Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 28, 2020 18:21:59 GMT -8
Sadie McKee is an unabashed 1934 drama that is never very deep but usually entertaining. Sadie (Joan Crawford) is the daughter of the cook who works for a millionaire family. The charismatically challenged Franchot Tone plays rich son, Michael, who likes Sadie. But he ticks off Sadie by coming down on Sadie’s since-childhood sweetheart, Tommy (Gene Raymond), who is involved in some petty thievery. Sadie hits the road with Tommy, away from their small town, looking to make it in New York. And it seems as if rich-son Michael was right about Tommy after all. On the very day when Tommy and Sadie are to be married, Tommy runs off with Dolly, played by Esther Boom-Boom Ralston. Both have music in common and Tommy seizes the opportunity she baits him with. She needs a new musical partner. But stealing another girl's man is certainly a bonus for her. Well, you can’t keep an energetic and hard-driving Sadie McKee down. She runs into a millionaire drunkard played by Edward Arnold. We spend way too much time watching Edward Arnold play a drunk. We get it within the first five minutes but they must run with it for 15. And to thicken the dramatical soup, rich-boy Michael just happens to be the millionaire’s lawyer. Franchot Tone then spends most of the rest of the film over-acting his simmering hostility toward Sadie. Yikes. So bad it’s good, I guess. And that’s what you get. Too much of this. Too much of that. But it’s all in the interest of melodrama. Jean Dixon, as Sadie’s below-the-stairs friend, adds the only real life and charm to this movie. She’s a great character. But with some doing it good, some doing it bad, and Joan Crawford melodrama-ing her way through every scene, it all just works. Will Sadie ever come full circle and make her way back to long-lost love Tommy? Will the millionaire drink himself to death? Will Michael’s head explode from his own broiling angst? Will Joan give boom-boom her comeuppance for stealing her man? I’ll end with this one comment from a reviewer at IMDB:
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 28, 2020 18:36:29 GMT -8
I know of Tone mainly from the Twilight Zone episode "The Silence", in which he plays a villain who makes a bet he could never pay off because he's certain he can't lose. Jonathan Harris was also in it (he also appeared in the episode "Twenty-two" from the same year), in a role in no way resembling Dr. Zachary Smith (probably because there were no bubble-headed boobies or tin-plated tintinnabulations around).
I see in wikipedia that Leo G. Carroll also had a small role in it. Alexander Waverley really got around.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 29, 2020 8:08:16 GMT -8
I don’t remember Tone in that Twilight Zone episode. But I bet he was good in it. I think you want a little one-dimensionality for your lead actor sometimes. 1933’s Dancing Lady (which I just finished the other day) also features Franchot Tone. Again he plays a man-with-money but he’s more suave and debonair and doesn’t just snarl. He runs into struggling dancer Janie Barlow (Joan Crawford). He’s smitten and starts helping her career by pulling some strings, including those of theatre director, Patch Gallagher (Clark Gable). Although Franchot Tone tones down his one dimensionality, Gable is a complete stereotype of a grumbling director who barks orders and constantly erupts over his dissatisfaction with everything. Patch also becomes smitten with Janie Barlow and helps her out. Here we come to an uncomfortable part because I can’t dance a lick. To criticize Joan Crawford for not being Fred Astaire isn’t fair. But can she dance well enough to play a gal dancing the lead in a Broadway show? I have to admit, it’s slightly unconvincing. But, geez, at least she’s not stumbling around like Larry, Moe, and Curly who, by the way, are in this film stumbling around as Larry, Moe, and Curly. I’m not kidding. They’re billed in this film as “Ted Healy’s Stooges” but they are indeed The Three Stooges. Why are they there in a Joan Crawford drama? I have no idea. The only explanation is given by this reviewer: Let’s just say, there was a bit of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing if something sticks. And, oh yes, Fred Astaire (in his film debut) is an element thrown at the wall. This is Fred Astaire, so the wall is so impressed, it starts dancing with him. Which is to say, even this horribly staged Big Musical Number couldn’t disguise the fact that Fred Astaire can dance and even do a little singing. There actually are some nice parts to the Big Musical Number which plays out at the end. They film an interesting bit around a mirrored carousel. It’s rather stunning and the kind of thing that MGM would integrate much better into their films at a later time. As a sort of MGM freak show, you can watch the entirety of Dancing Lady online. Jump to 1:31 for the carousel bit. This is fairly low resolution. But the print they ran on The Criterion Channel looked great. All in all, you really don’t want to waste your time on Dancing Lady. But Sadie MacKee is worth a look.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 29, 2020 9:16:37 GMT -8
Yes, the Three Stooges started out as "Ted Healy's Stooges" before doing their own short pieces. In the 60s they started making longer films, most of which I saw. (My favorite is probably The Three Stooges Go Around the World in a Daze, including the scene in which the Chicoms try to brainwash Larry and Curly Joe. The problem, as Moe points, is that they didn't have "a brainee to washee". Naturally they used the stereotypical mock Chinese-English, which would make the movie unacceptable today.)
Incidentally, they also had a bit part in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, but that was a comedy featuring an ensemble of comedians, some in major roles and some in bit parts. Even Jack Benny reportedly had a barely noticeable cameo.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 29, 2020 10:18:04 GMT -8
That's a movie I should sit down and watch again: It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Right now I'm watching this strange French film (redundant, I know) about a pickpocket.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 1, 2020 8:16:19 GMT -8
I can’t do a separate review for this film because it’s not good enough and it’s not bad enough. In the badly-titled 1937 film, Mannequin, (there's one good modeling scene, but that's it regarding a "mannequin") Joan Crawford and Spencer Tracy team up for their one and only time. I have to admit, this is a pretty good piece of drama for about 7/8ths of the film. Crawford plays Jesside Cassidy, a girl determined to make it out of the tenement houses of New York’s Hester Street. In an act of desperation, she marries Eddie Miller (Alan Curtis) who seems to be a nice enough guy. He has ambition and Jessie sees him as a way out and a way up. One of the major flaws of the film is how it cheats on this character. Twenty minutes into it we learn that Eddie is a real low-life. He’s a boxing promoter who has just lost his meal ticket fighter in a crap game. This comes out of nowhere. We then must just suppose that Jessie is as blind as a bat in regards to recognizing character issues of men or that the film simply McGuffined Eddie into a bad character overnight to artificially drive the plot. During their marriage celebration dinner both Eddie and Jessie run into millionaire John Hennessey (Spencer Tracy). Hennessey is immediately smitten by Jessie and sends a bottle of champagne to their table. They dance. Some sparks fly (mostly on the side of Hennessey). But the groundwork is laid. Eddie knows that Hennessey is a big shot (he had insisted his new wife dance with him). She throws Jessie at him further, insisting that she go to one of Hennessey’s parties by herself. He knows Hennessey has an eye for her and wants to use this as an in. Jessie and Hennessey have a nice scene on his balcony overlooking the city. Later Eddie goes total bum and finds himself in jail. Jessie needs to find $100 to bail him out. She goes to Hennessey who hands over the money, no questions asked. Eventually one thing leads to another. Eddie becomes such a bum (including trying to hatch a scheme whereby Jessie marries Hennessey to get a hook into his money for the both of them) that Jessie divorces him. Naturally one thing leads to another again and Hennessey and Jessie find themselves to be a couple and get married. She doesn’t love him (an aspect barely explored) and apparently he knows she doesn’t love him. But they take off on a world tour and by the time they reach Hennessey’s ancestral home in Ireland, Jessie is madly in love with him. And all this is pretty good stuff. Tracy is terrific in this. Where it goes wrong is the blackmail plot by Eddie. He means to blackmail his ex-wife. He’ll tell Hennessey about his (not her) old plot to marry her (only temporarily) to Hennessey for his money. And this is where the movie comes completely off the rails. There really is no leverage to Eddie’s blackmail. All she needs do is tell Jessie about what Eddie had proposed a long time ago — the very reason she divorced him. But we’re supposed to believe that Hennessey will simply assume that Jessie has been a gold-digger all this time. And this aspect falls completely flat and ruins an otherwise good movie. It’s funny because there is generally good chemistry between Tracy and Crawford. One wonders why they didn’t do another film together. And this film is full of splendid scenes. And for the moment, this completes the Joan Crawford retrospective although there is one more I have in the queue that I might watch soon.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 1, 2020 8:48:34 GMT -8
I've never heard of this before and have no plans to see it even if it comes on TCM, but from your synopsis it does seem unreasonable. Would it never occur to a rich man that his low-income wife might be a gold-digger? And would it never occur to him that she could dig a lot more gold by staying with him than by getting him to divorce her? It really sounds like an idiot plot.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 1, 2020 9:12:15 GMT -8
Hennessey pursued her even on the day of her wedding to Eddie, so the “gold-digger” aspect should be completely unbelievable by anyone involved. You make some good points. Also, what I hadn’t yet mentioned was her noble resolution to this if Eddie did try blackmail. She told Eddie that she would leave Hennessey. And, indeed, part of the botched ending was that she suddenly (after a happy-filled montage of them traveling the world) suddenly (having learned that Eddie was getting ready to blackmail her) told Hennessey that, well, I’m just bored in the marriage and I don’t really love you after all.
I mean, I do think at times, Timothy, that these movies are written just to annoy me. Like I said, this is a pretty good one throughout most of it with some terrific scenes and characters. The talk between Jessie and her mother while they are both washing dishes is priceless. Great dialogue. Great themes.
And so this makes the flame-out all the more difficult to handle. Had this been a mediocre film from the start, the ending would have just been par for the course, lukewarm slop ladled onto lukewarm slop. There would be no shock value, no cinematic whiplash. But this was overall pretty good. But it’s like taking a sightseeing trip to the Grand Canyon, with beautiful weather and wonderful sites along the way. But you pull into the Grand Canyon viewing point parking lot, the brakes having leaked all their fluid somewhere back in Tallahassee, and you go over the edge. But what a nice trip up to that point.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 1, 2020 10:06:45 GMT -8
I looked it up in wikipedia, and if anything it's even stupider. According to their synopsis, Jessie tells the low-life that she'll leave Hennessey rather than blackmail him. She then tells Hennessey that she never loved him -- and then changes her mind, which he understandably doesn't believe. But why did she do that? It has a happy ending, and I guess they needed something dark to provide tension, but as I said, it's an idiot plot.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Nov 1, 2020 12:15:13 GMT -8
In the 30s Hester St. in NYC was almost an exclusively Jewish area. So it is likely she was 2nd generation Jewish, her mother was Jewish, and her father was Scott, something that it appears the movie doesn't cover.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 1, 2020 12:42:58 GMT -8
LOL. That made me laugh. And I thought I was being tough on the film.
|
|