Arsenic and Old Lace (Frank Capra, 1944)

So, after two fairly disappointing outputs by Capra, I watched this comedy classic, and what a laugh it turned out to be. It is based on a famous play by the same name, but I wasn’t familiar with the story, so I didn’t know what I was in for. Safe to say, this was probably one of the sharpest and funniest comedies I have seen from Capra or classic Hollywood even.

So, I’m not going to bother with spoiling too much of the story, as it is quite a joy to watch unfold and therefore I could ruin anyone’s potential viewing of the film. The protagonist is Cary Grant, and he is hilarious in this. The film uses a lot of physical and slapstick humour, and this works well with Cary Grant’s range, which allows him to go to ridiculous lengths to be funny, but never enough over the top to make it idiotic, and that’s quite a skill. The whole cast is great, though, and especially Peter Lorre is fantastically funny in this, with his thin creepy voice. Now, I’ve talked a lot about the depth in Capra films, and well, this film doesn’t really have much of that. But it makes up for it with the superb wit and sharpness in humour. It’s just a very enjoyable film, and takes full advantage of the script to superb effect. Incidentally, because the film is based on a play, there is only one location, really, and despite this, the film never really gets boring, but constantly keeps itself fresh with the development of the narrative. The film takes most use of cinematography as possible, and the black and white is crisp and beautiful, so the film is also a visual treat, which is important considering much of the visual humour. Don’t get me wrong, though, there isn’t just visual humour, the script and dialogue is great and hilarious as well.

From a pure directing point of view, this is perhaps Capra’s most impressive output, his directing is so consistent and spot-on it at times feels as if he was born to make this film. There is particularly one scene which lasts for quite a long while on just a wide shot, and this was one of the most memorable moments in the films, and that requires quite a bit of skill, as if there was any doubt that Capra lacked this. He captures the frantic moments with gusto, and the silent moments are filled with extreme tension. What I loved most about this film, though, was the absolutely unique sardonic black humour, of which I don’t think I have seen the likes of in Hollywood films, and the closest example is probably Dr. Strangelove. Obviously, this is much due to the original material, but it is excellently translated to the screen here. It is really not that easy to successfully adapt plays to cinema, and I have seen many bad examples, but this is probably the single best example of a completely successful translation of the original material into another medium. Really, everything works very well in this film, and it is a joy from start to finish. Yeah, it doesn’t have the depth or subtlety of some of the other Capra films, but it is his most enjoyable film that I’ve seen, and it is a great example of his great directing.

While not a film I would consider among Capra’s best, it is still a pretty damn good film, and the humour is great, supported by the funny interpretation of the roles and actions by the cast. A wonder to behold, Capra’s sense of direction is fantastic, and a great exercise in how to successfully direct a pure comedy.

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.

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…

It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)

I usually try to know as little as possible about films I am going to see, so I see them without any particular expectations or knowledge. With some films though, this is impossible, because they are so much part of pop culture, that you know them almost beat by beat. It’s a Wonderful Life is a victim of this, and because of that I basically knew most of the story of the film. One wonderful surprise that I didn’t know was that the film starred one of my favourite actors, James Stewart. I’ve only seen one film by Frank Capra, It Happened One Night (1934), so I was looking forward to watching this. It’s also one of those classics that everyone should have watched, so it felt necessary to watch it.

The story is very well told and has a very positive message. Some don’t like Capra’s films because they are too positive and upbeat, however, I resent this. It doesn’t in no way hinder the craft of the filmmaking, and people who don’t like films that are upbeat should stop watching films. But I digress, on this film itself, it is a wonderful piece of filmmaking, and James Stewart’s character is so well defined. The structure of the film is that it is a flashback sort of film, where we see the life of the character. It is really nice to see the whole story of the character, how his life turns out and how he develops. This is where Jimmy Stewart shines, his assuredness and honest character has always been one of the great aspects of his acting. He is also great when the character starts to delve into despair. Stewart is accompanied by lots of great supporting actors, particularly Donna Reed as Stewart’s love interest, and Thomas Mitchell as his uncle. As far as I’m aware, the casting in Capra films is always superb, and this shows here. It is very important to have good lead actors; however, having interesting and good supporting actors, even for small parts, can be vital, especially for this kind of film. The cast does a great and variable job, and throughout the film we are given performances that are as good as Jimmy Stewart’s performance. It is also nice to see a younger Stewart, as most films I’ve seen with him were made after he turned 40, and thus featured a fairly old, but still great, James Stewart.

Other aspects of the film are well done, the cinematography looks really nice, and does remind me of It Happened One Night, as well as the editing and story structure is almost perfect. The film also kind of reminds me of Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941), studying in flashbacks the life and development of a man, but of course, there are many differences, but it is still interesting to see the parallels between the films. We are brought to relate to the main character and hope he has a happy ending. While I usually don’t agree to such one-sided characters, Capra handles this really well, and this is supported by the building up of the story. This is seen widely as a Christmas film, however most of the film doesn’t take place during Christmas, but I understand why it is seen as such. Particularly because of the message of helping others and all that jazz, but this sort of thing doesn’t detract from the films quality. The film does move into darker territory later on, and these parts are really good and uncomfortable. This is really where Jimmy Stewart shines, managing to balance the emotions of the character in a really impressive way. This part also contains one of the best close-ups I’ve ever seen in cinema history, with James Stewart turning towards the camera and the background being skewed. The structure of the film does build up expectation of ruin, and this is one of the things that make the film seem interesting throughout. The conclusion is also one of the most wonderful I’ve seen, and gives the audience a feeling of satisfaction.

It’s a Wonderful Life has become one of my favourite films, and is deservedly so a classic. James Stewart gives a fantastic and sympathetic performance, and the supporting cast likewise gives the story depth. There is quite a bit of sub-text running throughout the film, and this gives audiences a reason to re-watch the film over and over again. I actually wasn’t that looking forward to this, but saw it as a film I just had to watch due to it being a classic. But it turned out to be fantastic. I’m definitely going to watch more Frank Capra films.