The reason I'm saying this is because it may not necessarily make sense how I frame this review by referencing that I'm coming off two somewhat disappointing movies when in fact I may have posted a glowing review of another movie before this. Or maybe I'll post Barbary Coast first.
From what I can gather, Barbary Coast is considered "lesser Hawks." Enjoyable, but not his best work. I have seen at least one of his movies considered "his best work" and I liked this lesser Hawks movie more than that.
Barbary Coast tells the story of a woman traveling to San Francisco to marry a man during the height of the gold rush. Only when she gets there, that man has already been killed. This bothers her less because she loved the man and more because she wanted his money.
She refocuses her efforts towards making money for a crime boss by running a fixed game and attracting clientele with her beauty. She is apparently one of the very few white women in San Francisco during that time.
Barbary Coast was filmed at the very beginning of the influence of what is known as "the Hays code," a destructive censorship of films that sterilized films for about 20 years. When the first draft of this movie was written, it may have been written with the idea that this film would not be censored. The production code was not strictly enforced until the middle of 1934.
In any case, the first draft of this movie was entirely different than what was on screen, because it was roundly rejected by Joseph Breen, a man who had way too much power over the motion picture industry at the time. So it got changed into a love story.
Interestingly, you can read subtext into what happens. "Swan" who is played by Miriam Hopkins works for crime boss Luis Chamalis (Edward G Robinson) and in a modern movie, you could have their relationship play out with the understanding that something else is probably going on without actually having any scene make it explicit.
Of course the movie goes to great pains to make sure it's known that Luis is frustrated he can't be with her. But his controlling nature and the fact that she seems to live with him...could indicate they sleep together. Certainly makes more sense than them not sleeping together, giving his attachment and loyalty to her.
The reason why I think you basically have to assume they are sleeping together despite evidence on screen that they are not - because they couldn't get away with it at the time - is because she is shown as pragmatic and willing to do anything to get money early on, including being betrothed to a man she has never met. He is a mob boss who wants her badly. She has enough influence on him later in the movie to prevent a newspaper man who is trying to expose him from being killed. Like come on. We, the audience, can just pretend that this is a thing happening in the background of their relationship.
In the meantime, his controlling nature causes her to leave in a rage, even though it's raining. It ends up pouring and she ends up shacking in an abandoned cabin, where she meets the love interest, Joel McCrea. She previously thought she couldn't love, but instantly feels a connection to this stranger.
But he's leaving back for New York, and when a ship gets delayed, he gets roped into gambling at the very place where Swan works. He gets mad at her for sucking her in, and ends up getting whatever the 1850 equivalent of roofied was, and loses all his money gambling at her table. He regrets his actions later, and ends up working for Luis.
Interestingly, there is a whole another subplot going on in this movie that seems kind of out of place. While she's on the boat to meet the man she never will marry, she meets the newspaper man she later saves. He is noble and dedicated to this new city and ends up starting a newspaper. He's idealistic and wants to expose the crime boss, but after threatened, he's forced to ignore it.
In what ended up feeling really rushed, he unwisely stands up to a thug who works for the crime boss and gets himself killed. A vigilante group ends up having had enough and starts to stand up against this boss who controls everything.
This is a case of too many things going on. Because nothing about that situation is bad, but it seems tacked on. And oddly enough, it was probably a major part of the first draft. The problem is just that it's a plot point that required more screen time.
This is a 90 minute movie. And for the first half, things are well-paced. And then she meets her love interest, and that's the dominant storyline for the second half, which relegates the subplot about cleaning up the city to maybe less than 10 minutes? The pieces were in place, the movie just wasn't long enough and trust me, that is not a criticism I will usually levy against a movie.
The actors are all good. I've been watching a lot of Miriam Hopkins lately - less on purpose and more she just happened to be in movies that came my way - and she hasn't disappointed me yet. Edward G Robinson never really manages to be genuinely threatening, but he's not a weak point by any means. Joel McCrea is appropriately dreamy. But of all the actors, I really enjoyed Walter Brennan as Old Atrocity, the rascal with the secret heart of gold. He's a favorite of Hawks, so I'll be seeing him in more movies in this marathon.
Despite the fact that an interesting subplot of Barbary Coast ended up getting the short shift, I did enjoy this movie. I enjoyed the world building of San Francisco circa Gold Rush days, I enjoyed the performances, and I enjoyed the love story, possibly because it was only half the movie and because the conflicts felt like something that would actually happen.
3/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment