Neglected film: LADY OF SECRETS (1936)

Ruth Chatterton had finished her contract with Warner Brothers in 1934. She had also divorced former costar George Brent. And after a period of down-time, she was ready to return to the movies. At 43, she was the perfect age for her role in this Columbia melodrama. Playing a society woman plagued by problems would be a cinch for her, since she’d specialized in these types of roles at Paramount early in her film career.

This time, she was playing a woman of mental incapacity, or so her scheming father (Lionel Atwill) would have others believe. The truth is that her character had fallen in love with a man of a lower class (Lloyd Nolan), daddy dearest objected, and after the boyfriend died, that was meant to be the end of it. But unfortunately for Atwill and his wife (Elisabeth Risdon), there was a baby on the way.

The scenes where we see in extended flashback a younger looking Chatterton being romanced by Nolan are a bit of a stretch. Yet this sequence does explain how Chatterton’s character might have had a happy life, if not for her father’s interference and some very bad luck. It may not be quite believable seeing the actress play a 20 year old version of herself in the past, but she does pull off the necessary emotional aspects of the situation.

Out of the flashback, we learn that now in her early 40s. Chatterton has spent the last two decades pretending to be her young daughter’s older sister. This is because after Nolan’s death, Atwill and Risdon took responsibility for raising their granddaughter as their own child. Risdon is no longer around, so Atwill has been making all the decisions. Chatterton has never been allowed to live her own life freely or do do what’s best for her sister/daughter.

Any opportunity of going off on her own, and Atwill threatens to put Chatterton in a mental institution. In fact, he does end up doing so, when Chatterton decides it’s time to tell her “kid sister” (Marian Marsh) the truth about how they’re really related. Atwill doesn’t want a scandal so he takes preemptive measures to have Chatterton committed, as if that wouldn’t cause more tongues to wag in their tight knit community. In a way, the relationship between Atwill and Chatterton in this film reminds me of the one between Charles Laughton and Norma Shearer in THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET, without incestuous vibes.

Much of the melodrama that plays out is Chatterton breaking free of her father’s obsessive control. Also, she avails herself to ensure Marsh has a real future, which includes Marsh marrying a man (Robert Allen) for love not money. Helping Chatterton liberate herself is a kind gentleman (Otto Kruger) about the same age as her, who had previously become engaged to Marsh. Yes, this is a soap opera!

The various story threads resolve as one would expect, with Atwill eventually put in his place. Both Chatterton and Marsh find happiness. However, the writers do not give the two gals conventional closure. Chatterton recants on her earlier statement about being Marsh’s mom, since she realizes the young girl cannot handle the truth. So she goes back to playing big sis and walks Marsh down the aisle to her waiting fiancé.

Neglected film: 99 RIVER STREET (1953)

Part of the beauty of this classic noir is the sensible and mostly understated performance of its lead actor, John Payne. At this point in his career, Payne was no longer making musicals for Fox; and he was no longer making action adventure pics for the Pine-Thomas unit at Paramount. Those roles were now behind him. He was reinventing himself yet again, this time in crime flicks directed by Phil Karlson. These pictures were financed by indy producer Edward Small and released through United Artists.

Payne is an uncredited writer for some of the film’s dialogue, so he seems to have gained more behind-the-scenes control over this project than with his previous efforts. As such, he is able to provide us with a carefully delineated character, an ex-fighter who’s seen better days. No longer the champ he once was, he is now reduced to driving a taxi around the city; while his shallow wife (Peggie Castle) has her own job at a floral shop that puts her in contact with a thug (Brad Dexter) she’s seeing on the side.

The scenes where Payne learns Castle is— in his words— a tramp, are painful to watch, because he really loved the woman. Suddenly his heart is ripped in half; and he’s not only inconsolable, he’s angry for having been such a fool. When Dexter realizes Castle is a liability in a diamond theft that went wrong, he decides to kill her and pin the blame on Payne. Yes, things go from bad to worse.

Meanwhile, Evelyn Keyes has been introduced in a subplot that eventually puts her into the main action as an actress friend of Payne’s. Keyes has tricked Payne into thinking she killed a man inside a theater and needs his help. But the whole thing is a ruse to ‘audition’ for a part she wanted. Feeling he’s once again been played for a sucker by a dame, Payne swears off any future involvement with the opposite sex.

Of course, Keyes feels guilty about her actions, so she turns down the role she landed in the play and finds Payne to apologize. But now she realizes Payne is not only wanted for assaulting the director of the play, he’s also wanted for killing Castle. Keyes vows to stick by Payne, and to help him, though he is still not sure he needs a woman in his life and could care less if she squares herself with him. Still, there’s something between them.

It’s an unexpected love story. The Payne-Keyes relationship grows while Payne is a wanted man. His goal is to catch Dexter and clear his own name, but Dexter has plans to flee the country on a ship. At the same time, Dexter has double crossed a man (Jay Adler) who fences stolen gems. Adler’s goon (Jack Lambert) has a few scenes getting rough with Payne and Dexter. There is never a shortage of action or intrigue in this well-crafted movie.

The whole thing reaches a dramatic climax at a place called The Harbor Light Cafe, located (where else) at 99 River Street. Keyes has a memorable scene causing a commotion inside the cafe as sexy jazz music plays on the jukebox. While she gyrates with a married man, she moves to latch on to Dexter and pull him outside where Payne can nab him. Dexter just got his hands on a phony passport and is in a hurry to catch the boat, so he doesn’t have time for playful Keyes. But she tries awfully hard to stir his libido.

All the characters eventually battle it out on the pier. Nearly everyone winds up dead except for Payne and Keyes. Naturally! (Since we want a happy ending, right?) The film’s coda lets us know that Payne has now found a good woman in Keyes, they’ve married, and they run a business together. In a lot of these films, a woman gives up her own career to make a home with her new husband. But in this case, given Keyes’ ill-fated attempts to get on Broadway and her actions inside a cafe to seduce a man, it’s probably best she’s settled down.

Neglected film: THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET (1949)

Nathanael West, who once worked in a newspaper office, wrote the novel Miss Lonelyhearts, which was published in 1933. His story served as the basis for Daryl Zanuck’s ADVICE TO THE LOVELORN starring Lee Tracy, as a hotshot journalist who is reigned in by a boss after overstepping his bounds and is assigned a lonely hearts column under a female pseudonym. Tracy was an expert at playing newshounds, even ones who faced a loss of prestige on the beat.

The following year, Warner Brothers decided to come up with its own version and produced HI NELLIE! which put Paul Muni in a similar role, though Muni was a tad miscast compared to Lee Tracy. In HI NELLIE!, Muni is involved with Glenda Farrell who helps him work on an important criminal case on the side, while doling out advice to the masses.

In most versions of this story, the guy working as a female advice columnist gets caught up in the job of helping others solve their problems. Mostly because he has a Savior complex and thinks he can straighten out the issues of the world, or at least the issues of those who read the paper.

Like ADVICE TO THE LOVELORN, HI NELLIE! was a hit with audiences. In fact, the bosses at Warners were so taken with its success that they quickly remade it as a B film with Ronald Reagan a few years later. Then the studio remade it in 1942, back to an A film with George Brent. And by the late 1940s, this version occurred, which is not exactly a B, but not really an A either. Filmed in the summer of 1948, though not released until September of 1949, it featured Wayne Morris.

Morris had been with the studio since 1936, and this would be his last film under his long-term contract at Warner Brothers. He would start freelancing, with a series of western B flicks at Monogram/Allied Artists, then dabble in television…and he’d later return to Warners for a supporting role in a Randolph Scott western. He died in 1959 at the relatively young age of 45, ten years after THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET was released. Morris was gone too soon.

One thing that always impresses me about Morris’ on-screen persona is how kind he seems to be to his costars. There is zero ego with him in his roles. He comes across as gracious and helpful to his costars, such a likable fellow, which is probably why Warners kept him on the payroll so long, even if he never reached the ranks of the Cagneys, Bogarts or Flynns.

In this production, he has several very nice moments alongside leading lady Janis Paige, who was also wrapping up her contract at the studio, and had appeared with Morris in the western THE YOUNGER BROTHERS. Playing an editor who is demoted to the bewildered hearts section of the paper by a frenemy boss (Alan Hale Sr.), Morris isn’t happy at first…but then rolls with the punches and takes his loss of status in stride. Of course, the main part of the plot involves Morris and Paige hunkering down to catch a gangster (Bruce Bennett) who has thus far evaded justice.

Into the mix we have a notable turn by Alex Gerry as Bennett’s crafty attorney. And James Mitchell as one of Bennett’s cronies, who ultimately fears for his life and confides in Morris about Bennett’s illegal activities. His statements provide evidence for a conviction.

It’s not a profound story. Several aspects of the original version have been softened. Once again, Warners is trotting out its gangster flick formula and melding it with a newspaper drama. It’s hardly earth shattering, but it is still an acceptable time passer with pleasing stars who make it enjoyable motion picture entertainment.

Neglected film: UNMARRIED (1939)

An opening image shows a diamond ring next to the title, so one guesses the lead characters won’t remain unmarried by the end of the story. This was Helen Twelvetrees’ last motion picture at the age of 30. She had become famous a decade earlier as a precode tragedienne, deftly combining pathos and respectability. Especially when she was playing gals of ill-repute in search of a better life.

Here she is helped by her sassy line deliveries as a world weary nightclub hostess involved with a third-rate boxer (Buck Jones) who’s seen better days in and out of the ring.

Incidentally, Jones was Twelvetress’ leading man in her last three films; and at this point, they are most believable as a romantic couple plagued by a series of personal and financial conflicts.

Robert Armstrong plays a gambler who knows both of them and frequents the club. When a wager Armstrong placed on Jones’ latest fight goes sour, because Jones got knocked out, Jones feels obligated to help Armstrong. But Twelvetrees won’t loan Armstrong a dime, despite Jones’ best efforts.  Armstrong is in badly need of cash for an undisclosed reason (to pay for his son’s private school education). Out of desperation, he robs the safe at the club during a chaotic police raid.

Armstrong is shot, but Jones makes it look like Armstrong committed suicide instead of going down as a crook. Since Twelvetress’ club has been closed by the law, she and Jones decide to get out of town for awhile. They learn about a home Armstrong had in the country, and head there. But they are not counting on this decision to change the rest of their lives.

In the scenes that follow, the couple is introduced to Armstrong’s 12 year old son. The kid is played by 14 year-old Donald O’Connor who already had a few feature films to his credit plus considerable experience on the vaudeville circuit.

Part of the plot’s irony is that Twelvetrees and Jones feel a sense of responsibility in helping raise the lad; and they become his foster parents though they are not married. Somehow the writers get around the production code, as it’s pretty obvious that Twelvetrees and Jones are having intimate relations in the house while parenting O’Connor. Of course, the focus isn’t on whether they share a bedroom or not. Instead, the story at its heart is one of sentiment. We see Twelvetrees and Jones grow as people, becoming an unexpected picture of domestic happiness despite not officially being hitched.

There’s an excellent scene when Twelvetrees prods Jones to finally tell O’Connor that his dad isn’t away on an extended trip, but has in fact died. Jones beats around the bush, talks sports, but then must get to the point. The emoting from young O’Connor is just perfect; and Jones, who typically did better in westerns and action flicks, really nails this moment on screen.

A later subplot involves the kid, now in college and aged to 21 (played by John Hartley), becoming an athletic star. He wows spectators on the football field, but gets it into his head that he’d like to be a boxer. He has no idea this was Jones’ former occupation. Jones knows that the boy has the smarts to live a more respectable life, and he tries to quash any boxing ambitions. There is a great scene where Jones attempts to wallop the boy, to show him he doesn’t have the stuff in him to be a real fighter.

Meanwhile Twelvetrees and Jones have bumped into another ex-fighter (Buster Crabbe) they used to know. Crabbe makes derogatory remarks about Twelvetrees looking old before her time. The way Twelvetrees bursts into tears at the drop of a hat, and a subsequent scene in which she studies herself in a mirror with her hair down, is reminiscent of her best precodes.

The plot resolves with Twelvetrees and Jones grateful for the choices they have made in life. Despite the unusual situation of their long-term relationship, they finally tie the knot.

In real life, Twelvetrees was just coming off her second failed marriage. She had a son born in 1932 that she gave to relatives to raise while continuing her career as a film and stage actress. She would walk away from Hollywood after completing this starring role. She never had supporting roles in film or tried television. In later years she was content with her life as the wife of a military official, traveling the world with her husband.

The movies were poorer after Twelvetrees left the biz. Gone was that beautiful Brooklyn gal whose fragile psyche conveyed the deepest sorrows with ease and made us glad when she found happiness, or at least some kind of peace.

Neglected film: THE ETERNAL SEA (1955)

This Republic Pictures military biopic has a lot of heart. The real-life Navy hero, whose life serves as the basis for the story, was a man who faced very difficult odds and overcame them. Any motion picture based on his life would inevitably be emotional and inspiring.

Sterling Hayden who usually starred in westerns and crime flicks, was cast as John Hoskins. Hoskins was still alive when the film was produced. He attended the world premiere in Rhode Island with his wife Sue (played by Alexis Smith on screen).

THE ETERNAL SEA has a lot to recommend it. Besides the two lead stars, who share wonderful chemistry, there are many excellent aerial sequences. The drama goes a bit deeper than the average war film, since Hoskins was disabled while on duty in 1944. He spent the last part of WWII in sick bay, learning how to use a prosthetic leg. As he convalesced and rehabilitated, he faced two choices.

The first choice would have been to do what everyone, including his wife, wanted him to do. And that was, simply, to retire. He was only 46 at the time, and the only career he had ever known since age 23 was a career serving in the military. No, he couldn’t leave all that behind. The second choice was, basically, not to quit… to stay in the service. Not surprisingly, as a man with his personal strength and ambition, he chose not to retire, but to continue active duty.

We see his ongoing struggles adjusting to his handicap, as well as his determination to prove to others higher up that he’s still fit to keep his job. There are some great scenes in the middle of the film where Sterling Hayden gives us glimpses into the man’s physical and mental pain. Especially during a moment when he falls off some scaffolding on a ship, and then must get rid of the crutches before an important meeting.

In some regards this is a drama about willpower. It is also a drama about defying the pity and sympathy of others, to prove that a handicap does not have to be debilitating. There’s a line of dialogue which says, “I may have lost my foot, but I didn’t lose my brain.” I can imagine how gratifying it was for Hoskins and his wife to sit through the finished film, which conveys his important message of not giving up.

In addition to the convincing action and motivational message, THE ETERNAL SEA succeeds because it shows the full aspects of a man’s life. In a lot of these films, we see the wife at the beginning and at the end, so we know the guy has a family…but the wife is often surplus to the story. Here the filmmakers have done a nice job showing how a man’s wife and family are connected to his job. Everything he experiences is communicated back to the wife and reflected through her.

John Hoskins continued to work for the U.S. Navy for another two years after this movie was released. His life served as a positive example to other disabled veterans. And his story still inspires others every time someone watches THE ETERNAL SEA.

Essential: MR. KLEIN (1976)

TopBilled:

This later cinematic effort by director Joseph Losey was critically acclaimed, and it received César awards for Best Film and Best Director. However, it was not commercially successful. This is because French moviegoers shunned a story that depicted a dark period in their country’s history. Specifically, the film chronicles a time in 1942 when Jews living in France were rounded up and hauled off to concentration camps. I suppose that’s something people may not wish to remember, as it is a reminder of shameful political decisions.

Not only does Losey’s tale present an unflinching account of what happened, it makes no excuses in how it depicts the horror of such anti-semitism. As we all know, anti-semitism hasn’t been entirely eradicated…it is still occurring today. So, what we see on screen happening to the title character (Alain Delon) is just as relevant now as it ever was. Of course, there is much irony in Klein’s dilemma.

The most ironic thing is that Klein himself exudes some anti-semitic arrogance. He has benefited financially by the expulsion of Jews in his country. Some of the wealthiest Jews are in a hurry to flee, before the police hand them over to the Nazis. To raise the money necessary to fund their travel to the United States, they meet with Klein and sell him their rare and valuable objets d’art. Klein is able to amass these cultural treasures at a considerable bargain, because the Jews are desperate for cash to escape.

Therefore, it is some sort of bad karma that befalls Klein who is suddenly wanted by police for questioning about his own ethnic heritage. He must prove he is not really Jewish, and that perhaps he has been mistaken for someone else who may be similar to him. As I watched the film, I wondered if Klein had made powerful enemies.

Were the Nazis eager to get their hands on the artwork he had collected? Maybe he was being set up. Or, maybe he really was part Jewish and had long suppressed that part of himself. It’s an intriguing premise, since his whole identity is now called into question.

For the first half of the story, we do not know if Klein will be successful in his attempts to prove he’s not a Jew. As a result, there is a fair amount of suspense in this story. He goes from being blasé about it, to becoming more alarmed. Later in the film, when he cannot prove he isn’t Jewish, it seems all too certain he will wind up being sent to Auschwitz where so many of the Jews he had exploited have ended up. Bad karma turns into an inescapable fate for him.

The film is brimming with paranoia and excellent performances. This is probably Delon’s best work after 1970. You can tell he cared about the statement the scenario is making on behalf of the character. He infuses more thought into this role than others he has previously played.

Besides Delon, we also get Jeanne Moreau in an extended cameo; and it’s always a treat to watch her on screen. Moreau had previously collaborated with Losey in EVA (1961) and they would work together one more time in LA TRUITE (1982).

***

Jlewis:

It is Vichy France of 1942 with war raging on (but taking a back seat on screen here…one wonders if there is even a war) and every Jew is in hiding or attempting an escape from continental Europe. Supposedly the events are based on true stories with different names involved but I suspect a lot has been exaggerated for cinematic drama.

Alain Delon plays Robert Klein, an art dealer who thinks he has nothing to hide from the authorities, being an Alsatian Catholic. He suddenly discovers another man with the same name as him has been utilizing his mail services to either avoid detection or to sabotage him in some way. Thus, this story is all about him trying to prove he is not one of The Others being persecuted.

He visits an apartment and even rents it because it has supposedly been occupied by his imposter…and his imposter even had an Alsatian…dog…and a copy of Moby Dick that his mistress Jeanine (Juliet Berto) reads in bed in an earlier scene.

Although connected with our previous trio of titles with two gramophone playing scenes, we only get a few modest stair scenes here. There is much decadence on display that is fascinating: well-to-do folks have mansions with (obvious) missing paintings on the wall, suggesting difficult times when valuables must be sold merely to survive. Jeanne Moreau as Florence appears in just such a setting. Curiously, the star of EVA has a minor role here despite prominent billing.

Although this story may be far-fetch at times and certain aspects not explained well enough, it is still easy to relate to our main character despite his initial arrogance. A great many of us have experienced, at least once in our lives, some degree of identity theft, if usually on a more mundane, financial level with others getting access to our credit card or bank information.

Although the political landscape in the United States is tilting uncomfortably towards the far right in terms of local politics with increased intolerance towards non-Christians, immigrants and other minorities (the drag musical highlighted here reminded me of how politicians in some states like Florida have recently been pushing an anti-transgender agenda to get votes), we have yet to experience the same kind of systematic persecution and extermination of humans as revealed in the aftermath of World War II and following the dictator take-over of certain countries later in the 20th century.

There are a few interesting speeches here aimed at ridiculing an earlier generation of French citizens (this being filmed in the year 1975, thirty years after the war and five years after THE SORROW AND THE PITY created a huge fuss at the box-office) who acted “indifferent” like a “flock of sheep” to those minorities oppressed in their own communities. Likewise, Robert himself does not indicate he was concerned all that much about the plight of the Jews (even benefiting financially in a way at their expense) until he himself was suspected of being one.

A key scene early on shows a woman being examined naked and likely cold by a medical examiner checking for non-Aryan characteristics. Later, Robert is sleeping under the covers naked and acts in a mockingly modest fashion to Florence that he needs to get into his robe; my interpretation of that scene (perhaps incorrect?) is that both consider themselves high enough up in the social totem pole to not worry about such humiliations.

The story is basically a who-done-it with Robert playing detective to determine who is posing as him and trying to confirm answers to the authorities before it is too late. He also tries to locate a mystery woman supposedly connected with the other “Robert.” In the process, he loses many valuables in his plush home to police confiscation (mostly paintings he profited from that were originally owned by refugees fleeing the Third Reich). His mistress leaves him but he also gains a dog…an Alsatian (German Shepherd) that resembles a dog in a mystery photo and seems to recognize him as the other “Robert.”

His aging father (Louis Seigner) raises doubts about his ancestry that could harm him in the present and his close associate Pierre (Michael Lonsdale) and others (Francine Bergé and Massimo Girotti are also included in the cast) all react in either support or frequent questioning as his phobias of inevitable arrest gradually become a reality.

Early on, he is confident in the French government always doing what is right, but that confidence goes out when “the Law” no longer supports him. There are some striking similarities between the ending here and that of THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINIS with its wealthy Ferrara family thinking they could remain sheltered against the atrocities experienced by others…until it was too late. I personally favor that film over this one but still enjoyed how this one played out as well with equal doom. I personally consider it the best of the four titles we are reviewing this month.

Essential: HITLER’S MADMAN (1943)

The background for this motion picture is quite interesting, maybe more interesting than the film itself. It’s an excellent piece of anti-Nazi propaganda…a “B” film turned out by personnel from poverty row studio PRC. Some of them were top-tier filmmakers in Germany such as cinematographer Eugen Schufftan and director Douglas Sirk. Despite a low budget, it’s made by competent craftsmen.

MGM boss Louis Mayer liked the film so much, he bought it from the original financiers when they were looking for a distributor. This delayed its release into theaters, since Mayer wanted scenes reshot and a few more added. So, a film made on a shoestring suddenly had its budget expanded.

Sirk, Schufftan, and one of the original producers (Seymour Nebenzal) were Germans in exile, and they depict the Nazis in a more realistic way than other films covering the same ground. The people of Lidice, Czechoslovakia are presented realistically too– the entire village of Lidice was wiped out by the Nazis.

When the Nazis gained power in Eastern Europe and took over neighboring countries, they would station “protectors” over these acquired regions. The high-ranking officials reported to Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. Underneath them were other officials and town mayors. In this case, the mayor of Lidice was a man who turned on his people and swore allegiance to The Fuhrer.

The protectors would usually drive through the various regions under their control and if something seemed off to them, the mayor and local police would be notified. One day the protector of this region (John Carradine) notices a religious assembly in Lidice. His vehicle stops, he hops out with his men, and they confront the local priest and townsfolk. Carradine is angry, because the people do not have a permit to gather in public.

During a quarrel with the priest, whom Carradine is trying to provoke, the priest is shot and killed. This is the first real violence in the area. Carradine plans to drive back through the village the next morning to see if the mayor has gotten the people back in line.

Before Carradine appears, life is idyllic. The people of Lidice may be under German control, but their way of life has not changed drastically. A resistance fighter (Alan Curtis) shows up; he’s a Czech who’s been working with American and British allies in England. He is reunited with his girlfriend (Patricia Morison), and he tries to convince her father (Ralph Morgan) to resist the Nazis.

It isn’t until Carradine kills the priest that Morgan and the townsfolk realize they need to take a stand against the Nazi regime. The mayor’s wife also sides with them, because her two sons were killed on the Russian front fighting for the Fuhrer, which upsets her terribly.

In real life Carradine’s character was ambushed along a road outside Lidice. Sirk’s film depicts that, though it takes dramatic license with some of it. This version has Curtis’ girlfriend ride a bike into the middle of the road to slow down Carradine’s jeep, so that Curtis and Morgan can get off a few good shots with their rifles.

The real life ambush did not involve any women, and the death of Carradine’s character occurred much quicker. The movie drags it out for maximum dramatic effect– before Carradine dies, we see Curtis run off with Morison; then she is shot and killed by Nazi soldiers in the woods.

After their love story concludes, we have a lengthy death scene for Carradine. Just before he finally goes to that big swastika in the sky, Himmler arrives to see him. The movie fails to include an interesting fact about the protector’s death, such as how he refused to let local Czech doctors treat his injuries, since he felt these men were inferior to German doctors.

After Carradine dies, the last ten minutes are devoted to a bloody reprisal against the village of Lidice. During a comical phone call with Hitler, Himmler decides to destroy the entire village.

The atrocities committed against the people of Lidice are staggering. Although HITLER’S MADMAN was made during the production code era, the firing squad scenes are rather graphic. Probably because the film had been originally made at PRC. If the story had started at MGM with an American director, my guess is it would have been much tamer, more sanitized.

The scenes of mass death, and the fires that level the village are expertly staged, and the movie ends on a very somber note. However, the final sequence is also presented as something meant to inspire audiences…where moviegoers should want to carry on and fight the Nazis on behalf of those who were slaughtered that day, the 10th of June 1942, in Lidice.

A few things crossed my mind when I watched HITLER’S MADMAN. First, I don’t think the Nazis and their underlings were ever buffoons. I’d say they were very brutal, very calculating. Eradicating a village was an extreme act that was in every way imaginable, a deliberate (and in their minds, justifiable) measure.

Second, Sirk had actually met the man whose character Carradine is based on, so it’s interesting that he ended up becoming a “biographer” of Reinhard Heydrich through the art of motion pictures; one German denouncing another. Third, the event occurred early during America’s involvement in the war. Americans entered the war in December 1941. The massacre of Lidice took place just six months later, and there would be another three years before Hitler and Himmler were brought down. Fourth, it’s a powerful film that must have been shocking for audiences, particularly the final sequence. It’s powerful and shocking to watch now, all these years later.

Fifth, I think there is still a lot of radical militant behavior occurring in the world today, some of it in our own country; so this movie and the legacy of Lidice is just as relevant as ever. And finally, I think this is a movie you have to watch with all other distractions drowned out. It’s something where you have to embrace the propaganda, yet put it into perspective, but also realize the deeper message about the value of human life. The Nazis wanted to remove all traces of Lidice. But Sirk’s film helps Lidice live. And if you watch HITLER’S MADMAN and absorb its message, you will be helping Lidice live.

Neglected film: ACE OF ACES (1933)

J. Walter Ruben’s first film as director was in 1931 at RKO with Richard Dix. By the time they made ACE OF ACES two years later, there had been several more collaborations in between. ACE OF ACES was their fifth and final movie together. Leading lady Elizabeth Allan, a British import, had also worked with the director and leading man before. Her approach was much more reserved, but she had a way to mine the simple pathos in a scene; and truly, she is an able match for Dix and a perfect counterpoint, as his style tends to be a bit more bombastic.

In a story like this, which tries to explore both the pro-war and anti-war aspects of battle, the two leads are going to have to explore a variety of emotional depths. Initially, Dix’s character is a sculptor whose artistic work has made him feel intellectually superior to the masses who run off like lemmings, his words, to join the war effort. The First World War has just been declared, and everyone has feelings about it.

When Allan feels Dix’s isolationist stance is a mark of cowardice, she breaks off their engagement. Especially when he criticizes parades with band playing and flag waving as a lot of hysteria. She goes off to serve as a nurse overseas with the Red Cross; while Dix, whose pride has been wounded, decides to enlist and prove her wrong. When he gets to Europe, he becomes an ace flyer, one of the very best, which gives the film its title.

During the middle stretch of the film, he has predictably turned into a full-fledged killing machine. As he spends time with the other flyers, we here things like “here today and hero tomorrow,” to commemorate the men who’ve already died in the air. And “welcome to the ranks of the undead,” to remind us that Dix and the others are still alive with much to prove.

As his reputation grows, Dix gets caught up in the glory of war. He shoots down over 40 Nazi aircraft and is decorated by a French general. As a result of his notable accomplishments, he gets a 48-hour leave in Paris. While he’s there, he runs into Allan again, who’s been working at a dressing station that was just bombed. The bombing scene in which she gets shaken up is superbly acted by Allan and various extras.

As Allan becomes reacquainted with Dix, she realizes how much harder he now is as a man. He challenges her morality, telling her he only has 48 hours of down time, and by gosh, he intends to spend the night with her. She caves in. Since this is a precode and such actions may be morally wrong, her reputation doesn’t seem to suffer much of a setback!

Of course, the story has to eventually come full circle. Dix has to reach a point where he regrets turning into a coldblooded assassin. He has been changed profoundly because of the war, and after it’s all said and done, he has to try to forget and return to his life again back home, with Allan as his wife. Is it too much to ask, for him to find the courage to reclaim his original principles?

Neglected film: THE LION AND THE HORSE (1952)

I wasn’t expecting much from this contemporary western. It’s not a title TCM airs very often. Someone posted that in this film we get to see Steve Cochran smile. That’s true, but he’s still playing a down-on-his-luck guy who has seen better days. We are told a bit of his backstory, that he owns a spread in Wyoming, but due to a hard winter, he was wiped out financially. So, he’s had to hit the road chasing wild horses, which he can sell.

One day he comes across a beaut named Wildfire, who won’t be tamed by anyone else but him. Cochran decides he can’t sell this one, but he still does not have enough money to properly board and feed Wildfire. Someone else (Ray Teal) claims the horse and puts him in a wild animal show. Teal is an abusive owner, entering Wildfire in rodeos where men pay to try to ride him without getting bucked off. This part of the plot was done in Fox’s equestrian drama SMOKY (1946) which had the same director, Louis King.

A key difference here is that Warner Brothers has taken the cast and crew to the Kanab Canyon in Utah for filming. There are some breathtaking rock formations in the background, but the focus remains on Cochran and the horse, which he soon rescues from Teal’s villainy. He and Wildfire wind up at the ranch of an elderly man (Harry Antrim) and his granddaughter (Sherry Jackson) who let him board the animal there, in exchange for labor.

There are some nice scenes with Cochran getting to know the other hands, including an excellent sing-a-long in the bunkhouse. In addition, Cochran gets to know Jackson, who doesn’t have a father…meaning he becomes a surrogate one to her. Incidentally, Cochran and Jackson would team up again in Republic’s COME NEXT SPRING (1956), and that time Cochran played her long-lost dad. They have some wonderful moments together on camera, including a fun bit where she introduces her animal friends to him. One is a gentle raven named Jimmy.

There is also a muskrat named Mr. Jones, a skunk named Willy, a horse named Susie and a dog named Dog (guess all the names couldn’t be too original!). Other scenes play up danger on the ranch, with Cochran stuck in quicksand, then later saving Jackson’s life during a stampede.

One thing I love about the film is how leisurely paced it is. We know that Cochran is still struggling to earn money, in order to return to his home up north, but during this time, he forms relationships with people who can help him. During the earlier sequence where he rescued Wildfire from the wild animal show, there were shots of a lion in a cage. We know Brutus the lion will show up again, or he would not be mentioned in the film’s title.

Sure enough, Brutus the lion does get away from the show and heads to the ranch. Teal is on his trail, and he’s also looking to reclaim Wildfire. This leads to the inevitable clash between Teal and Cochran. Teal is chased off, but returns and attempts to steal Wildfire. By now Wildfire is considerably spooked and tramples Teal to death, which he probably deserved after the countless lashings he gave Wildfire.

Meanwhile the drama with Brutus the lion is not over, since the savage cat is still on the loose. Fearing a sheriff will have Wildfire put to sleep for killing Teal, Cochran packs up his gear.

He takes off on Wildfire then encounters Brutus at a campsite. There is a ghastly fight between horse and lion, with horrific shots of clawing and stomping. I bet the sequence was filmed with the idea of having the film presented in 3-D. But perhaps the studio decided against it, because that scene with Wildfire killing Brutus is quite graphic as it is.

After Brutus’s death, the sheriff catches up to Cochran. However, since Wildfire eliminated the lion and saved the region from terror, he will now be pardoned and not put to sleep. Cochran will also be able to collect a hefty bounty. It’s a happy ending. And of course, that is what we want with these kinds of movies.

Neglected film: THE MAN IN GREY (1943)

This early Gainsborough melodrama has a winning foursome in the lead roles. Up till this point, only one of them (Margaret Lockwood) was an established star; though this role took her career in a completely different direction and seems to have reinvented her. The other three— James Mason, Phyllis Calvert and Stewart Granger— already had motion picture credits but had not really broken through. Granger was the least experienced in movies, so his name appears in a slightly smaller font size on the opening credits.

Most of the main characters, including the title character played by Mason, are not very good people. They are morally compromised, some with greater shades of evil than the others. Mason is particularly cruel, and Lockwood who is cast as a dark-hearted mistress is just as wicked in her scenes. Granger’s character starts as a rogue then becomes more heroic. The only character the audience may like all the way is Calvert’s, but hers is a frustrating one because she is so self-deluded at times, such a poor judge of character, that the way she becomes a victim to husband Mason and supposed friend Lockwood, puts her in a category of complete naivety.

The fact that Calvert is never able to see Mason or Lockwood for who they really are, ultimately becomes her undoing. It’s a highly melodramatic narrative, with Calvert so desperate for matrimonial love and genuine friendship, that it’s all the more tragic when she receives neither. After finally giving up on her marriage to Mason, Calvert settles into an affair with Granger, which is being orchestrated behind the scenes by Lockwood. When Mason prevents Calvert from going off with Granger to an island in the Caribbean, because of the scandal it would create, Lockwood flips out.

I do have to say that Lockwood is particularly great at playing such an dangerous character. She’s the perfect contrast on screen to Calvert’s innate goodness. It is a bit shocking when Calvert’s character develops a case of pneumonia, and Lockwood furthers the illness along, by using the situation to kill Calvert. If this were a Hollywood film, Lockwood wouldn’t get away with it…but she does here.

When Mason learns what happened from a young boy (Antony Scott) who witnessed the murder, he confronts Lockwood. She offers up a weak excuse, before he beats her senselessly. How’s that for justice!

Some of the more interesting moments in the film are over-the-top yet still played with genteel adroitness. Maybe that’s what makes THE MAN IN GREY such a fascinating study. The good lady dies, the others are left to inflict more pain and damage on each other. And it’s all handled with ease.

But I think what we have is more than just an artificially contrived melodrama. We have a sad story about a good woman who lived a very miserable and bad life. And unfortunately, there are women in these types of situations from generation to generation. On that note, the film is a cautious reminder that we may have long-suffering female friends among us who genuinely need our help.