I've just watched a really gripping precode. Night Court stars Walter Huston as a corrupt judge and Anita Page and Phillip Holmes as a young couple who get framed. This film is as corrupt as it gets and is one of the best precodes I've seen. The story flows very well and I was on the edge of my seat for most of it. I don't want to say too much regarding the plot in case someone else wants to watch it, it's not the kind of film you want spoiling for you.
I'm glad I've had chance to watch another Anita PAge movie, she never disappoints, I can't un derstand why she didn't last the distance as a major star of the thirties. Philiip Holmes is great in his role and he was great in Broken Lullaby too. What happened to him?
Walter Huston is one of the great character actors, his judge is so bad and corrupt. I'm not used to Walter like that.
WHAT SILENTS & PRE-CODES HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Lois Weber continues to wield her sledge hammer in Where Are My Children, this time tackling birth control and abortion. Not surprisingly, the film was not short on controversy, which, I suspect, was one of the reasons it was a hit in 1916. While competently made, Weber contradicts many of her own arguments, indicating that she’s for birth control and yet against abortion, which she defines solely in terms of birth control. Plus, she insists that those women getting back room abortions are the wealthy, when, of course, it is the lower-class women who were forced to visit the back room “doctors”.
Weber hammers her theme by berating wealthy women who have decided not to have children, and instead want to attend “hen parties” with their friends. Apparently women have no say in whether or not they want children. Weber sides with the D.A., who can’t seem to look out a window without seeing a frolicking child, and not with the D.A.’s wife, who simply doesn’t want children. (This from a filmmaker who had no children of her own!) Eugenics is the order of the day, according to Weber. The rich elite should go out and multiply while the poor and downtrodden, they need the birth control. Let’s help Darwin here, c’mon.
It’s easy (for me) to dismiss Weber , but I don’t take her films lightly. She made “message films” in a time before Hollywood had defined cinema as pure entertainment, and I try very hard to get into the mindset of the day to fully appreciate what she’s trying to say. But in the case of Where Are My Children the message is so muddled that it becomes impossible. Take the justly famous epilog: The D.A. and his wife sit in separate chairs while double-exposed images of the children they never had crawl over them. As the two age, they are visited by their double-exposed adult “missing” children. The sequence, showcasing the empty lives these two have because they are childless, is quite effective and emotional...Until one asks the nagging question: Haven’t they ever heard of adoption?
Weber hammers her theme by berating wealthy women who have decided not to have children, and instead want to attend “hen parties” with their friends. Apparently women have no say in whether or not they want children. Weber sides with the D.A., who can’t seem to look out a window without seeing a frolicking child, and not with the D.A.’s wife, who simply doesn’t want children. (This from a filmmaker who had no children of her own!) Eugenics is the order of the day, according to Weber. The rich elite should go out and multiply while the poor and downtrodden, they need the birth control. Let’s help Darwin here, c’mon.
It’s easy (for me) to dismiss Weber , but I don’t take her films lightly. She made “message films” in a time before Hollywood had defined cinema as pure entertainment, and I try very hard to get into the mindset of the day to fully appreciate what she’s trying to say. But in the case of Where Are My Children the message is so muddled that it becomes impossible. Take the justly famous epilog: The D.A. and his wife sit in separate chairs while double-exposed images of the children they never had crawl over them. As the two age, they are visited by their double-exposed adult “missing” children. The sequence, showcasing the empty lives these two have because they are childless, is quite effective and emotional...Until one asks the nagging question: Haven’t they ever heard of adoption?
"Let's be independent together." Dr. Hermey DDS
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
I've just watched this, I agree it's terribly muddled and unfortunately not true to the reality of live at the time. Richer women could afford to get advice on contraception, it was poorer women who had to undergo back room abortions.MichiganJ wrote:Lois Weber continues to wield her sledge hammer in Where Are My Children, this time tackling birth control and abortion. Not surprisingly, the film was not short on controversy, which, I suspect, was one of the reasons it was a hit in 1916. While competently made, Weber contradicts many of her own arguments, indicating that she’s for birth control and yet against abortion, which she defines solely in terms of birth control. Plus, she insists that those women getting back room abortions are the wealthy, when, of course, it is the lower-class women who were forced to visit the back room “doctors”.
Weber hammers her theme by berating wealthy women who have decided not to have children, and instead want to attend “hen parties” with their friends. Apparently women have no say in whether or not they want children. Weber sides with the D.A., who can’t seem to look out a window without seeing a frolicking child, and not with the D.A.’s wife, who simply doesn’t want children. (This from a filmmaker who had no children of her own!) Eugenics is the order of the day, according to Weber. The rich elite should go out and multiply while the poor and downtrodden, they need the birth control. Let’s help Darwin here, c’mon.
It’s easy (for me) to dismiss Weber , but I don’t take her films lightly. She made “message films” in a time before Hollywood had defined cinema as pure entertainment, and I try very hard to get into the mindset of the day to fully appreciate what she’s trying to say. But in the case of Where Are My Children the message is so muddled that it becomes impossible. Take the justly famous epilog: The D.A. and his wife sit in separate chairs while double-exposed images of the children they never had crawl over them. As the two age, they are visited by their double-exposed adult “missing” children. The sequence, showcasing the empty lives these two have because they are childless, is quite effective and emotional...Until one asks the nagging question: Haven’t they ever heard of adoption?
Yet the message is such an important one. If it had dwelt on the importance of contraception to prevent needless abortions and needless risks to women, it would deliver a much stronger message.
It had a very strong touch of Victorian melodrama weaved into the plot. The rich women who have abortions are made out to be bad, yet it misses the point that they are just trying to exercise a choice that is available to them.
The biggest change in thinking is the eugenics theory that if only wanted children are born that would cut down on the crime rate.
It's a pity it's so muddled because in essence it is an interesting look at women's history and social commentary in the teens.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
I've just watched this, I agree it's terribly muddled and unfortunately not true to the reality of live at the time. Richer women could afford to get advice on contraception, it was poorer women who had to undergo back room abortions.MichiganJ wrote:Lois Weber continues to wield her sledge hammer in Where Are My Children, this time tackling birth control and abortion. Not surprisingly, the film was not short on controversy, which, I suspect, was one of the reasons it was a hit in 1916. While competently made, Weber contradicts many of her own arguments, indicating that she’s for birth control and yet against abortion, which she defines solely in terms of birth control. Plus, she insists that those women getting back room abortions are the wealthy, when, of course, it is the lower-class women who were forced to visit the back room “doctors”.
Weber hammers her theme by berating wealthy women who have decided not to have children, and instead want to attend “hen parties” with their friends. Apparently women have no say in whether or not they want children. Weber sides with the D.A., who can’t seem to look out a window without seeing a frolicking child, and not with the D.A.’s wife, who simply doesn’t want children. (This from a filmmaker who had no children of her own!) Eugenics is the order of the day, according to Weber. The rich elite should go out and multiply while the poor and downtrodden, they need the birth control. Let’s help Darwin here, c’mon.
It’s easy (for me) to dismiss Weber , but I don’t take her films lightly. She made “message films” in a time before Hollywood had defined cinema as pure entertainment, and I try very hard to get into the mindset of the day to fully appreciate what she’s trying to say. But in the case of Where Are My Children the message is so muddled that it becomes impossible. Take the justly famous epilog: The D.A. and his wife sit in separate chairs while double-exposed images of the children they never had crawl over them. As the two age, they are visited by their double-exposed adult “missing” children. The sequence, showcasing the empty lives these two have because they are childless, is quite effective and emotional...Until one asks the nagging question: Haven’t they ever heard of adoption?
Yet the message is such an important one. If it had dwelt on the importance of contraception to prevent needless abortions and needless risks to women, it would deliver a much stronger message.
It had a very strong touch of Victorian melodrama weaved into the plot. The rich women who have abortions are made out to be bad, yet it misses the point that they are just trying to exercise a choice not to have children and abortion is depicted as the only way available to the richer woman.
The biggest change in thinking is the eugenics theory that if only wanted children are born that would cut down on the crime rate.
It's a pity it's so muddled because in essence it is an interesting look at women's history and social commentary in the teens.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Apparently Weber did another film on birth control, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, which provided a much clearer message. Weber herself stared in the film, which, unfortunately, is lost.
It amazes me the topics she, and others, tackled so early in the history of cinema. Hopefully more of these gems will be found, because, as much as I don't like the heavy-handed way Weber tackles her themes, I'm very impressed that she even tried. And the fact is, Weber was successful.
It amazes me the topics she, and others, tackled so early in the history of cinema. Hopefully more of these gems will be found, because, as much as I don't like the heavy-handed way Weber tackles her themes, I'm very impressed that she even tried. And the fact is, Weber was successful.
"Let's be independent together." Dr. Hermey DDS
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
I saw Wyler's The Love Trap. But I can only talk about the first 45 minutes because after that it was a talkie. A few title cards and some lip reading gets you through until the dialog begins.
No, it's a fun film with a little drama thrown in but mostly a light comedy. Unemployed and evicted chorus girl (Laura LaPlante) meets wealthy man (Neil Hamilton) after an attempted seduction of her a party fails. She falls in love with and marries Hamilton only to find his uncle was at that party and thinks she had a one nighter with the host.
His family hates her because she in not blue blood enough and a chorus girl to boot. Uncle thinks he can buy her out of the marriage. She has a different idea.
The two stars are engaging and at only 69 minutes it is a nice way to spend an hour.
The DVD I rented has a companion piece. The documentary "Directed by Wyler." Lots of big stars included in piece about his career. They even get everyone's thoughts on his legendary number of takes.
No, it's a fun film with a little drama thrown in but mostly a light comedy. Unemployed and evicted chorus girl (Laura LaPlante) meets wealthy man (Neil Hamilton) after an attempted seduction of her a party fails. She falls in love with and marries Hamilton only to find his uncle was at that party and thinks she had a one nighter with the host.
His family hates her because she in not blue blood enough and a chorus girl to boot. Uncle thinks he can buy her out of the marriage. She has a different idea.
The two stars are engaging and at only 69 minutes it is a nice way to spend an hour.
The DVD I rented has a companion piece. The documentary "Directed by Wyler." Lots of big stars included in piece about his career. They even get everyone's thoughts on his legendary number of takes.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Where Are My Children is on a disc from The American Treasures Volume 3 that deals with women. Some of the shorter films on here really interested me. The New York Trade school was a place were young ladies could learn a skill before being sent out into the workplace. Skills included hat making, embroidery, all skills were concerning the clothes business. Once these young ladies have learned their skill, they can expect to earn more money in the workplace. The college told them how to make their own clothes last and budget and save. That little film is a true glimpse of social history.
Some of the films explore women's suffrage and what was done to deal with the scourge of women wanting the vote. A Couple of films are sympathetic to the people who want to prevent the women's vote but one film handles the problem with evenhandedness. It's called The Unintentional Sufragette.
Another film shows an episode from the 'Helen' series the longest running series in history so the commebntary tells us. It stars and is directed by Helen Holmes who also had a hand in producing the picture.
This film along with the Weber film shows that women could hold important positions in the film world. Whilst the other films show that women hadn't got the vote at that time. Nearly 100 years later, women have been elected to the top positions of power in many countries. It is quite something to think how our world has changed from that of our grandmothers and great grandmothers.
Some of the films explore women's suffrage and what was done to deal with the scourge of women wanting the vote. A Couple of films are sympathetic to the people who want to prevent the women's vote but one film handles the problem with evenhandedness. It's called The Unintentional Sufragette.
Another film shows an episode from the 'Helen' series the longest running series in history so the commebntary tells us. It stars and is directed by Helen Holmes who also had a hand in producing the picture.
This film along with the Weber film shows that women could hold important positions in the film world. Whilst the other films show that women hadn't got the vote at that time. Nearly 100 years later, women have been elected to the top positions of power in many countries. It is quite something to think how our world has changed from that of our grandmothers and great grandmothers.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
Movieman1957, Miss Goddess,
Hey, I actually like THE LOVE TRAP a whole bunch. But the tacked on dialogue finish completely ruins the film! It adds nothing whatsoever to the story, and is poorly done! The movie was moving along at a brisk pace, than all of a sudden the actors start talking! Anything with Laura La Plante is worth seeing! What a cutie! 
Hey, I actually like THE LOVE TRAP a whole bunch. But the tacked on dialogue finish completely ruins the film! It adds nothing whatsoever to the story, and is poorly done! The movie was moving along at a brisk pace, than all of a sudden the actors start talking! Anything with Laura La Plante is worth seeing! What a cutie! -
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
I'm staying in Ann Arbor, with my American relatives.bdp wrote:Hey Synnove, I had no idea you were in my neck of the woods! Whereabouts in Michigan have you been staying?
I wish they could make something in the style of the American film archives box sets in Europe. I saw a lot of movies at the festival that were interesting from the point of view of women's history, for instance. I would love it if more of the early short films from Europe were available, Cinema Europe shows some tantalizing clips from rare films I had never even heard of before.
I don't dislike the well known film makers like Melies (in fact, I love his movies) but often, the unheard of programmers intrigue me more. I don't know why that is.
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
I agree a European treasures set would be great. I bet it would be difficult to narrow down the films to go on them.
Yesterday I watched Waterloo Bridge. MAe Clarke gave a superlative performance as Myra an American forced on hard times selling her body to make ends meet. She meets a young American soldier and takes him back to her room. The very niavety of the soldier means he is unaware of her occupation. He falls in love with her and wants to marry her. Myra is very tempted to accept his offer but it's not right to her. A good boy with him needs a purer wife than she. He manages to spirit her away into the country, without telling her that they are on the way to his family. The family are very nice to Myra but his mother tells Myra that they are wrong for one another, she a chorus girl. This shows snobbery as Roy played by Douglas Montgomery is from a well to do family whereas Myra was never really wanted by her folks. Roy's mother has this conversation with Myra is such a nice way she later confesses to the older lady what she does do for a living and then leaves without telling Roy where she is going. When he returns to London he is to leave on active service, he illicits a promise that she will do something for him, that something is marriage. She skips out of the window whilst his back is turned and it is up to the landlady, a troublemaker is there ever was one to fill in the gaps. Now at least aware of what she does and why she will not marry him he searches London looking for her, he finds her on Waterloo Bridge, this time armed with the truth he asks her again to marry him, this time she agrees. They part, she will marry him when she comes back.
Mae Clarke plays this role with an acceptance of her fate, having taken the step to become a lady of the night, she can't cross back to decent society. Isn't it a pity this marvellous actress is most famous for receiving a grapefruit in the face from James Cagney.
Douglass Montgomery doesn't make much of an impression as Roy, neither does Bette Davies in her role as Roy's sister. It has to be said, she doesn't have many lines with which to make an impact.
It's been so long since I've seen Waterloo Bridge with Vivien Leigh, I seem to remember in that she is a ballet dancer, the inference on what she does is still there. The precode does not shy away from the facts at all.
Yesterday I watched Waterloo Bridge. MAe Clarke gave a superlative performance as Myra an American forced on hard times selling her body to make ends meet. She meets a young American soldier and takes him back to her room. The very niavety of the soldier means he is unaware of her occupation. He falls in love with her and wants to marry her. Myra is very tempted to accept his offer but it's not right to her. A good boy with him needs a purer wife than she. He manages to spirit her away into the country, without telling her that they are on the way to his family. The family are very nice to Myra but his mother tells Myra that they are wrong for one another, she a chorus girl. This shows snobbery as Roy played by Douglas Montgomery is from a well to do family whereas Myra was never really wanted by her folks. Roy's mother has this conversation with Myra is such a nice way she later confesses to the older lady what she does do for a living and then leaves without telling Roy where she is going. When he returns to London he is to leave on active service, he illicits a promise that she will do something for him, that something is marriage. She skips out of the window whilst his back is turned and it is up to the landlady, a troublemaker is there ever was one to fill in the gaps. Now at least aware of what she does and why she will not marry him he searches London looking for her, he finds her on Waterloo Bridge, this time armed with the truth he asks her again to marry him, this time she agrees. They part, she will marry him when she comes back.
Mae Clarke plays this role with an acceptance of her fate, having taken the step to become a lady of the night, she can't cross back to decent society. Isn't it a pity this marvellous actress is most famous for receiving a grapefruit in the face from James Cagney.
Douglass Montgomery doesn't make much of an impression as Roy, neither does Bette Davies in her role as Roy's sister. It has to be said, she doesn't have many lines with which to make an impact.
It's been so long since I've seen Waterloo Bridge with Vivien Leigh, I seem to remember in that she is a ballet dancer, the inference on what she does is still there. The precode does not shy away from the facts at all.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
ccf said
Those of us who grew up loving the Universal horror movies will always remember the great Mae Clarke as the first “bride” of Frankenstein (aka Colin Clive’s bride in the original film); Frankenstein, of course, also being directed by James Whale.
I agree, Waterloo Bridge is a fantastic film, and Mae Clarke is simply wonderful in it. (Vivian Leigh doesn’t hole a candle to Mae in the remake, but I think the Production Code severely lessened the impact of the remake anyway.)
Mae Clarke plays this role with an acceptance of her fate, having taken the step to become a lady of the night, she can't cross back to decent society. Isn't it a pity this marvellous actress is most famous for receiving a grapefruit in the face from James Cagney.
Those of us who grew up loving the Universal horror movies will always remember the great Mae Clarke as the first “bride” of Frankenstein (aka Colin Clive’s bride in the original film); Frankenstein, of course, also being directed by James Whale.I agree, Waterloo Bridge is a fantastic film, and Mae Clarke is simply wonderful in it. (Vivian Leigh doesn’t hole a candle to Mae in the remake, but I think the Production Code severely lessened the impact of the remake anyway.)
"Let's be independent together." Dr. Hermey DDS
-
silentscreen
- Posts: 701
- Joined: March 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm
Alison,
Mae Clarke is a very underrated and forgotten actress. I think I've only seen her in two films. She's in Gilbert's last film, "Fast Workers." There's a good oral biography that was published before her death that she contributed to. Does anyone know which of her films are currently available on DVD besides "Waterloo Bridge"? She didn't seem to mind that much that she was remembered as the woman who caught the grapefruit in the face from Cagney. She was a very gracious lady.
Mae Clarke is a very underrated and forgotten actress. I think I've only seen her in two films. She's in Gilbert's last film, "Fast Workers." There's a good oral biography that was published before her death that she contributed to. Does anyone know which of her films are currently available on DVD besides "Waterloo Bridge"? She didn't seem to mind that much that she was remembered as the woman who caught the grapefruit in the face from Cagney. She was a very gracious lady.
"Humor is nothing less than a sense of the fitness of things." Carole Lombard