No, not Carter or Carson, Cagney! While TCM is showing some great films in prime time, there are some lesser played gems showing late:
A Midsummers Night Dream (1935)
The Time of Your life (1948)
The Strawberry Blonde (1941)
TCM showed Midsummers Night (for the first time I believe) a few months ago. For those that missed out, this is a must see.
The Time of Your Life is very hit or miss with people. For me, it's a great film that lets the 2 C's (yep his sis is in this one too) and Willam Bendix do some understated work they're not usually known for.
Finally, The Strawberry Blonde is STILL not availible on DVD. Get your copy tonight!
Late Night with Jimmy C.
-
klondike
I'm with Ollie; like most TCM casual Cagneyites, I'm much more familiar with (and pleased by) Jimmy's work from, say, '38 on.Ollie wrote:While I haven't liked quite a few of these littler Cagney films, I've really enjoyed watching them and I'll look forward to seeing if 2nd and 3rd viewings make them more pleasing.
But these "littler" roles from JC do have their own unique charm; in particular I enjoyed Jim as the wisecracking usher debating Micky Mouse's absence with the 2 slow-witted goons in the lobby of the Strand.
What a hoot !
Rating Jimmy films
Cagney's a large enough collection of mine that I tend to rate his films against themselves, and not neccessarily against All Hollywood Films.
It's one of my many problems - "Average" or "Below Average" can mean "Below average for a Cagney film" and still it may be a pretty good film because I tend to enjoy him, period, whereas the bulk of Hollywood films since, say, 1980 when I started tracking my views of hundreds and hundreds of films, are not films I'd care to re-watch.
Even for Cagney-Films-I-Don't-Like, I usually assign them a caveat like "Don't Like On First Viewing", which is often an Expectations Issue.
It's one of my many problems - "Average" or "Below Average" can mean "Below average for a Cagney film" and still it may be a pretty good film because I tend to enjoy him, period, whereas the bulk of Hollywood films since, say, 1980 when I started tracking my views of hundreds and hundreds of films, are not films I'd care to re-watch.
Even for Cagney-Films-I-Don't-Like, I usually assign them a caveat like "Don't Like On First Viewing", which is often an Expectations Issue.
Klon, I think I have split Cagney into his Early, Middle and Late Period. Your 1938 division might be a good dividing line between Early and Middle. Mostly, I've associated his Early Work with stagey, wooden performances (maybe cheap sets, poorer lighting, speeded up camera footage, slow dialog response time). Then his Middle Work can follow much the same story lines but the acting style - not his necessarily, but the smaller characters' - has become smoother, better timed with more realistic expressions.
Then his later years seems to be the Post WWII films.
I rather like the juxtaposition of his Doe-y Eyelash Early Films to his later years (MISTER ROBERTS). He's using his sharp-featured young face like a razor at times, slicing himself into a crowd or discussion, maybe causing a ruckus.
In his later years, with more jowels and flesh, he seems to lower his forehead and butt right in - and with the same effect - causing a ruckus.
I'd like to say he's very 'facial' in acting or giving expressions, but really, he's another guy who's putting his whole body into so many scenes. He could have punched Virginia Mayo onto the couch in WHITE HEAT, but instead, he kicks her stool out from under her. Why didn't he use his upper body to do it? Dunno - he wants to use more of his body, and it's an odd choice, but for him, he uses his footsteps and hands, shoulders - everything.
Yes, his "bad" films are still a nice study for me.
Then his later years seems to be the Post WWII films.
I rather like the juxtaposition of his Doe-y Eyelash Early Films to his later years (MISTER ROBERTS). He's using his sharp-featured young face like a razor at times, slicing himself into a crowd or discussion, maybe causing a ruckus.
In his later years, with more jowels and flesh, he seems to lower his forehead and butt right in - and with the same effect - causing a ruckus.
I'd like to say he's very 'facial' in acting or giving expressions, but really, he's another guy who's putting his whole body into so many scenes. He could have punched Virginia Mayo onto the couch in WHITE HEAT, but instead, he kicks her stool out from under her. Why didn't he use his upper body to do it? Dunno - he wants to use more of his body, and it's an odd choice, but for him, he uses his footsteps and hands, shoulders - everything.
Yes, his "bad" films are still a nice study for me.
-
jdb1
Ollie, I don't agree with you about Cagney's early films. The films may not be first-rate, save for Public Enemy, but Cagney always brought something special, energetic, humorous, sometimes deep, always honest, always interesting, to them.
IMO, he was the sexiest man in 1930s film, bar none. I don't think Cagney ever gave a "bad" performance, in the way we think of "bad" acting. Unlike many other vintage male superstars, who took time to find their onscreen personas, Cagney hit the ground running, and was a Star from the beginning, even if he wasn't the lead, technically. There have been very few (if any) who are really like him.
IMO, he was the sexiest man in 1930s film, bar none. I don't think Cagney ever gave a "bad" performance, in the way we think of "bad" acting. Unlike many other vintage male superstars, who took time to find their onscreen personas, Cagney hit the ground running, and was a Star from the beginning, even if he wasn't the lead, technically. There have been very few (if any) who are really like him.
JD, I mis-wrote my assessment of the "Early Cagney". I associate his early films with wooden, stagey acting by the OTHER actors - that's what I should have typed.
Like you said, he delivered his style from Film 1 and could always do that - or avoid it - whenever he liked.
I don't think he ever did the Cagney Walk in MISTER ROBERTS. I'm trying to remember - how did he walk as he came up the gangplank after getting kicked off ("kicked off! kicked off!!") that island? I think he 'merely' stormed instead of using the shoulder-choppy-small-step walk that Cagney used in many other early films.
In ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW - one of his Late Period films - he uses the Cagney shoulders as he walks, but he never walked fast in that film. Everything was slow and paced, and occasionally used his shoulder twist or head feint.
His performances, I agree, have been top-notch. But in PUBLIC ENEMY, a lot of the other performers are wooden and staff, slow to respond as if they don't remember their lines, or as if their scene is being spliced over an older 'take'.
But Cagney's used his own style - or correctly avoided it - from Sinner's Holiday on. That's another film where he relatively cruises in and around everyone else's stiff deliveries.
Like you said, he delivered his style from Film 1 and could always do that - or avoid it - whenever he liked.
I don't think he ever did the Cagney Walk in MISTER ROBERTS. I'm trying to remember - how did he walk as he came up the gangplank after getting kicked off ("kicked off! kicked off!!") that island? I think he 'merely' stormed instead of using the shoulder-choppy-small-step walk that Cagney used in many other early films.
In ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW - one of his Late Period films - he uses the Cagney shoulders as he walks, but he never walked fast in that film. Everything was slow and paced, and occasionally used his shoulder twist or head feint.
His performances, I agree, have been top-notch. But in PUBLIC ENEMY, a lot of the other performers are wooden and staff, slow to respond as if they don't remember their lines, or as if their scene is being spliced over an older 'take'.
But Cagney's used his own style - or correctly avoided it - from Sinner's Holiday on. That's another film where he relatively cruises in and around everyone else's stiff deliveries.
I agree that Cagney was magnificent in virtually everything he did. Despite the stage fright he professed to have before walking onto the soundstage in his early pictures, the guy was a born actor. Very little evolution there, as there was/is with many screen players. He was commanding right from the start.
And, creaky though many of those early films seem today, I haven't yet seen one pre-'38 Cagney movie that I don't enjoy. Those films moved like lightning, making one almost forget their low budgets, drab sets and primitive technology -- and, of course, the wooden playing of some of the co-stars. Cagney said it of Frank McHugh, and it holds equally true for Jimmy: Put a newcomer in a scene with him and Jimmy would make that newcomer look much better than he had any right to look.
But I must say that I feel that Jimmy faltered badly after leaving Warners - first when he signed with Grand National and later when he and brother Bill formed Cagney Productions. In the latter instance, though his intentions to make "quality" films were admirable, they lack spunk and pale when compared to the Warner bookends "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "White Heat". Bogart and George Raft likewise had similar experiences when they severed Warner ties. Bogart, though, managed to make a triumphant comeback while George's career never really recovered. Jack Warner was correct when he said of Cagney (and it held equally true for Bogie and Raft): "He'll find he needs us as much as we need him."
And, creaky though many of those early films seem today, I haven't yet seen one pre-'38 Cagney movie that I don't enjoy. Those films moved like lightning, making one almost forget their low budgets, drab sets and primitive technology -- and, of course, the wooden playing of some of the co-stars. Cagney said it of Frank McHugh, and it holds equally true for Jimmy: Put a newcomer in a scene with him and Jimmy would make that newcomer look much better than he had any right to look.
But I must say that I feel that Jimmy faltered badly after leaving Warners - first when he signed with Grand National and later when he and brother Bill formed Cagney Productions. In the latter instance, though his intentions to make "quality" films were admirable, they lack spunk and pale when compared to the Warner bookends "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "White Heat". Bogart and George Raft likewise had similar experiences when they severed Warner ties. Bogart, though, managed to make a triumphant comeback while George's career never really recovered. Jack Warner was correct when he said of Cagney (and it held equally true for Bogie and Raft): "He'll find he needs us as much as we need him."