The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions (Decade Project Vol. 4)

[domino harvey]

I mean, isn't Cotten's perf pretty much high camp?

[therewillbeblus]

I mean, isn't Cotten's perf pretty much high camp?

I certainly think so, especially in those scenes where he's acting as an aged version of his younger self! Still, the dynamic between his character and Kane takes itself seriously in the emphasis on loss within the friendship, even if it's debatable whether it's established enough to be that emotionally effective...

Out of the Past has mixed motives, triple-crosses and two of the most-notable cleft-chins going. (Where was Cary Grant to fill in as a heavy?) Everybody is bad, or mostly-rotten and almost every character gets to shoot someone. I liked it, even if the twistiness made it occasionally hard to follow - and frequently hard to empathise: nobody acts like half those people did..

I feel like I saw a different movie than you, but I also feel like I have no claim to say that nobody acted like those in the movie. I don't know many reserved old-fashioned men, people who've spent their lives starting over after changing their identities, wealthy possessives, manipulative women, hired guns, etc. but that doesn't mean that they don't, or didn't, exist or act that way. I don't think everybody is 'bad' either, and my understanding of this genre is the postwar disconnect from values grounded in institutions reveal apathy and selfish motives previously unearthed and protected under such ideologies bubbling up the surface. People can present as canvases for stripped-down manifestations of existential and psychological crises or unhinged, aimless entities (as well as representative of real people of the era), but this is what makes them more complex than 'good' or 'bad' and also relatable to vulnerable degrees that many genres don't have the audacity to touch. I don't find it too hard to involve myself with the characters, but I also find this movie so supremely entertaining that I don't feel this one is particularly asking me to engage on a level that requires much empathy.

[Feego]

I mean, isn't Cotten's perf pretty much high camp?

I certainly think so, especially in those scenes where he's acting as an aged version of his younger self! Still, the dynamic between his character and Kane takes itself seriously in the emphasis on loss within the friendship, even if it's debatable whether it's established enough to be that emotionally effective...

My last viewing of Kane before this year was in a film class back in 2004. The other students pretty much laughed every time Dorothy Comingore opened her mouth. While I have more sympathy for her character than they did, there is quite a bit of comedy based around her preparations for and performance of the opera, particularly with the exasperated Fortunio Bonanova, whose performance can definitely be described as camp. The scene in which Kane and crew move into the Inquirer office is another point of high comedy, with Erskine Sanford's increasing confusion amidst the pratfalls, overlapping voices and furniture moving.

[therewillbeblus]

I’ve definitely detected some of these bits before but it’s fascinating to read so many comic interpretations I’ve been blind to, among likely many more. Perhaps it’s more difficult for me to part with the dramatic weight since this was one of my favorite movies from childhood and that relationship runs deep (despite it faltering in my own rankings within and outside of Welles’ own filmography) but while there are clearly comic moments separated from and spliced within the drama, I can’t picture it as a categorical comedy. I would love to read an essay or take a class focused on “Citizen Kane read as comedy.” I may have to revisit it before November to see how it plays from this angle.

[ntnon]

Der Fuehrer's Face is still sharp... if intriguingly subtle at points (not so much when Donald is forced to do tasks at literal bayonet point). I like that his house echoes Hitler's face, and the swastika patch on one of the band members' pants...

(The Bishop's Wife is on Netflix...! But Holiday Affair isn't. Guess I'll dig again..)

[Feego]

For what it's worth, I don't consider Kane a categorical comedy either, and I have to think Welles was being facetious when he made that statement (unless he meant in the sense of very dark satire). But there are definitely comical moments of relief sprinkled throughout that somehow never (to my eyes) feel out of place amidst the more serious story.

[ntnon]

Out of the Past has mixed motives, triple-crosses and two of the most-notable cleft-chins going... [it's] frequently hard to empathise: nobody acts like half those people did..

I feel like I saw a different movie than you, but I also feel like I have no claim to say that nobody acted like those in the movie. I don't know many reserved old-fashioned men, people who've spent their lives starting over after changing their identities, wealthy possessives, manipulative women, hired guns, etc. but that doesn't mean that they don't, or didn't, exist or act that way.

...fair point. I, too, know very few hired guns. I doubt I know many people who've erased their past, and while I'm unfortunate enough to many manipulative folk of all sexes, that may undermine my original blanket statement..!

My vague point was more that many motives and actions seemed poorly thought through - but that could be an accurate reflection of their character. e.g. RM's actions seemed spurious at several points - ditching KD for JG in the first place (and believing her about not taking the cash); both getting close to someone else (though love makes us fools) AND not telling her anything AND then telling her everything.. JG's loyalties were all over the place (though I suppose fear and mistrust - filtered through loneliness and manipulation may account for much of it) and her regularly resorting to killing seemed.. odd. VH went all-in despite the circumstances, but by the end seemed happy to settle for second-best. And the mute sidekick seemed like he was playing a whole different game, albeit an intriguing one.

I don't think everybody is 'bad' either, and my understanding of this genre is the postwar disconnect from values grounded in institutions reveal apathy and selfish motives previously unearthed and protected under such ideologies bubbling up the surface. People can present as canvases for stripped-down manifestations of existential and psychological crises or unhinged, aimless entities (as well as representative of real people of the era), but this is what makes them more complex than 'good' or 'bad' and also relatable to vulnerable degrees that many genres don't have the audacity to touch.

You're right. "Complex" and layered are better terms than 'bad', but even so.. none of the main characters (and few of the supporting ones) do much approaching decent, moral or positive behaviour - unless one counts RM's essential self-sacrifice (which betrays VH) or the mute's trying to disingenuously(?) paint RM's motives as wrongheaded to save her pain...

I don't find it too hard to involve myself with the characters, but I also find this movie so supremely entertaining that I don't feel this one is particularly asking me to engage on a level that requires much empathy.

It was definitely entertaining, and certainly engaging.. I just felt there were maybe a few too many sides switched and backs stabbed. But, that may just be a today-side-effect of good plotting.

[ntnon]

My last viewing of Kane before this year was in a film class back in 2004. The other students pretty much laughed every time Dorothy Comingore opened her mouth. While I have more sympathy for her character than they did, there is quite a bit of comedy based around her preparations for and performance of the opera, particularly with the exasperated Fortunio Bonanova, whose performance can definitely be described as camp.

I do wonder whether Jean Hagen was deliberately channelling this performance in Singin'.. or whether both are just similar characters reacting similarly under similar circumstances: coaching the uncoachable.

"Up and 'atom'!" "Up. And. At-them." "Up and 'ATOM'!" "Up And At-THEM." "..better."

[domino harvey]

The Mute isn't playing a game, and his loyalty to Jeff was clear throughout: He lied to the Good Girl at the end of the film so she would move on to happiness, giving her the very sort of escape from the past that Jeff could never achieve. The Mute, the Good Girl, and the Boring Guy Who Likes the Good Girl are all recognizably playing it straight and do nothing to indicate they are duplicitous (or at least in a negative way, for the Mute), which makes sense they're all markers of the "straight" world. They're also so boring that you can be excused for forgetting some of them exist. And if you can't figure out why a guy would pursue Jane Greer in this movie even after she fucked him over and promised nothing but trouble, I don't know what to tell you-- she's like a sexy version of the hot plate that the waitress tells you not to touch but you do anyways

[domino harvey]

My last viewing of Kane before this year was in a film class back in 2004. The other students pretty much laughed every time Dorothy Comingore opened her mouth. While I have more sympathy for her character than they did, there is quite a bit of comedy based around her preparations for and performance of the opera, particularly with the exasperated Fortunio Bonanova, whose performance can definitely be described as camp.

I do wonder whether Jean Hagen was deliberately channelling this performance in Singin'.. or whether both are just similar characters reacting similarly under similar circumstances: coaching the uncoachable.

"Up and 'atom'!" "Up. And. At-them." "Up and 'ATOM'!" "Up And At-THEM." "..better."

There's no mystery here: Jean Hagen is 100% doing a Judy Holliday impression

[ntnon]

Everything about The Bishop's Wife - plot, characters, cast, casting, dialogue - is basically perfect. Asides (Paris, stamps, celery, dragon, etc.), background characters (and arch looks), David Niven's bewilderment (and smiles), Cary Grant's confidence (and humility), Loretta Young's radiant joy (and subtleties)... utterly brilliant through-and-through.

And, especially given the overall theme - redeeming the patriach by reminding him what's important - every time I watch it I see more and more parallels to Mary Poppins. Which is also practically perfect. And endlesssly quotable.

[ntnon]

The Mute isn't playing a game, and his loyalty to Jeff was clear throughout: He lied to the Good Girl at the end of the film so she would move on to happiness, giving her the very sort of escape from the past that Jeff could never achieve.

That seems right. I suppose the handful of meaningful stares and passing appearances could just boil down to support, loyalty and watchfulness - though I wonder how much he knew..

The Mute, the Good Girl, and the Boring Guy Who Likes the Good Girl are all recognizably playing it straight and do nothing to indicate they are duplicitous (or at least in a negative way, for the Mute), which makes sense they're all markers of the "straight" world. They're also so boring that you can be excused for forgetting some of them exist.

I suppose they are straightforward in their way... but Mute is being a little macchiavellian and manipulative, Boring is letting jealousy and presumption rule his reality, and Good seems overly keen to stick by the guy she's fallen for... even after he tells her he is not that guy (even if he secretly is). Which contrasts interestingly with a similar situation in The Stranger, with predictably (and wise) opposite results.

(And I did keep forgetting who Boring was, particularly since his role seemed interchangable at points with Ineffective Sidekick and Double-crossing Partner.)

And if you can't figure out why a guy would pursue Jane Greer in this movie even after she fucked him over and promised nothing but trouble, I don't know what to tell you-- she's like a sexy version of the hot plate that the waitress tells you not to touch but you do anyways

At first, yes. It's a stock - if explicable - trope to be seduced by the boss' moll. But when she betrays you AND kills someone AND is shown to have lied large AND then betrays you (several times) AND you've met someone better/safer... is she still that appealing..?

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, I mean outside of the killing part, and that it’s a movie, that rationalization happens all the time in relationships. After all we’re far more emotional beings than logical, and that failure to utilize logic or will power to combat fate is both real to life and fitting for the noir genre. Greer is the ultimate femme fatale not only because she’s stunning and electrifying but because she truly fakes authenticity so well throughout the film that you, like Mitchum, want to believe her so badly you almost do! Though by the last ‘seduction’ he’s resigned himself to a fate without informing us and chooses her less from desire or defense mechanisms like rationalization, but because that hope for overcoming the clouds of nihilism to achieve meaning and a new life has been muted and he makes the only decision he can see- to accelerate the process with a final authentic act to choose how he meets his inescapable fate with a shred of moral value.

[therewillbeblus]

Fantasia: A very creative visionary work that must have played as peculiar even back in its time, for the almost aggressive refusal to follow not only structure but nearly all expected rules of film. The result is an all experiment that at times suffers from becoming too slow and banal and at other times fuses seemingly all possible strategies in the art form to create a sublime, singular incarnation of bliss. The segment with Mickey is as classic a depiction as it gets of the common man’s fantasy at discovering freedom by seizing power over the oppressive forces and objects of reality in dreams, and the Zeus God disrupting the innocent play is powerful. But the Satan finale never fails to pick at the scabs of my own fears around mortality. It’s uneven by nature and unfortunately not all parts work for me, but I’m glad this movie exists.

The Little Foxes: Not Wyler at his best but even middling Wyler is pretty good. ‘The great director of dialogue’ adapts the play well, with Davis playing her best ‘kind’ of role in a brooding character who’s taken a slap or two from life’s book that doesn’t include the words “fair” or “deserve” no matter how many times you look for them, though it’s far from her best perf. It’s fun to see Dan Duryea playing a less confident unseasoned man, and Herbert Marshall is excellent in a dramatic and carefully restrained performance that’s both stoic and defeated in different areas of his life, balanced authentically by the actor. It won’t make my list but it’s a good film, a dark story, and an especially pessimistic ending for a film of this era.

All the King’s Men: I always wanted to read the book before seeing any adaptation considering its esteemed status but I couldn’t resist any longer. With no idea how it plays for those who have read the source, I thought this was great, and the craft matches the moods of each scene, whether inspirational, romantic, seedy, to horrific. The narrative somehow weaves an eerie vibe even through the early scenes that lend themselves to optimism and hope and much of that is due to Broderick Crawford’s tour-de-force but complicated performance. Rossen deserves a lot of credit for the way he speeds through the plot like lightning without leaving any aspect feeling particularly shortchanged. I’m sure there are elements from the novel that are swept under the rug or not given enough attention here but for a tight adaptation of a monumental, time-spanning, ‘great American novel’ with this much character development and loss, you can’t fare much better than what we get here, at least in effort.

Where Do We Go From Here?: Even though domino and I see eye to eye on more than a few things, I sincerely doubted his claim that MacMurray was good in this, but he’s so good here as a hapless and clumsy yet - dare I say- extremely likeable and harmless boyish man, to the point where much of the film’s charms succeed due to his perf. There are solid elements strung throughout this musical starting right off the bat wit the early kitchen setpiece blending comedy and music together seamlessly to create a light, playful, and impressive mood with tastes of the fun, breezy chaos reminiscent of At Long Last Love (though not nearly as good, but what is?) before it goes completely sideways into fantastical territory, leaving ample room for creative humor and gags. There are many hilarious moments from the jinni’s initial entrance to MacMurray’s interactions with historical figures. His line, “if you’re not going to double cross an ally who are you going to double cross?” while flaunting a fake German accent had me in stitches. For such a ridiculous film, the audacity and consistency grounded all wild aspects into an excellent package. This may actually place on my final list, I was blown away.

[dustybooks]

I’ve come around to thinking every segment of Fantasia is quite great — criticisms that the opening bit is insufficiently abstract always struck me as very odd given the context, and I think “Dance of the Hours” is an absolutely perfect piece of film— with one exception, but that exception (the Pastoral sequence) is so heinously bad to me that it completely breaks the spell for a while. I also don’t care much for the interludes. But it’s a jaw-droppingly ambitious piece of work and wears the years very well I think.

[ntnon]

Yeah, I mean outside of the killing part, and that it’s a movie, that rationalization happens all the time in relationships. After all we’re far more emotional beings than logical, and that failure to utilize logic or will power to combat fate is both real to life and fitting for the noir genre.

Fair points, all. I guess I was as much in denial and hope than truly baffled... even with Crime & Noir, such bleakness and nihilism (and amplified realism) can be a bit much to process.

So, at the other end of the spectrum - albeit with the black streak of dashed dreams, poverty, suicidal tendancies and impending ruin - It's a Wonderful Life continues to grow in my esteem every time I see it. It's bleak and grim.. and hopeful. It's real and sad, but optimistic. The inevitability of corporate takeovers and capitalism rolling over the common man may be a little heavy-handed, but the earnestness and comic asides and grounding win through every time.

[therewillbeblus]

So, at the other end of the spectrum - albeit with the black streak of dashed dreams, poverty, suicidal tendancies and impending ruin - It's a Wonderful Life continues to grow in my esteem every time I see it. It's bleak and grim.. and hopeful. It's real and sad, but optimistic. The inevitability of corporate takeovers and capitalism rolling over the common man may be a little heavy-handed, but the earnestness and comic asides and grounding win through every time.

I know it’s a divisive film on this forum, but I’m with you particularly in the “earnestness” you speak of, which is what really sells this from a Christmas Movie to a Great one. As you say, it really is a complex concoction of optimism and pessimism, presenting both perspectives we all know too well, and eventually choosing the notion that trust, or faith, in positive intentions, moral behavior, and most importantly acting in accordance with one’s honest self-actualized conscience will yield ‘enough’ to call a life ‘good’ - perhaps even ‘wonderful.’ I love how deep Capra digs into the clouds people get caught up in out of fear, resentment, selfishness, dissatisfaction, chasing ideas that will provide ‘enough’ when it’s all right there in front of you. To me, the scene where George yells at Mary as he grapples with his own will vs. love will always be one of the most authentic and powerful moments on film for me, and incredibly strange in how atypical yet realistic it is for a ‘romantic’ moment in the 40s.

I’m the opposite regarding ranks, where this film used to be my all-time favorite for probably longer than any other has held that top spot, partially for the reasons mentioned and yet admittedly overwhelmingly due to nostalgia watching it on Christmas Eve with my family as our only real tradition. Who isn’t going to be conditioned to love this film if watched before getting presents throughout early childhood? As I remove myself from those Pavlovian responses into my 30s it’s still a great film, even if it won’t crack my top 10 it refuses to be left off my list.

[Rayon Vert]

It'll be in or near my top 10. I'm kind of glad I never watched it when it was on TV during the holidays so it doesn't have those associations that might have gotten old with time. I waited into very late adulthood to watch this film, and I also admire it every time out. The sentiment in it doesn't stop it from being extremely smart, excellently crafted and, yes, at times even realistic. Though it's an “ideas” film like most of Capra’s work, that dimension never overshadows the story and characters. It’s also Jimmy Stewart's most representative role, but is arguably is his best - he's simply terrific here and gripping. The fantasy/Christmas elements don't come into play until the last third, and it's a very effective epic-sweep capture of a human life.

[therewillbeblus]

Though it's an “ideas” film like most of Capra’s work, that dimension never overshadows the story and characters.

This also explains why I love the film so much- it leaves just as much room for the emotional as the philosophical, and does a remarkable job at fitting all the elements that fill a life into an average runtime of a film’s narrative. It’s the best kind of existential film that knows emotion is just as significant as ideas, and necessary for them to work to and effect that becomes truly authentic.

[domino harvey]

I don't think it's a contentious title, as my memory is I got reamed when I initially talked about truly and completely terrible it is by any metric of what makes a film good. It's just me. But rest assured, you're all wrong

[Rayon Vert]

Ornamental Hairpin (Shimizu 1941). This is quite similar to The Masseurs and a Woman – an isolated mountain inn, woods and water, the mix of humor and light melancholy. The romantic aspect is just a bit more developed here, and we have the figure of the soldier on leave giving it that more concrete historical context dimension, but the same bittersweet tone runs throughout. Again charming but I prefer the earlier film that felt a bit more mysterious.


Criss Cross (Siodmak 1949). [Rewatch] I forgot how bleak this is. I used to rate this one a lot higher (Cry of the City is now my favorite from the director) but now I find the story lacks a bit of depth. De Carlo’s character’s frequent shifts end up feeling a bit gratuitous and kind of there to make the plot work. On the other hand, this is still a gorgeous-looking film, just oozing style, and delightful to watch in the staging. Pretty suspenseful too.


Adventures of Don Juan (Sherman 1948). Errol Flynn picks up the swashbuckling mantle after an 8-year absence, playing a Don Juan supporting the Queen of Spain once the court gives him the chance to rehabilitate himself. This is nowhere near as dull as the same year’s The Three Musketeers, but it’s not that great either, and a far cry from Flynn’s earlier successes in the genre. The script doesn’t make good use of the mischief in the character, and this Don Juan rather becomes a sort of generic swashbuckling hero, but one that’s devitalized relative to the earlier Flynn heroes. Flynn’s acting is partly the problem here too – it’s oddly awkward in several places, and the character comes across as lacking in real charm or vigor.


Easter Parade (Walters 1948). An exceptional film when it comes to the quantity and quality of musical numbers and their presentation, the production design and just all around-prettiness. Scenario-wise it doesn’t reach the same heights unfortunately. Someone on another thread said Astaire and Garland had zero chemistry. I wouldn’t put it that way, but I’d say Astaire’s part is severely underwritten. Once Garland shows up and is hired, we pretty much switch to her POV and stick with it for most of the picture, which renders Astaire a distant figure except when he’s performing. So that’s a major problem. Secondarily, his romantic interest in her, when it comes, is really not written or played out enough, so again he’s not as fleshed out as he could be, and it hurts the viewer’s interest in the romantic pairing and developments, and prevents the film from generating more emotion. Just on the strength of those other qualities, though, this is still a winning film, but the problems keep it from soaring like it should.


Rendez-vous de juillet (Becker 1949). Young people in Paris again, but this time a gang of students of the theater in Saint-Germain-des-Prés, and one of them – Daniel Gélin in his first leading role - an aspiring filmmaker trying to get an expedition financed to make an ethnographic film in the Congo, as we follow in tandem their ambitions and their affairs of the heart. No existentialism, but definitely a lot of cellar jazz. This is really quite delightful, even more proto-New Wave (e.g. iris shots) than Antoine et Antoinette, and definitely not the same kind of fluff. A coming-of-age film that successfully navigates a space between drama and comedy, and the loose plot and the quality of the actors and direction really engages the viewer. I quite liked this and would recommend it. (The Gaumont blu has English subtitles, and boasts a nice sharp image that is quite the opposite to the awful Antoine et Antoinette disc).


Citizen Kane (Welles 1941). [Rewatch] Like Feego, I’m always wowed by the formal aspects and visuals here – it really feels out of its time, like two decades ahead. Near the end Thompson picks up a jigsaw puzzle in a box and makes an analogy with the Rosebud mystery piece and trying to put together a portrait of a person’s life. It really feels the film is constructed that way too, with the narrative using boxes within boxes in a frequently bewildering way, along with the constant visual and stylistic changes, the back and forth in time, and the different tones used to relate the story. Even though there’s a lot of power to many scenes, that fragmentation leaves me a bit dissipated at film’s end, and not emotionally satisfied as I can be with other films.

[therewillbeblus]

Funny, I never liked Criss Cross nor understood its high ranking on various noir lists (though I do like The Killers a lot more than most, so maybe I’m the odd duck). RV, have you watched Phantom Lady or The Spiral Staircase yet? Definitely my favorite Siodmaks by a mile.

[Rayon Vert]

The Killers I really liked on first viewing, then not so much on the next one, but I should give it another go some other time because that big contrast is possibly indicating just a question of not being in the right mood. (You're making me think I might give it a spin before the list is due.) Phantom Lady I thought had some good set pieces, but the second half is a bit clumsy - which still leaves it a good film, just not a strong favorite. I'm afraid my opinion of The Spiral Staircase isn't all that great - I thought what lay behind a lot of the Hitchcockian visual tropes and Spellbound-inspired dream imagery was a bit empty, that Dorothy McGuire was a rather lacklustre lead, and that an ending that would have been scary back in 1946 isn't so much anymore. I guess most Siodmaks for me are uneven-to-good-but-not-great, which also includes The Suspect and Thelma Jordon from the following decade. (The Dark Mirror on the other hand is extremely silly and mediocre.) I haven't seen Time Out of Mind and Christmas Holiday among the noirs.

Eddie Muller has got Criss Cross as his second favorite noir, and before this latest viewing it was in my top 3-4 or so. It has taken a huge fall!

[therewillbeblus]

That’s definitely the main list that came to mind when I was thinking of its high placement!

[Rayon Vert]

Also, I just read recently on dvdbeaver in the review of the problematic new Shout blu ray that in the commentary Jim Hemphill calls it his favorite noir.