Hawks Marathon: Barbary Coast (1935)

To be honest, as I'm writing this, I don't actually know the order I'll be posting these.  I mention that because Barbary Coast is my third Hawks movie in my Howard Hawks marathon, following two movies that will end up having lukewarm reviews.  I'm probably going to try to start my marathon with a positive review, so I will *probably* not end up posting these in the order with which I'm watching.

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

Welles Marathon: The Stranger (1946)

After a slight hiatus caused partially due to the fact that the MLB playoffs were happening and I think I just forgot about this last week, this feature is back.  I have just four more Orson Welles movies to cover.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen three of those movies in about a month, so my shoddy memory is going to have to be relied upon.  I'll make sure to put this disclaimer for each of the three where it applies.

I had certain expectations for most Welles movies - he has a ton of movies that he's either made or been in that are part of lists that I follow to determine classic movies to watch.  This is a double-edged sword.  Expectations are not necessarily the greatest thing to have when watching a movie, at least not in my case, because they tend to influence my opinion of the film for better or worse.  

If you go in expecting a classic, and the movie has some flaws, you are disappointed.  And it is very rare to find an older movie - from around Welles time - that is without flaws.  If you can watch a movie blind, which is a different type of risk, you and the movie are on neutral ground.

I bring all that up because I had never heard of The Stranger.  The Stranger, by all accounts, is a run-of-the-mill film noir, or so I was guessing.  It's not on any "Best of" lists whether that be all-time, the specific year it was made, or even within its own genre of film noir.  I had no real reason to expect much when I started this film.

So maybe it was that, but this is probably the film that surprised me the most in this marathon.  I liked this better than The Lady from Shanghai and I liked it better than The Touch of Evil.  I will not deny that both of those films are perhaps better from a filmmaking perspective - more innovative and whatnot.

But the brass tacks of actually making a good movie?  I think this is more effective.  The Stranger, on the heels of the end of World War II, is about an investigator who follows a famous Nazi into a small town in Connecticut to arrest him for war crimes.

It's not a chase movie despite the beginning premise.  The Nazi blends into the small town, and the investigator needs to learn who it is.  We learn who it is immediately.  That's how simple the premise is.  The investigator is played by Edward G Robinson, usually more well-known as a gangster tough guy.  He does what's needed for role, which is simply to be invested in him catching the Nazi, played by Welles.  

Welles has the harder part and he steps up to the challenge.  He needs to convince us how he's able to infiltrate the town - he does so by seeming to be normal, but there is just enough off about his performance that he's never completely lost the Nazi side of him.  And when he takes off the mask, so to speak, it's not completely disconnected from the rest of his performance.

The cast is rounded out by Loretta Young, Welles new bride, Phillip Mervale, a judge and the father of the bride, and Richard Long, the bride's brother.  But the real stars of the movie are Robinson and Welles, and the others are just there to support them.  (Young does get a bit more to do than I'm suggesting)

The Stranger is notable for two reasons.  The first is that it was the first film to feature footage of Nazi concentration camps following World War II, which maybe doesn't seem as shocking to us as it did at the time, but just for that fact alone, I'm surprised this movie isn't more well-known.  The second is that it's the only movie of Welles to show a profit in its original release.  So it was a fairly popular movie at the time.

If you're looking for a good film noir, you can't do much worse than The Stranger.  Hopefully, I haven't built up your expectations too much so that you don't suffer the same fate as I have with other Welles' projects.

4/4 stars