The great thing about the Orson Welles marathon is, interesting movie or not, every single movie had an interesting backstory. At least every single movie he directed had an interesting backstory. It meant that I had material to write about regardless of how I felt about the film.
With Howard Hawks, I suspect this will not be the case, but with Come and Get It, we have an exception. On IMDB, Come and Get It is credited to not only Howard Hawks, but also William Wyler and Richard Rosson. Wyler was a great director in his own right, but they did not team up to make this movie. Rosson was Hawks' co-director or second director for a few movies, in this case the logging sequences.
Samuel Goldwyn bought the rights to Edna Farber's book, which spanned 50 years and was about "the wholesale rape of America by the robber barons of the day" (Her words). Goldwyn was attracted to the Barbary Coast-like qualities of the book, so he hired the director of that movie.
But soon after filming, Goldwyn had two major surgeries and was away from filming for a lengthy period of time. He was not able to follow the progress of the movie. Hawks, being apparently not interested in the story or theme that Farber wanted, decided to take advantage of this lack of oversight. He changed the tone of the story, he changed a supporting role that was supposed to be a strongman into the rail thin Walter Brennan, and he arranged a shooting schedule that required a budget over what Goldwyn would have approved.
He was able to film quite a bit of the movie before Goldwyn came back. Goldwyn was furious. Hawks I think gambled that Goldwyn would let him finish the movie, because too much of it had been filmed already. But he lost that gamble and was fired. Goldwyn threatened Wyler with suspension if he didn't complete the film, and Wyler very reluctantly agreed. Wyler was sorry about it for the rest of his life and didn't consider Come and Get It to be part of his filmography.
The absolutely fascinating thing about this is that I don't think Hawks was right on this one. I approve of him saying fuck the studio and doing his own thing, but I'm struggling to think his version was better. Hawks wanted to do a love triangle, which seems like the least interesting angle to take on this story.
Here's what the story is about. Back in the 1880s, a man named Barney Glasgow was a lumberjack who had ambitions to be head of the logging industry. He fell in love with a saloon singer, but chose instead to marry the daughter of his wealthy boss so that he could take over the business. The saloon singer married his best friend instead. Cut to 23 years later.
Glasgow is in a loveless marriage when he becomes convinced to visit his old friend, who he rarely saw once that saloon singer died. But they had a kid and wouldn't you know it, she looks exactly like her mother. Glasgow proceeds to have an extremely creepy infatuation with her.
In the meantime, Glasgow complains about having to pay taxes and how he should be able to cut down any tree he wants. Oh and by the way, he earns his fortune by cutting down trees on land he does not own. Important information. He also doesn't plant new trees in its place. His son, who is much more progressive, cares more about the environment and thinks it's better both business-wise and for the environment to re-plant seeds and he's much less hostile to governmental taxes.
And the son ends up falling in love with the daughter. So in Hawks version, apparently, the son is barely in the movie. Most of the movie comprises Swan, the rail thin Brennan, and Glasgow fighting for the affections of the saloon singer. I legitimately do not understand how that sounds more interesting than the plot of the book personally.
So Wyler came in and filmed what ended up being the last third of the film and it was presumably edited differently than what Hawks intended, because there's not really much of a love triangle between Swan and Glasgow. Glasgow "wins," but then abandons her for his future wife and then Swan swoops in.
The Glasgow character was modeled after Hawks' grandfather, and I don't know if that had anything to do with why he virtually ignored the environmental aspect (supposedly anyway), but just something worth pointing out. His increased budget is felt though. Lots of scenes of real trees being cut down and it's very impressive. There's a few minutes too many of these establishing scenes in my opinion - like they spent the money so they'll get their money's worth - but it's clear they filmed at an actual logging company.
The funniest part of this movie is a 31-year-old Joel McCrea being under 23. His age is not stated, but he's not yet born when we cut to 23 years later. And some 30-year-olds can pull off 23, but McCrea looks 40. People aged faster back then, so when I say he looks 40, I mean he looks 40 in 2021. But I don't think he even looked 22 or whatever in 1936.
The performances carry this movie. Edward Arnold, who I've never even heard of before this movie, is great. Walter Brennan won the very first Academy Award for a supporting actor for his part as Swan. Both actors seem way, way too old to play their younger selves which is at least slightly distracting.
The completely unknown at the time Frances Farmer gets the dual roles of mother and daughter and I have to give her credit because she is able to make them distinct characters while also making it seem like they're related. The mother has a bit more of a husky voice and a carefree attitude while the daughter is more sweet and childlike. Hawks said she was no question the best actress he ever worked with. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia just six years later and her career never really took off.
Whoever is ultimately responsible for the movie, I enjoyed it. It doesn't feel like two directors directed it, so good job on the editor I suppose. It was well-acted and it has a more interesting story than most movies do. I don't think it ever vaulted into greatness, but it's a good movie.
3/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment