ksf-2
Apparently Maurice Dekobra was a prolific writer français, and had numerous works turned into short and full length films. and is still having his works made into films, even though he croaked in 1973 ! The always-debonair Adolphe Menjou is Captain Roberts, and when caught with the wife of prominent Sangrito (Stroheim), makes a payoff to him rather than fight a duel. and of course Hugh Herbert is in here for comedic effect. Lili Damiti is Sangrito's wife, and it turns out they have played this blackmail game before. But this time she doesn't want the money... she wants the Roberts, the lover. Damita herself had quite a life-story, according to wikipedia; married to Hollywood big-shots Michael Curtiz, then Errol Flynn. and her journalist son disappeared in Cambodia in 1970, never to be found. In our film, a very young Laurence Olivier is the interloper, also falling for Madame Sangrito. The story is pretty simple; the sound quality isn't so good... keeps going up and down. a couple awkward edits. and that ending. so abrupt. were some scenes cut or did the book really end like that? was pretty good overall, but the ending kind of left me feeling cheated. Some clever editing... how they switch from showing the male lead showering to showing us the female lead showering, artfully blocked, of course. This was prior to the film code being enforced, so i'm sure part of that was just for the tingle factor. Directed by Victor Schertzinger, who had started out as a musician. This is an RKO shortie, at 68 minutes.
oceanchick
Though I don't rate Friends and Lovers (1931) high based on my harsh rating scale, I give credit where it is due. Friends and Lovers is a perfect example of how I feel films should have been made in the early 30s---condensed. (This comment/review, however, will not be.) The film, including titles, is 68 minutes long, yet it tells an engaging cohesive story with several locations, people, costumes, events, passage of time and action without weighing it down with the fluff that movies were full of during that period. By fluff I include but am not limited to: extended reaction shots, excessive beauty shots, far off stares (see Greta's films), eyebrow movement shots (see Norma's films), mouth and lips parting shots (see Irene's films), unnecessary walking, unrelated dialog extending screen time for the stars, etc. Yes, this movie does have a few gratuitous fluffs but it doesn't tack on an entire hour showing them. The movie doesn't feel "glossy"; instead, somehow, it feels real.The studio was unstable bankrupt great depression era Selznick helmed RKO. Director Victor Schertzinger, who had been in film since the first moving frame, pulled poignant performances from his cast and provided the music. DP J. Roy Hunt strapped to RKO through all of its phases provided believable lighting for B/W film through many types of scenes both indoors and out, as well as smooth camera movement and action. Adolphe Menjou survived the silent years to give a decent performance as obsessed, possessed, ardently pining Geoff, Larry Olivier makes his stiff and subtle Hollywood debut in a fair size role as Ned, Lili Damita also from the silent era wasn't a blazing beauty or brilliant actress but she did her part allowing her accent and body to do the rest as Alva, Erich Von Stroheim though a little cheesy made being a sadistic and evil porcelain collector seem lucrative and fun as Victor, and Hugh Herbert as McNellis, trying not to trip over his on and off again accent, bounced through the film offering humor here and there to keep the viewer's emotions connected.Film making is all about taking the viewer in, cold from the street with their own world in their mind, connecting with their emotions and transporting them to another place and time, taking them on an emotional roller coaster ride until the film is through. If at any time the coaster slows or stops, the viewer has time to realize themselves again, even if only subconsciously, and the film has lost them. If picked up again, the viewer must start over emotionally with the story. Condensing this film down to 68 minutes keeps the viewer's attention the entire time. The overall ride may be short, the sets may be cheap, the acting may not be the best, the plot may be thin, the music may be shallow, the dialog may be simple, but tell a story that efficiently and the viewer doesn't notice while watching. Should the viewer notice, it's not considered long because the next sequence is already speeding along with fresh new things for the brain to process. Plot of the film is simple on the surface though it has a few morality testing twists and turns. For what they had to work with, the plot was kept clean and cohesive, the shots were tight, the camera action was appropriate, the cinematography and lighting was believable, the sets weren't spectacular but scenes didn't last long enough to pick them apart, the tension was there, the emotion was heavy, the beauty was shown, the dialog was believable and the actors sizzled. So much happens at a comfortable pace that I never once got bored or thought about anything else other than the film. I ignored a ringing phone. I ignored portable electronics. The film was paced so well that I didn't want to look away. I was completely surprised by how enjoyable the film was to watch, unlike so many pre-code early 30s films I have suffered through. (I'm an elitist film snob, so I will watch a terrible film just so I can say w/o any doubt I hated it.) If there is so much fluff in a film that I sit there and start counting how many steps the actress is making across every single room, on every single street, up every single stair and then start counting their stares, far off looks, exaggerated baby spot lit soft shots, and on top of it listen to senseless dialog that does nothing to forward the plot but included just so that the actress/actor is getting a certain percentage of screen time, I feel I'd rather have a root canal without anesthetic rather than sit through the rest of the film. For me to sit through an entire early 30s film without moving or thinking of anything else means the film is very special in some way. In retrospect, I wonder: the novelty of the talking pictures was new, but it does make me wonder if viewers really loved the long lingering shots of the starlets or if they tolerated them. Did they expect them because they were paying money to be visually entertained? Does length equal value? According to rumor, the film lost $260k at the box office, though IMDBpro, AFI, or BFI don't offer any budget or salary info. Perhaps Friends and Lovers was shot with the same early 30s heavy fluff monkey on its back but given to a gifted editor that said NO to fluff. Regardless, this is a very rare 68 minutes that I was happy watching a pre-code film, and for anyone like me who barely tolerates movies of the early 30s because of the unnecessary fluff, give this one a watch. It's not the best film in the world, but 68 minutes isn't long in comparison to 2 hours of Norma's eyebrows going up and down.
sol-
A bit of a twist on the average love triangle story, this early American film adds in something to think about in terms of coincidences in life. Everything that happens, with characters meeting who have all been seduced by the same woman, is so reliant on convenient coincidences that it would almost be contrived, if it were not for the fact that the film is indeed about stories that sound contrived but are real, a point made clear by the discussions at the dinner table scene. The film is very talky, without much room set aside for establishing atmosphere, but the dinner scene is so intense that the lack of atmosphere elsewhere is almost forgotten, and there are a few stylish bits, such as a door opening slowly so that it cannot be seen who is opening it.In a supporting role, Erich von Stroheim plays a central European porcelain collector who manipulates his wife into seducing British gentlemen so that he can later blackmail them. It seems a shame that he was not given a bigger part, because he has by far the most interesting character and he gives off the liveliest performance in the film, speaking slowly to toy with Adolphe Menjou, and moving about the place in such a cool, leisurely manner that one is constantly hanging on edge. Unbeknown to him, his plans go awry when it turns out that two of the men that his wife has seduced are old friends; this coincidence is obvious and too slowly played out, but the resulting initial resentment followed by acceptance that occurs between the two men is interesting to track.The film looks like it may have been intended to be a satire, and the coincidences are sort of funny, however there's nothing comical as such about the film other than von Stroheim's appropriately domineering performance and the way that he talks - how he says "passion" with his accent comes out rather humorously. The film does not quite work as a satire, presenting more so things to think about then any definite message, and the transformations and motivations of Lili Damita's seductress character are never clear and seem a bit awkward. Damita herself is not exactly excellent in her role - she is visually striking, but never as charismatic as a femme fatale should be. The rest of the cast are generally fine, as is the overall production. It just falls a little short of being anything really special.
