The Cabin in the Cotton (1932)

The Blakes are a tenant farmer family struggling to survive and the Norwoods are the sharecropper family that is struggling to keep their power over their tenants. The Blakes oldest son, Marvin (Richard Barthelmess) wants to go to school and educate himself. After a struggle, the sharecropper patriarch Lane agrees to help send him if he works in the store and keeps his books for him. Soon Marvin is torn between the two different allegiances perfectly portrayed by two love interests - Betty (Dorothy Jordan) a tenant farmer's daughter and Madge (Bette Davis) the sharecropper's daughter. As tensions rise between the two factions, Marvin must decide how serve both sides and make peace.

Bette Davis trying to rub off Richard Barthelmess' awful makeup

I have to say that the biggest drawback to this one for me was Richard Barthelmess. First of all, this is another example of Hollywood's obsession with casting old men in parts for young men. Secondly, dear Richard is really from the era of silent film and it screams it in this film given that he is wearing more makeup than Bette Davis. Lastly, I just didn't feel that he was passionate. He was incredibly stiff and kinda looked like an unfrozen caveman barely moving his lips and showing no emotion. He just ... didn't do it for me.

On the other hand, Bette was a complete delight. At first her character seems to be flirting with him just because she is curious and he happens to be around. Given this is pre-code, at one point she strips off-camera to lure him into her bed, saucy minx that she is. This is also the film where she delivers the completely quirky line "I'd like to kiss you but I just washed my hair!" She totally steals this film and blows unfrozen caveman off the screen with her exciting performance.

I really enjoyed this one. Not only because of Bette's not-so-nice girl performance, but the movie is much more. Michael Curtiz really did a great job of lining up some beautiful shots in the compact 78 min run time. The script is really good with the daring social commentary (again, a nice pre-code touch). In addition, there are some interesting music elements mixed throughout. These are the types of movies that I wish the younger generation had someone mentoring them to make sure they studied. Movies like these showcase a time period that is foreign to most current generations and clearly show how hard a struggle it was for basic necessities for many people. When watching a film like this, the hope is one will begin to think about the generations of folks before you whose shoulders are so proudly holding you up even today. At least, that is what I thought about at the end of this movie.

If you haven't seen this one, search it out on TCM - it is definitely worth watching.

Central Park (1932)

Two down-on-their-luck depression era people, Rick and Dot, meet and have an instant spark in Central Park. The vow to meet later that day. Dot (Joan Blondell), somehow gets mixed up in a supposed sting operation while Rick (Wallace Ford) gets kidnapped for his involvement with Dot. Add to that an escaped lion as well as an escaped lunatic zoo keeper and you have the makings of a zany drama.

Lobby Card for Central Park

This is only 60 minutes long and packs a ton of plot into that short time. For most movies I would applaud brevity and packing it in, but in this case I felt like it was a bunch of stuff thrown together that never really had time to resolve. I mean, by the end the big plot is resolved, but you end up with a quick scene to resolve the lion and then policeman making a side comment about the escaped lunatic. Why even bother, really?

Also, I really disliked the fact that Rick goes through all this trouble to rescue the girl. He finally gets to her and is like "Oh, hi, yeah, I am an idiot so I am going to go chase the bad guys. Take care of yourself." Okay, he doesn't actually SAY that, but after his sole motivation was to help the girl, when he gets to her, he doesn't stay with her to see if she is okay and protect her? What ever happened to chivalry? He isn't in law enforcement, he is an out of work guy, why on earth would he steal a car and start chasing bad guys when there were like, a zillion policemen there?

So that is what I didn't like about this one. What did I like? I loved Joan Blondell. She was a dream in this - I loved the snappy way she cracked out that dialogue. I also loved that she really seemed to be one of those women who could take care of herself. I really enjoyed watching her entire performance.

I also liked seeing Guy Kibbee as a policeman that is integral to the plot. I liked seeing him because it proved to me he was a good character actor and not the true idiot with the fluttering eyelashes like in "The Dark Horse". He was such a good actor in "The Dark Horse" that he had me convinced he must be an idiot, but apparently not.

I recommend this to any movie buff out there. It is always good to see these early films and see directors and actors try to sort out their crafts and this business of making movies. I love pre-code so that is a bonus too. For the average movie goer that is just wanting to dip their toes in early movies, I would give a huge list of other pre-codes to watch before this one. This one isn't bad, but didn't really sparkle as a great example. However, it is a good one to watch for us die-hards out there. :-)

The Dark Horse (1932)

The Progressive Party is hopelessly deadlocked with trying to nominate a candidate for Governor. One side of the deadlock has a brilliant idea. They decide to nominate a "dark horse" candidate from the same county their competition is from so that the votes will be split and their guy will be nominated. Unfortunately, the other deadlocked side realizes what they are trying to do and decide to vote the "dark horse" candidate in rather than lose altogether. Of course, neither side knows anything about the "dark horse" candidate, other than his name, so now they are stuck trying to get a moon-faced, blithering idiot named Zachary Hicks (Guy Kibbee) into the Governor's spot. Enter Kay Russell (Bette Davis), the party's secretary, who has the answer to all their problems. Her boyfriend Hal Blake (Warren William) is a brilliant campaign manager who could run a successful campaign to get a turnip elected president. The party agrees to hire him and the antics are off and running.

Guy Kibbee, Vivienne Osborne and Warren William in "The Dark Horse"

This is a great political satire and Warren William is awesome, awesome, awesome in it. His performance crackles with energy. He is such a character - so charming. You know he is a bit of a shyster, but he is so good at being a shyster that you don't even care. He can launch into an impassioned speech at the drop of the hat to make you believe anything that he is trying to sell to you and ... you enjoy the sales pitch. Here is a perfect example, from after a sheriff breaks down his door, which he knew was coming and plays it so outraged and almost pious it is hilarious:

"What do you ruffians mean by breaking in like this? Is there no privacy in America? Has the time passed when a man's home is his castle? When you smash in my door, the laws of America crash around our heads. This is outrageous!!!!"

I remember Warren William from "Three On A Match", but didn't think too much about him then - he didn't stand out to me. In this role, not only did he stand out but he literally jumped off the screen! I can't wait to see him in more movies.

Every time I watch an early Bette Davis film I am always struck with her beauty. She looks very little like she did when she got older and really gained popularity. She looks like a cute sorority girl. She does well with the role of ... I guess the ingenue here. It is obvious that the studio didn't really know what they had yet and put her in cutesy roles where she could be sassy, but not fierce like she would be later in her career.

The supporting cast is great - which would actually include Bette Davis as supporting cast, but I have already talked about her. Guy Kippee plays Zachary Hicks, the idiot candidate, and boy does he play idiot well. I love the campaign slogan, "Vote for Hicks from the Sticks". He also has this weird way of smiling, where he bats his eyelashes like a girl, which makes him seem even more idiotic. I swear, either he is a true idiot or a great character actor. I think Warren William's character sums the candidate up best when asked what he thought of him after first meeting him. He said, "He's the dumbest human being I ever saw. Every time he opens his mouth he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." Ouch.

Also, I shouldn't leave out Vivienne Osborne. She plays Hal Blake's ex-wife and even though I didn't mention her at all in the plot synopsis, she plays heavily into the plot later in the film. She is pretty ... pretty calculating, that is. I kept going back and forth on my feelings about her because in one scene she seems like she might be nice, but later, you realize she is really only out to bleed anyone and everyone she can. I have to ask, how on earth did that woman get $400 / week alimony in 1932?!?!?!?! That is $1,600 a month!! In 1932?!?!?!?!

Lastly, I want to mention Frank McHugh as Joe. Joe is the go-to-guy (or crony, I guess) for Hal Blake's character. I really loved the scene where he is insulting Zachary Hicks, without realizing that the person he is talking to is actually Hicks himself. When someone calls out Hicks name and the guy walks off, Joe realizes what he has done. He takes off his hat and starts beating his head against the wall. I laughed out loud because, good golly, I have wanted to do that many times myself.

I love political satire and social commentary about the American public. They do this in a light humorous way and tossed other elements in to keep the movie interesting for everyone. The performances are great too. If this film comes on TV (it isn't available on DVD) I highly recommend you watch it. I don't think anyone would be disappointed with it.

Female (1933)

I will start out by saying I loved that they explored gender role reversal in 1933. They put a woman as a top executive in a male dominated field (which most everything was then). Not only did they have her working in a man's role, but they showed her acting like a man in her personal life. What a freakin' awesome statement and progressive movie in 1933!! Of course, there are flaws which we will discuss, but I guess we will take what we can get.

Ruth Chatterton longing for a vodka-hazed man

The general idea of the movie is Alison Drake (Ruth Chatterton) is the owner of an automobile factory. She works hard like a man and plays hard like a man. She uses her attractive male employees as evening entertainment until they profess feelings for her. Then she has the lovelorn transferred far away so as not to annoy her with their insipid feelings and grotesque gestures. Of course, as you might guess, she runs into a newly hired engineer named Jim Thorne (George Brent) who does not come when she gives the come hither look. From that point on it is a battle of wills, but who's will is strongest?

One of my favorite scenes was the seduction of poor old Cooper. After plying him with vodka and being all sweet and feminine, he had no chance. She asks him, "Are you naturally enthusiastic?" followed with a toss of a pillow on the floor, a twinkle in her eye and a wry smile. Oh, she was one saucy minx!

I have to say that I find it fascinating that according to her birth date on imdb.com - she was 40 when she made this movie!! She looked fabulous. We talk about how 40 is the new 30 now, well, apparently it was then too. Not only that, but I think I admire the bravery of the movie even more to show a sexy 40 year old cavorting around with young men.

At one point Alison says, "You know, a long time ago, I decided to travel the same open road that men travel. So I treat men the exact way they've treated women." Mighty bold Miss Alison.

I also love the scene where her she is in misery because her male secretary professes his love. This scene is great for several reasons. The first reason is Pettigrew, her assistant, played by Ferdinand Gottschalk. I noticed him earlier, but his cheekiness won me over here. As her secretary sits there, she tells Pettigrew that the secretary, Briggs, must be transferred to Montreal immediately and to make the arrangements. Pettigrew, knowing exactly why he must be transferred, delights in tormenting him with a sing-song "Ohhhhhhh ... does Mr. Briggs WANT to go to Montreal?" The second reason I loved this scene is for her edict that she will only have a sensible female secretary from then on. She asks Pettigrew to line up interviews with sensible woman and says, "And remember, it takes more than flat heels and glasses to make a sensible woman."

I really enjoyed George Brent in his role as well. Jim Thorpe tried desperately to avoid the vodka trap she laid out for him while being stern and maintaining his dignity. I think I have seen George Brent in two movies now and both times I thought he was a bit stiff in his performance at first. I am not sure if that is by his design or if I am not used to him as an actor yet. It took no time for me to definitely appreciate him. I especially loved when he was working on the automatic transmission and that cute curl of hair fell across his forehead. I am always a goner for that look. :-)

Before I get to the joke they called the ending, I will add that I thought it odd that Ruth Chatterton spent most of her time naked, kinda. I am not talking about the bedroom type scenes. They had that poor woman take two or three showers during this short one hour movie! What exactly was up with that? She must have been the cleanest, dirty girl out there in the 30s :-)

Now, I need to discuss two parts about the ending. So if you haven't seen it and don't want to see the ending, please skip all this.

********************************SPOILERS***********************************

The part that I was a bit confused about was when Alison broke down in the directors meeting and ran to her office. Pettigrew said to her that he had been expecting that to happen. Basically because, "You are just a woman after all (so you can't run a big business you silly little thing)". I felt betrayed by Pettigrew since he seemed to really support Alison. He seemed to be pretty proud of her and how tough she was. I have to admit, I quickly thought of him as a toadie and got pretty angry with him being supportive one minute and sexist to her the next. Then, after a bit of reflection, I began to think about why he said that to her. I started to think that maybe he was just trying to goad her into bucking up and charging back in there like a strong woman. What does anyone else think about that scene? I thought he was goading her because in the next scene when she ran out to go chase her man, he acted terribly upset. If he really were sexist and wanted to see her out of the comapny, he would have been thrilled to she her chasing a man down. So, that makes me think he wasn't being sexist, just trying to get her back on track. Anyone have thoughts about this?

Lastly, the dreadful end of the movie. I hated it. HATED IT. I definitely support a woman's right to choose to stay at home just like I support a woman's right to choose to have a career. That is what feminism is all about to me - having the right to do what you want for yourself. The reason I **HATED** the ending is because it seemed like such a sexist cop out! It is totally unrealistic to me that she would be happy to just be subservient to her man and play house while he goes off and runs her company. It was such a drastic change that it makes no logical sense. If they had simply left it with her running the company and him doing great engineering work that made the company successful too, it would have been brilliant. What a team they would have been! I am not sure if the censors forced this kind of an ending on them (like in the cut version of "Baby Face" with the bad ending) or if the studio was afraid of public opinion or what exactly motivated this, but it shouldn't have been done that way. End of story.

*******************************END SPOILERS*********************************

Even though I SERIOUSLY hated the ending, I would still say this is a very worthwhile movie. Just watching a woman in a power position in the 1930s makes it worth watching, despite the "bite the big wiener" ending.

Baby Face (1933)

Let me start with how much I thoroughly loved this movie. What a treat. I am going to take a different path on this and make use of a wonderful review by my friend Jenny where she describes the plot much more cleverly than I could. So click here and read that first, don't forget to read the comments below, then we will get started dissecting the details I want to talk about. :-)

Stanwyck getting ready to adjust a man's attitude with a beer bottle

I love the tagline that is listed for this movie: "She climbed the ladder of success - wrong by wrong!" ha ha.

I wanted to focus this blog about the two different movie versions. The version that had been known to the world prior to 2004 was the original theatrical release. Meaning it is the version that was cut up by the New York State Board of Censors after they demanded many changes and cuts. In 2004, someone in the Library of Congress happened to notice that of the two reels of "Baby Face" one of the reels had more footage. They investigated and realized it was a duped copy of the movie as it was meant to be, prior to the censors getting their fingers in the mix. So, more than 70 years later, the pre-release version was found and finally viewed.

I find it really surprising the number of cuts and changes that were made. Yes, some of them seem rather obvious, but the number of cuts of seemingly rather innocuous lines surprised me. For anyone interested, click here for a document from Warner Brothers, detailing all the changes that were made due to censor demands. Don't worry, I will go over some of the more obvious ones if you don't want to click and read the whole document.

One of the most obvious cuts they would make is to what I affectionately call the "exploitation" scene where Cragg the cobbler tells Lily to use what she has. The un-cut version goes something like him saying: "Exploit yourself. Go to some big city where you will find opportunities. Use men. Be strong! Defiant. Use men to get the things you want." In the theatrical version it is: "There is a right and a wrong way. Remember the price of the wrong way is too great. Go to some big city where you will find opportunities. Don't let people mislead you. Be clean, be strong, be defiant and you will be a success." Pfft.

In the theatrical version, they also took out her "paying" her and Chico's way to ride in the rail car. It is a shame too because I really loved how Chico just smiled when she realized what Lily had in mind, and walked to the other end of the car singing a nice song.

Also, in the un-cut version, Cragg the cobbler sends her another Nietzsche book for Christmas. He calls her attention to this passage: "Face life as you find it, defiantly and unafraid. Waste no energy yearning for the moon. Crush out all sentiment." In the theatrical release, they instead show a written letter from Cragg chastising her for choosing "the wrong way". He tells her she needs to regain her self respect and use the book to guide her right. Of course, they never show any descriptor of the book that is supposed to guide her right as Nietzsche would not be the book they would have in mind.

The biggest difference is the ending. So yet again, if I haven't already completely spoiled it for you, the ending will be discussed so skip if you don't want it to be known.

**********************************SPOILER**************************************

In the un-cut version, the last scene is of Lily and Courtland in the ambulance where she says the money in the case doesn't matter and the EMT tells her he has a good chance.

In the theatrical version, they toss in the most absurd and depressing scene in the whole movie! The cut from the ambulance to the board of directors office at the bank. They make it clear that Courtland survived and that he and Lily are happy together. They say that Courtland and Lily gave up all their money and possessions to help get the bank running again. Then they moved to Pittsburgh so Courtland could be a steel mill worker.

Now, is it just me, but didn't she hate being across from the steel mills when she was in the speakeasy? Why on earth, now that she knows better, would she ever go back there? Even penniless they could have found opportunities elsewhere. It is the worst possible ending for Lily. I think she would have rather used Courtland's gun to put a bullet through her own brain instead of being dragged back to that horrible life.

******************************END SPOILERS********************************

I really loved everything about this movie except the part of Lily dumping Chico at the end. That seemed really unforgivable and unnecessary. I loved Stanwyck's gritty acting and bravery at playing such a bad girl. I love the emotion when she told her father what she thought of him. "Yeah, I'm a tramp, and who's to blame? My father. A swell start you gave me. Ever since I was 14, what's it been? Nothing but men! Dirty rotten men! And you're lower than any of them! I'll hate you as long as I live!"

It is interesting to see both versions back to back, but of course, I highly recommend the un-cut version. I can't believe such a great movie was cut up and ruined for so long. Shame on them.