Grand Hotel (1932)

Directed by Edmund Goulding
Starring Greta Garbo, John Barrymore and Joan Crawford
Produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Ensemble films are notoriously difficult affairs. Multiple characters in overlapping storylines can leave audiences unsatisfied.  The director has to be a tightrope walker: balancing plot elements and making sure everyone gets their screen time only to find in the end that viewers liked that character but hated that story.

If it's a small miracle that these types of movies succeed, then Grand Hotel turns water into wine.  The film follows a destitute Baron (John Barrymore) who is both a jewel thief and in love with the famous dancer Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo).  The Baron befriends Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore), a lifetime employee of General Director Preysing's (Wallace Beery).  Kringelein is dying and looking to use his remaining money to live life to the fullest.  For his part, Preysing is teetering on the edge of financial ruin and hires the beautiful stenographer Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford) to help him with his affairs.  Preysing likes the woman, but Flaemmchen is smitten with the Baron.

Did you get all of that?

The connective tissue between the players and stories is the location: The Grand Hotel in Berlin.  The hotel is effectively another character in the film.  We can feel the pulse of the movie in its lobby.  Rooms seem to morph from places of romance to ones of foreboding.  And we can never leave the hotel.  When characters head out its front doors, we cannot follow.  The tone constantly shifts and director Edmund Goulding takes full advantage of his locale.

If there is a surprise here, it is just how subversive Grand Hotel is in its themes. For a big Hollywood spectacle packed with stars, the movie is dark almost to the point of being nihilistic.  Of our main characters, one leaves the hotel in a body bag, another in handcuffs, and a third for a train station to meet a lover we all know is not showing up, a fact the hotel itself seems to conspire to conceal.

One of the few hopeful notes seems to be struck by Kringelein, who leaves the hotel with Flaemmchen for Paris to find a doctor who can heal him. But Kringelein's hopes strike me as false.  They are no more than a way to placate Flaemmchen's desperation. The Paris trip is more a way to pass the time with a girl who is his only true remaining friend.  It's a way to give her purpose for a little while.

The only other true hopeful moment comes from a minor character, a porter. As the film ends, he receives a call from the hospital.  His wife is having a baby.  Perhaps we can look forward to the future.

Or perhaps not.  Dr. Otternschlag, a permanent resident of the Grand Hotel, seems to act as the voice of the place. And he closes the film repeating a line he said at the beginning:

"Grand Hotel. People come and go. Nothing ever happens."

Indeed. Robberies and murder. Love and hatred. Death and birth.  All are consequential to the players. But the hotel just goes on.  Whether you leave the hotel for a train station or the morgue, there is always another guest waiting to check in.

Grand Hotel is about as perfect as an ensemble film gets.  It balances all of its elements and has something to say.  It's a masterpiece of the pre-Code era.

***** out of *****

Read More

Svengali (1931)

Directed by Archie Mayo

Starring John Barrymore, Marian Marsh and Donald Crisp

Produced by Warner Bros.

This usually where I would do the plot summary, so here it goes: 

A guy who is teaching music actually has mind control powers and takes control of a beautiful woman making her fall in love with him. It ends badly for them. The end. 

There's obviously a lot more to Svengali, but that's the gist. 

I hated this film. It's sloppily constructed, overacted and dull. 

How so? The film wants to set up Svengali as this mythical, evil yet tragic monster of a man, someone who would take control of a woman's mind and make her commit suicide. Or who would control the woman he lusts for and force her to love him. 

And how do you build such a beast? By making him the center of a comedic, almost slapstick opening, of course. Have this evil, tragic figure give music lessons to a terrible singer, rolling his eyes and cringing the whole time. If he's silly, we will take him even more seriously at the end, right? 

I don't know if the thought was to combine the pathos and comedy of a Charlie Chaplin film with the horror and tragedy of Lon Chaney, but that appears to be the goal. And it's about as effective as mixing oil and water and throwing in some pickles for good measure. It's a recipe that just never comes together. 

You could make the argument that the true purpose of Svengali is to give John Barrymore a reason to put on a lot of make up and mug for the camera. There it succeeds in spades. Barrymore seems unaware that the over-emotive acting necessary for silent films is not necessary in a talkie. Your movements can be more subtle. 

Any of the above could be slightly forgivable if Svengali was entertaining on some level. It's not. It's repetitive and dull. In its comedic moments, it approaches its punchlines with all the grace of my three year old pretending to be a ninja. It grabs its jokes and pummels them into submission. 

When it is time for drama, we get the same moments over and over again, with the added problem of Barrymore delivering his lines with the speed of a cartoon turtle. It's excruciating to endure. 

What's good about Svengali? The lighting effect that happens with Barrymore's face when he is hypnotizing someone is kind of neat. Other than that.... 

* out of *****

Read More

The Beloved Rogue (1927)

Directed by Alan Crosland
Starring John Barrymore, Conrad Veidt and Marceline Day
Produced by Feature Productions

It's 15th century Paris and King Louis XI controls his country not from a majestic throne room, but from the shadowy depths of his castle.  He knows that the Duke of Burgundy poses a political threat and must consult his most trusted advisor: the royal astrologer.

Louis is superstitious and terrified, but he sees the the challenge Burgundy poses.  The king consults the stars through his astrologer and is told that a battle with Burgundy will end in defeat. The sniveling king reluctantly agrees to embrace his foe as a brother.  Of course, it's not entirely clear that the astrologer is basing his decision on the heavens or on payments from Burgundy.

Meanwhile, François Villon, son of a martyred patriot, rules the streets of Paris.  He's a renowned poet, but also engages in his share of petty thievery.  He is elected King of Fools by the common folk who worship him and a raucous celebration breaks out in the streets.

The mob scene is a major inconvenience for Burgundy and his approaching entourage.  The duke orders the crowd to disperse, which leads to a healthy dose of mockery from Villon.  For all his failings, the poet remains a patriot and understands the danger Burgundy poses to the king.

Of course, the superstitious king must side with Burgundy or he feels forces of fate and destiny will overthrow him.  He exiles Villon from Paris, but not before our hero gets his first view of Charlotte de Vauxcelle, the beautiful noblewoman and soon-to-be unwilling bride of Burgundy.

Outside his beloved city, Villon finds an opportunity for mischief.  He and his friends steal a wagon of the king's food, climb the city walls and use a catapult to deliver the food to the starving masses of Paris.  When the king's troops converge, he jumps into the catapult himself to escape.

Now the king wants him dead and he can't run forever?  Will Villon convince the king to face the real bad guy?  Or does he have a date with the guillotine?

The Beloved Rogue shouldn't work.  It's a silly film.  Barrymore's performance is bad.  His love interest is completely and utterly forgettable.  The plot turns 180 degrees on a dime.

But damn if I didn't have a good time.

At the start, the tone is completely inconsistent.  We start with the burning at the stake of Villon's father when François is still an infant.  His wife is screaming, trying to get to the fire.  The next morning she somberly walks to the pile of ashes that was her husband, grabs a handful and loads it into a locket.

Next scene? The infant François won't drink his milk unless it's loaded into a wine bottle.  Funny, right?

Then we fast forward to the bowels Louis' castle and we are in a horror movie.  The it's the adult Villon being silly on the rooftops of Paris.

The tone never completely rights itself, but the pendulum-like swings slow down.  We start to understand that François' playful, carefree attitude masks deeper passions.  He cavorts with women until he meets "the one."  He engages in petty crime until he figures a way into the king's court, then he's the crown's most trusted advisor, the only one capable of telling truth to power.

Key to the film's success are its inventive set pieces.  From catapulting fruit into the city to the chase that ensues, all of the film's movements are dictated by what would be fun, not what would be suspenseful or realistic.  When Villon drops into a barrel carried by four men, it's not a surprise that none of those hoisting the barrel notice the additional 150 pounds.  And it's not a surprise that the barrel is brought into a room with a bear.  It's nonsensical, but it also delights.  And in the world this film creates?  It's the natural order of things.

A key part of the film's appeal is some over-the-top performances.  Barrymore runs around a snow-covered Paris in Robin Hood tights, over-emoting and sporadically dancing every time a fit of happiness hits him.  It's bad, but it's so bad it's good.  The manic energy of the performance fits the material.  He seems to be having fun and you can't help but smile along.

Conrad Veidt makes a fantastically slimy Louis.  His humpback shuffling across every scene, his sideways glances at his astrologer to see what he should do at every turn, his palpable disgust for Burgundy even as he defends his honor... he's brilliant at every turn.  There is a central moment where Villon convinces Louis to spare his life and if you buy the exchange at all, it's only because of the good will Veidt has built up.

The climax features lots of buildup, but no real pay off.  Burgundy is preparing to execute Villon in front of Charlotte and a crowd of Parisians.  However, we start seeing that much of the assembly are Villon's men.  They start producing carefully concealed weapons, removing fake limbs, sometimes even assembling improvised hatchets.  Then the moment comes and... Louis reveals himself hidden in the crowd and orders Burgundy arrested.  No battle.  The scene doesn't so much end as peter out.

The Beloved Rogue is not a good film.  It's not a bad one either.  It's an entertaining diversion.  And sometimes that's enough.

***1/2 out of *****

Read More

Beau Brummel (1924)

Directed by Harry Beaumont
Starring John Barrymore, Mary Astor, Willard Louis
Produced by Warner Bros. Pictures

George Brummel is frustrated and angry.  The woman he loves is marrying into aristocracy and he, a lowly commoner in the army, is left on the outside looking in.  He is angry at his station in life and angry with society.  He wants vengeance...

So he establishes himself as one of the great fashion and culture trendsetters of the late 1700s.  See, because then he can make people wear silly hairstyles and...

Okay, I'm a little fuzzy on what the actual plot for vengeance is.  It honestly appears that all Beau Brummel really wants is to put himself into position to sit next to the prince and backhandedly compliment him constantly.  As retribution goes, it seems lacking, but whatever works, right?

Ultimately, Beau tries to seduce a lady of the court and the prince who has been his sponsor sends him off to France.  He loses his fortune and  ends up in a prison hospital stark raving mad.  Can he still end up with the woman he loves?

Beau Brummel is boring.  Its plot is nonsensical and almost funny, which is decidedly not the tone the film is going for.

John Barrymore is terrific in the lead role.  He has a sense of arrogance and humor that is infectious to watch.  Unfortunately, it is all in service to a story that is poorly developed.

The main failing of the film is the way the plot skips over the most interesting aspects of the story.  We start with Brummel imploring his girl not to get married.  Why is this aristocrat and commoner together?  Don't know.  Then we cut to a scene where Brummel and the prince are BFFs.  Again, how did Brummel link up with the prince.  Sorry, the film is not interested in that.  Next, Brummel is the toast of England, setting every fashion trend.  How did he become so influential?  That must be in a different movie.

The problem with this approach is the audience is told a lot of information it is never shown.

There is one small moment in the film that I thought was well realized.  Brummel has just let go his long time servant, partly because the beau has no money and partly because the man attempted to speak with the prince on his behalf.  Brummel is forced to serve himself a meal for the first time and is flummoxed. He can't even cut his own food.  It's a great character moment that shows just how pathetic the once mighty lead has become.

Ultimately, Beau Brummel wastes some lavish sets and a standout lead performance on a silly and plodding plot.  Unless your entertainment alternative is watching water boil or paint dry, skip this one.

*1/2 out of *****

Read More

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Jekyll becomes Hyde

Directed by John S. Robertson
Starring John Barrymore, Charles Lane and Brandon Hurst
Produced by Famous Players-Lasky Corporation

Dr. Henry Jekyll is a paragon of virtue.  When he's not seeing to his experiments in his laboratory, he is operating a free clinic to take care of the poor.  His fiancee, Millicent Carew, is in love with him, but finds herself playing second fiddle to his other pursuits.  Her father George believe that Jekyll is suppressing his baser instincts and that resisting temptation is ultimately unhealthy.  He takes the idealistic doctor out for a night on the town, and, after meeting the exotic Gina, Jekyll finds his faith shaken.

However, he channels that into a new quest.  He wants to separate the good aspect of man (the soul) from the evil traits inherent in all men.  Jekyll formulates a drug that turns him into the embodiment of carnal lust and rage, a creature he names Mr. Hyde.  Jekyll's alter ego can do all of the things the doctor dare not, including loving and leaving Gina.  But as the villainous Hyde begins harboring more murderous feelings, Dr. Jekyll begins to lose control over his transformations.  Can the good doctor put his evil doppleganger under wraps or is it already too late to save his soul and the woman he loves?

I love Victorian era dramas and horrors.  Not just any, but those that ping pong between the upper crust of society and the foreboding gas-lit shadows of a dreary London.  This movie oozes atmosphere in a way that you cannot get from any other period or any other place.  The interiors are lush and opulent and the exteriors are dingy and menacing. A perfect setting for the strange case of Jekyll and Hyde.

John Barrymore plays both the good doctor and his alter ego and he is fantastic in both.  Early on, when he transforms into Hyde, it is all a trick of facial contortion and the way he sets his eyes.  The make-up comes later and only accentuates the look Barrymore gives the character.  Unlike later versions, the monster he creates seems human and that makes him all the more frightening.

Barrymore is also very good as the doctor.  Understated at first, the viewer can feel his desperation and frustration as he loses control over Hyde.  The evil aspect of his role is more showy, but he carries off the more subtle aspects well.

The rest of the cast does well in their roles, with the exception of Martha Mansfield as Millicent.  She does a lot of staring at nothing with little to no emotion. When she finds out about the death of a loved one, she does not look sad as much as annoyed, as though someone just informed her toilet paper was stuck to her shoe.

The movie poses some interesting if simplistic food for thought about the nature of good and evil.  Jekyll is good, Hyde is evil.  Yet Jekyll's desire to experience evil without repercussion is what sets the drama in motion.  Hyde may ultimately fail in his relationships, but at least he puts forth some effort.  Jekyll's work may be altruistic but it ultimately keeps those would love him at arm's length.  Jekyll's vision is clearly not right.  Should we yield to temptation to keep our sanity as George suggests.  Or is it better to simply not dabble in such supernatural thoughts as Jekyll's friend Lanyon admonishes him at the outset.

Needless to say, I loved this movie. Much better than the 1912 version.  Definitely recommend.

****1/2 out of *****

Watched on Netflix Watch Instantly

Read More