filmmaker wasn’t quite able to make it his own, and neither was he able to make it very Brechtian. It is an interesting little curiosity, and Criterion actually released it, in a quite outstanding edition, with lots of neat extras. If you love Brecht, then this is worth checking out, but otherwise, the average film buff won’t find that much interesting material in here.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Frank Capra, 1939)

Okay, sorry, I haven’t reviewed here in a long while now, but I’ve had much work to do lately; essays, scripts, journalistic work and getting drunk with my friends. Hopefully, after Thursday most of the heavy work should be done and I’ll be back on track. Regardless, the last film I saw was another Frank Capra film, and it was quite damn good, to keep it short. I’m starting to get more and more impressed with this director, and I have acquired more of his films to watch.

Mr. Smith is a naïve young man who gets through some incompetent and corrupt politicians gets to go to Washington and become a senator. We are given imagery of sickening patriotism, pompous shots of the American flag in all its eternal glory, and discomforting angles of the statue of Lincoln. But all is not well in Washington, and Smith (so extremely well played by the fantastic Jimmy Stewart) soon realizes he is nothing but a puppet, and his illusions of the greatness of democracy are shattered. It is the struggle of one individual man against a system, but not without its fair share of optimism. This is one of my favourite elements of Capra’s cinema, how he juxtaposes the individual to the collective, and optimism in the face of hopelessness. James Stewart does a great job portraying the young naïve senator who has to face up to reality and realize something about himself and the system that he thought he knew. The supporting cast is equally excellent, with the great Claude Rains as the great support to Stewart, but also holds up well by himself. This film also features some very dark moments, but they are throughout illuminated with light of a positive message.

This is also probably, of the Capra films I’ve seen, Capra’s most impressively shot film. The angles are great, every shot has significance, and the cinematography is at times stunning. Particularly the dark moments are properly and well lit, and do give the audience a feeling of desperation. While some viewers have distaste for Capra’s sometimes very positive message, I would just like to say: grow up. While I guess this is a bit of personal taste and subjective opinion, I will still stand by that Capra’s films are incredibly well crafted. While I do enjoy the message of the film, what stands out for me, and is ultimately most important, is the filmmaking craft. Capra has showed through his films that he is a great storyteller, but also a great artist and poet of the filmmaking craft, and his films are beautiful examples of filmmaking, surely some of the highlights of the Hollywood golden era. If you look beyond all the other Hollywood bullshit, you will see in some of the greatest films of the era that there lies a true brilliance in the crafting of these wonderful films, and they are in fact pure cinema, pure filmmaking, with all the other stuff that has to be thrown in there for the audience of the time just being filler. You remove all that, and the films show their wonderful structures, the elegant storytelling and auteur views of the world.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a great example of the height of the Hollywood golden era, and is a very impressive film by Capra. The beauty lies in the simple shot structures and the emotional drama that is achieved. The later part of the film is pure brilliance, but the beginning of the film is also great. James Stewart never fails, and he delivers everything that is great about him here, and does perhaps one of his greatest roles. What an actor…

Scarface (Howard Hawks, 1932)

Howard Hawks is a director I’m starting to find more and more fascinating. Compared to many other Hollywood directors or films from the times, Hawks seem almost like a minimalist. He doesn’t use too much music, uses a lot of long and wide shots, and few cuts, especially avoiding close-ups and shot-reverse-shots. I watched the remake of Scarface featuring Al Pacino, and liked it at the time, but in retro perspective hasn’t remained much with me. So I was quite excited about watching this one.

Also compared to most Hollywood films I’ve seen from this period, Scarface is quite brutal and violent. The film throughout escalates into violence, shooting and killing. It is refreshing to see this kind of film from the early days of cinema. It is also quite astounding that the film had such great quality in cinematography and sound despite the fact that it was made all the way back in 1932. After silent movies disappeared in Hollywood, the quality of the films dropped, due to the limits of the sound recording equipment at the time. Scarface though shows that the technology has started to manage to improve the quality to allow good filmmaking not worrying about the sound recording. Hawks manages to create a strange relationship between the audience and the main character, while he is a murderer, beats his sister and is generally a bastard; one still is swayed to empathise with him, and his struggle to rise above his superiors. The ending is also quite astounding, mixing many different emotions, and the lead character’s insanity rose to a manic height.

But, Hawk’s great directing also distances the audience from the action on screen. The long takes, the wide shots and few close-ups leaves us at a distance, not allowing the audience to become too close to the characters. But there is still a feeling of sadness throughout the film, and coldness to the business of the gangsters. In the beginning of the film there is a title card which is talking about how horrible the gangsters are and that it is up the people and the government to clean the streets of criminals. This gives the film a bit of a political context, which is something I usually don’t enjoy; however, this doesn’t become too apparent throughout the rest of the film. Also there should be given some credit to the star of the film Paul Muni, who plays the lead character, Tony. He portrays the coldness of the gangster, never flinching nor being scared of the thought of killing, did often almost seeming excited about it. This adds greatly upon Hawks cold and detached directing.

I really liked Scarface; it’s a great exploration of the gangster environment, as well as Hawks great directing and the performance of Paul Muni. I think this is the best film I’ve seen by Howard Hawk, and I am really enjoying exploring these old black & white Hollywood films, and Hawks is a director I am certainly going to explore further. I still prefer John Huston slightly, but Hawks is impressing me more and more through the films I see by him.

Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1932)

Vampyr is an early surreal horror-film by Dreyer. It's a particularly hypnotic film which borders on the real and imaginary, and the viewer is left with many riddles. This is achieved by some interesting cinematography and very peculiar camera-angles. The pace of the film is also relentless and leaves you in a state of always not quite knowing what's really happening and what is a dream. This gives the film a otherworldly quality that you rarely see in cinema, perhaps the best other example is Ugetsu Monogatari by Mizoguchi, which leans on some of the same quality. The film also, like many other of the 30's, have many traces of old silent-film techniques, mixed with overdubbed dialogue and sound effects. This also contributes to the films mythic quality.




The most interesting and unnerving part of the film is the sometimes skewed camera-angles that are very unique to this film and used to great effect, although they have somewhat become a cliché. Dreyer's unrelenting camera follows the action from a viewpoint that we quite can't trust, something always seems to be wrong or out of place, we are often asked the question what is reality and what is not. A particular scene which is phenomenal is when the lead-character explores the surrounding area and see several shadows dancing. These kind of scenes creates a feeling that a ghost world is always present, and makes the dangers linger in our mind throughout the film.




Some scenes seem to lead nowhere and serve no plot purposes. However, they do serve to create the atmosphere of the film, and further dazzles the audience. We are at the beginning informed that the lead character may fantasize about the presence of ghosts and vampires, so when the threat really do seem to arrive we are even then never sure of it. Was this film all a fantasy, or a mix of reality and a dream world? It's quite a fascinating picture, that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in such films that offers a startling kick to the senses. It's also a good look at the transition Dreyer made between silent and sound.