Your Favourite Performances from 1930 to present are...

[TomJH]

If I've seen fifteen of the films Bogie hasn't, there are many more of the ones he's seen that I haven't! THE AFFAIRS OF CELLINI is hard to come by, if I remember correctly.

 

 

Since Affairs of Cellini is a 1934 Fox film, I wouldn't hold my breath in expectations that TCM will show it one day. However, it can be found as a Fox DVD on amazon (and the Fox channel has also shown it in the past, as well).

 

This is a really entertaining, largely tongue-in-cheek costume adventure, with solid performances from all of the cast. Personally, though, I feel that Frank Morgan steals the film. He spends a lot of time trying to sneak around behind his wife's back as he wants to have an affair with beautiful but oh so dumb Fay Wray - bumbling all the way, of course.

 

[Bogie56]

Since Affairs of Cellini is a 1934 Fox film, I wouldn't hold my breath in expectations that TCM will show it one day. However, it can be found as a Fox DVD on amazon (and the Fox channel has also shown it in the past, as well).

 

This is a really entertaining, largely tongue-in-cheek costume adventure, with solid performances from all of the cast. Personally, though, I feel that Frank Morgan steals the film. He spends a lot of time trying to sneak around behind his wife's back as he wants to have an affair with beautiful but oh so dumb Fay Wray - bumbling all the way, of course.

 

 

Yes, thankfully The Affairs of Cellini was finally released to dvd.  I had purchased what I guess was a bootleg years ago at an exorbitant price.

I was really taken with Fay Wray in this film.  She was my top choice for Supporting Actress.  Yes, she is quite dumb but her lines are so well written that her daffy remarks cut the men to the quick.  Great stuff.

[Kay]

The Affairs of Cellini is also on YT. It's a pretty good print, too.

[TomJH]

The Affairs of Cellini is also on YT. It's a pretty good print, too.

 

I didn't know it was there. Yes, it's a very nice print.

[TomJH]

Here are the films from 1934 that were mentioned that I have not seen as yet.  (Gulp)  I hope I do better when we hit 1935.

 

 

Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back with Ronald Colman

 

For years, Ronald Colman's sequel to Bulldog Drummond was all but impossible to find. There are versions of this Fox film around now, though, and here's a link to one:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zo515_bulldog-drummond-strikes-back-1934-feature_shortfilms

 

It's another delightful tongue-in-cheek romp, in my opinion, pretty much the equal of Colman's first go round in the part. Loretta Young is a very beautiful leading lady, Warner Oland is a great villain, and Ronald Colman is dashing and at his devil-may-care best. The print here is a little washed out and the sound a bit out of sync but it's better than nothing. Highly recommended (especially for those who liked Colman's 1929 Drummond film).

 

[Kay]

This isn't everything by a long shot, but it's a good start on the films I really look forward to seeing.

 

Crime Without Passion

The Man Who Reclaimed His Head
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Heat Lightning
Catherine the Great

The Cat's Paw

Babes in Toyland

Six of a Kind
Stingaree

Four Frightened People

Black Moon

The Black Cat

The Clairvoyant

Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back
The Case of the Howling Dog

Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch
Sing as We Go!
La Signora Di Tutti
Jew Suss

Les Miserables
The Scarlet Empress
Little Man, What Now?
Of Human Bondage

 

I'd like to see again:

 

L'Atalante

It Happened One Night

The Lost Patrol

[Kay]

Some people said they hadn't seen No Greater Glory. I saw it during the spotlight Second Looks, focusing on films that were poorly received upon their release, (a theme I'd like to see return.) It's an atypical film, to be sure, but one I found oddly compelling. It's about a group a neighborhood kids who play in an empty lot, but in order to defend it from an opposing gang of older kids they have organized into something resembling an army. They even have a uniform. One of the children, particularly small and weak but very patriotic, is turned away from service and wears no uniform. Over the course of the film he tries to prove himself to his countrymen and share in the glory.

 

Maybe this, being an anti-war allegory played out by children, came off strangely to most audiences. Most of the cast is children, with adults only in supporting roles as the curiously neglectful parents, (to take the story literally causes some questions.) The cast carries the film very well. George Breakston gives a moving performance in the central role; and Jimmy Butler plays it very adult as the stalwart leader of the lot, (I had a hard time deciding whether he was a supporter or co-star.) The plot turns heavily melodramatic, but remains fascinating and unique. I find it's one that returns to my mind often.

 

Trivia: George Breakston, a popular child actor in his day, would go on to direct low-budget horror and thriller films like The Manster (1959), (I haven't seen it, but maybe Lawrence has?)

[TomJH]

Some people said they hadn't seen No Greater Glory.

 

 

I agree that No Greater Glory is a unique and oddly touching anti-war allegory. A great irony, too, is the fact that Jimmy Butler would be killed eleven years later in France, a war casualty.

[LawrenceA]

Trivia: George Breakston, a popular child actor in his day, would go on to direct low-budget horror and thriller films like The Manster (1959), (I haven't seen it, but maybe Lawrence has?)

 

You bet I have. It was the best eyeball-growing-in-your-shoulder movie of 1959

 

[Kay]

You bet I have. It was the best eyeball-growing-in-your-shoulder movie of 1959

 

Somehow I find it hard to believe that it isn't the best one of all time, but you're the expert.

[GregoryPeckfan]

I just watched The Girl From Missouri.  It still made it into the week of 1934 so I feel I can talk about it here and avoid the spammers in General Discussions.

 

I LOVE this movie.

 

Harlow, Barrymore, Tone, Stone, Pendleton  everyone is one of my favourites.

 

Pre-code comedies/films are such fun and it is a short film at around 75 minutes or so (the recording was 1 hour and 18 minutes, I mean).

 

It is never boring.

 

Fun, fun, fun.

[Bogie56]

There are a few films where determining the year for our purposes is a little tricky.  One thing is for sure, we should not go strictly by the Oscar competition for this is really just the Los Angeles film festival in that a film has to play in that city to qualify.  So, even though Casablanca won the Oscar for 1943 we should all consider it a 1942 film based on its release that year in New York City.  This will also help with foreign films that often don’t even make it to Los Angeles for several years after their initial release at home.  Also, I have come across a few films where I consider the release date on the imdb to be incorrect.  I will note them as we go along and you can either follow my lead and shift the year or just follow the imdb or wikipedia.  It isn’t that important after all.

With regards the Claude Rains film The Clairvoyant aka The Evil Mind I have chosen the 1934 wikipedia release date over the 1935 imdb date.

I had long considered The Story of Louis Pasteur to be released in 1935 even though the imdb, wikipedia and the Oscars clearly note that it was released in 1936.  Pasteur, and I cannot now remember my source, had its premiere in November 1935.  This may have been a studio, rather than a public event so I am now going with the flow and accepting 1936 as its general release date.

While A Tale of Two Cities competed in the 1936 Oscars it was released in New York in December 1935 so I am going with 1935 for A Tale.

Tom and I have previously wondered which year to place Fredric March’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  It had been in awards competition in 1932 yet according to wikipedia it had its premiere on December 31, 1931.  Because its general release followed on the very next day I chose to accept 1931 as its year for my purposes.

[TomJH]

Another tricky year for a film is CAMILLE. Both Wiki and IMBd list it as a 1936 film. Yet IMBd also gives it a release date of January 1, 1937, and Garbo was nominated as best actress for 1937 with it. So do we go with the Motion Picture Academy on this one?

 

I noticed that Leonard Maltin's review calls it a 1937 film.

[Bogie56]

Another tricky year for a film is CAMILLE. Both Wiki and IMBd list it as a 1936 film. Yet IMBd also gives it a release date of January 1, 1937, and Garbo was nominated as best actress for 1937 with it. So do we go with the Motion Picture Academy on this one?

 

I noticed that Leonard Maltin's review calls it a 1937 film.

 

I was going to get to Camille once we are about to finish 1935.  I am going with 1936.  Wikipedia states it was released in December of that year.  It probably made it to LA in 1937 hence not qualifying for the 1936 Oscars.

[TomJH]

I was going to get to Camille once we are about to finish 1935.  I am going with 1936.  Wikipedia states it was released in December of that year.  It probably made it to LA in 1937 hence not qualifying for the 1936 Oscars.

 

Fine with me. So we're going against the Oscars themselves then.

 

I wonder if the reason that MGM had Garbo compete for the '37, rather than '36, Oscar had something to do with their promotion of newcomer Luise Rainer with The Great Ziegfeld, planning to put a lot of studio block votes behind her.

 

The irony, of course, is that Rainer's Good Earth performance would then be competing as best actress with Garbo in Camille in 1937 anyway.

[Bogie56]

Fine with me. So we're going against the Oscars themselves then.

 

I wonder if the reason that MGM had Garbo compete for the '37, rather than '36, Oscar had something to do with their promotion of newcomer Luise Rainer with The Great Ziegfeld, planning to put a lot of studio block votes behind her.

 

The irony, of course, is that Rainer's Good Earth performance would then be competing as best actress with Garbo in Camille in 1937 anyway.

 

As I mentioned earlier the Oscars have always been nothing more than the Los Angeles Film Festival.  Movies have to play in that city in a given year to qualify.  We should not restrict ourselves by what happens in that one city.

The most absurd example of this had to be with Limelight (1952) when Chaplin was awarded the Music Oscar in 1973!  Limelight and not played in LA until then.

[GregoryPeckfan]

I usually go by an outside source like imdb and Wikipedia.  I do not think that they agree all the time, however.

 

By the way, it looks like I am going to have to stay home tomorrow instead of having a busy day out of the house like I usually do on Sundays.  I'm not ill, but the events that are happening tomorrow are going to be quite trying and with it being the weekend we change our clocks ahead, I talked it over with everyone and agreed that I should rest this weekend and return to rehearsal on Tuesday night as per usual.

 

Which means that I will be able to post my unique category choices tomorrow for sure.

 

Which means I better get cracking and pick them as I haven't done so yet.

[Bogie56]

It’s time for 1935.  We will be on 1935 for one week so plenty of time for everyone to respond.

 

Here are Oscar’s choices for 1935.  Winners in bold.  The Oscars did not have supporting awards this year.  Please add your choices in those categories. 

 

1935 Oscars

 

Best Actor

 

Victor McLaglen, The Informer*  

Clark Gable, Mutiny on the Bounty

Charles Laughton, Mutiny on the Bounty

Franchot Tone, Mutiny on the Bounty

 

Best Actress

 

Bette Davis, Dangerous*  

Elisabeth Bergner, Escape Me Never

Claudette Colbert, Private Worlds

Katharine Hepburn, Alice Adams

Miriam Hopkins, Becky Sharp

Merle Oberon, The Dark Angel  

 

I suppose there could be an argument for placing Franchot Tone in the Supporting category for Mutiny.  Oscar would introduce that category in 1936.  In my choices I have left him in the lead performance category but I should probably see the film again.

[Swithin]

1935 Favorites

Some great performances here. Marlene Dietrich in a film that she calls her personal favorite; Douglass Montgomery as Stephen Foster in a low-budget biopic, which really enables him to show his range as an actor; Evelyn Venable in the same film, giving a beautiful supporting performance, culminating in her final shot, as perfect a moment of acting as I've ever seen, combining myriad emotions in one silent expression; Gary Cooper in one of his best roles; Helen Gahagan in a performance of heightened language and Shakespearean intensity; Ann Harding, always great, as the beautiful and tragic duchess in the surreal Peter Ibbetson; Irene Dunne in one of her best roles, perfect in the complicated "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" scene; Bill "Bojangles" Robinson in two iconic dance scenes with Shirley Temple; Ronald Colman, giving as usual a "far far better" performance than most actors are capable of; Henry Hull and Valerie Hobson perfect in my favorite werewolf movie; O.P. Heggie as the blind hermit and Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius in Bride of Frankenstein; 

 

And the great Blanche Yurka, as Madame Defarge, giving us all a bit of advice for November: "Citizens: -- VOTE!!"

 

 

Best Actor

 

Ronald Colman (A Tale of Two Cities)

Gary Cooper (Lives of a Bengal Lancer)

Robert Donat (The 39 Steps)

Henry Hull (Werewolf of London)

Douglass Montgomery (Harmony Lane)

 

Best Actress

 

Marlene Dietrich (The Devil Is a Woman)

Irene Dunne (Roberta)

Helen Gahagan (She)

Ann Harding (Peter Ibbetson)

Valerie Hobson (Werewolf of London)

 

 

Best Supporting Actor

 

O.P. Heggie (Bride of Frankenstein)

Warner Oland (Werewolf of London)

Bill Robinson (The Little Colonel/The Littlest Rebel)

Guy Standing (Lives of a Bengal Lancer)

Ernest Thesiger (Bride of Frankenstein)

Henry B. Walthall (A Tale of Two Cities)

 

Best Supporting Actress

 

Spring Byington (Ah, Wilderness!)

Edna May Oliver (A Tale of Two Cities)

Jesse Ralph (David Copperfield)

Evelyn Venable (Harmony Lane)

Blanche Yurka (A Tale of Two Cities)

 

 

And a special shout out to Ethel Griffies and Zeffie Tilbury as Mrs. Whack and Mrs. Moncaster in Werewolf of London.

[TomJH]

Swithin, I completely agree that 1935 was a great year for Hollywood filmmaking, with all of the studios sharing in the wealth of the outstanding products turned out this year.

 

I had never heard of Harmony Lane. But there is a very good looking print of it now available on You Tube. Thanks for bringing this film to our attention.

 

 

[Bogie56]

My choice for the Juvenile Acting award for 1935 is Shirley Temple as “Elizabeth Blair” in Curly Top. 

[Swithin]

Swithin, I completely agree that 1935 was a great year for Hollywood filmmaking, with all of the studios sharing in the wealth of the outstanding products turned out this year.

 

I had never heard of Harmony Lane. But there is a very good looking print of it now available on You Tube. Thanks for bringing this film to our attention.

 

There have been a few biopics about Stephen Foster, but I think Harmony Lane is the best. It was made by Mascot -- one of the lowest budget studios, but there is something about it that transcends that. It has the awkwardness of blackface -- the Christy Minstrels, who historically performed in blackface, are part of the story, so there was no avoiding that. I Love Lucy fans may enjoy seeing William Frawley (Fred Mertz) as Edwin Christy himself, often in blackface.

 

I find great beauty in Harmony Lane, and great performances, particularly by Montgomery and Venable.

[LawrenceA]

I've decided to start dragging out my choices over the week. 

 

Sunday = Best Juvenile

Monday = Best Ensemble

Tuesday = Best Supporting Actress

Wednesday = Best Supporting Actor

Thursday = Best Actress

Friday = Best Actor

Saturday = List the unseens

 

I hope this will be acceptable.

 

So, here's my first choice.

 

Best Juvenile Performance of 1935

 

Freddie Bartholomew David Copperfield

 

Freddie was one of the biggest kid stars of the 30's, and this, along with Captains Courageous, was his best role. 

[Bogie56]

I'm dragging out my choices too.  Not everyone has to follow suit but it may lead to a bit more discussion here and there, who knows?  Plus my lists are rather long as is.

I'm hoping too that some others may hop in as the years become a bit more familiar to them.

[GregoryPeckfan]

I have not heard of Harmony Lane either as well as not having heard of Douglas Montgomery.  Thanks, Swithin.

 

 

I will be happy to drag out my choices  of the main 4 categories as well with the same day choices as Larry suggested.

 

Today I will name my Juvenile award - as well as our made up categories.

 

JUVENILE:

 

This was a tough choice between the two mentioned already. 

 

Winner:

 

Freddie Bartholomew in David Copperfield

 

 

Now for made up category winners listed only:

 

 

Best animal performance: The Raven

 

Best Performance in a Hitchcock Movie, male or female:  Wylie Watson as Mr. Memory in The 39 Steps because of all that information he had to memorize

 

 

Best Monster: Bride of Frankenstein

 

 

Best Synergy: Frederic March, Merle Oberon, and Herbert Marshal in The Dark Angel

 

Bizarro Award:  Peter Lorre in Mad Love

 

 

Best Early Performance By A Future Movie Star: David Niven in Splendor

 

 

Best Dancer: Bill Robinson