Month: July 2016

The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941)

THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (1941)
(a.k.a. ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY)
Article #1305 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-10-2004
Posting Date: 3-9-2005
Directed by William Dieterle
Featuing Edward Arnold, Walter Huston, James Craig

A down-on-his-luck farmer makes a deal with the devil for seven years good luck.

When I first started this series, the name of William Dieterle didn’t mean a lot to me. It was only after I realized that this man was responsible for two old favorites (THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939), PORTRAIT OF JENNIE) as well as some newer discoveries (SIX HOURS TO LIVE and this one), that I’ve really grown to appreciate the man’s craft and vision. William Dieterle is one of the great directors of all time, and I’m glad that this series has helped me to realize this.

This movie is indeed something special; it’s basically a folksy New England legend done with such charm, wit and visual splendor that it transcends itself. The biggest attractions here are the acting and the visual sense. The casting of the roles was perfect, though a little unexpected. I’m usually used to seeing Edward Arnold in more villainous roles, but the role of Daniel Webster is a perfect fit for him, especially during the trial sequence that climaxes the movie. I was also a little surprised to see John Qualen in the role of Miser Stevens, which seemed an odd bit of casting; however, when Stevens starts to spill his soul during the party sequence, I can see precisely why he was cast. Add to that the great Walter Huston as Mr. Scratch, Simone Simon as the seductive Belle Dee, Jane Darwell as the mother, James Craig and Anne Shirley as the young couple, and other familiar names and faces such as Gene Lockhart, Frank Conlan and H.B. Warner, and you’re in acting heaven.

The visual style is breathtaking, almost surreal at time. Just a list of them is worth considering; the appearance of Mr. Scratch after Jabez says that he’ll sell his soul for two cents, the hailstorm that breaks out when Jabez first tries to efface the date in the tree, the eerie faces peering through the window during the party scene, and the ensuing dance (I wouldn’t be surprised if Herk Harvey was as much influenced by this sequence as he was by Bergman and Cocteau when he made CARNIVAL OF SOULS), and the introduction of the judge and jury of the quick and the dead. Furthermore, Dieterle’s direction is masterful in even seemingly small moments; the scene where Mr. Scratch causes the gold pieces to rise out of the ground, the one where Jabez manages to kill his conscience by shaking hands with the devil, and the one where Daniel Webster gives a spanking to his godson all stick in mind. Throw in a simply sublme score by Bernard Herrmann, and you have an unforgettable cinematic experience. And I bet that final scene is a real treat in a crowded theatre.

This one’s a classic. Don’t miss it if you can.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939)

THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939)
Article #1304 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-9-2004
Posting Date: 3-8-2005
Directed by Alfred L. Werker
Featuring Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Ida Lupino

Professor Moriarty decides to embarass Holmes by diverting his attention away from a brilliant crime he’s planning to commit.

This was the last of the two period Sherlock Holmes movies featuring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce for Fox; the two actors would then be picked up by Universal for a series of modern-day stories. Some people say it’s the best of the series, and quite frankly I agree; though all of the Rathbone Holmes films are fun, this one is especially fine. I knew this one was special the moment Moriarty mentions that he’s going to use Holmes’ own restlessness as a tool against him, and from that point onward you’re caught up in both parts of the plan; can Holmes solve the intriguing murder plot he is presented with and still see through it to the daring robbery attempt that it is meant to cover up? Both Rathbone and Bruce are excellent, with Bruce slightly less of a buffoon than usual. However, George Zucco’s performance as Moriarty is one of the high points of his career. Zucco is always fun to watch, but I’ve never seen him quite as nuanced as he is here; I love the scenes where he berates a servant for having failed to water his plant and the scene where he banters with Holmes. The horror elements are fairly slight, but an exciting chase that ends in a graveyard adds an ample amount of horror atmosphere to the proceedings.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Z.P.G. (Zero Population Growth) (1972)

Z.P.G. (ZERO POPULATION GROWTH) (1972)
Article #1303 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-8-2004
Posting Date: 3-7-2005
Directed by Michael Campus
Featuring Oliver Reed, Geraldine Chaplin, Don Gordon

To stem the rise of overpopulation, the government makes a new law forbidding child-bearing. A couple decides to break the law and have a baby.

You want dystopia? You got dystopia! First of all, you have a totalitarian government similar to something you might find in 1984 or FAHRENHEIT 451. They’re so totalitarian that they even booby-trap their libraries (the scene where Oliver Reed is whisked off to an interrogation chamber after watching part of a tape on “premature birth” is one of the most energetic scenes in the slow-moving movie; it’s just a shame that the scene is unintentionally comic). The world is also heavily polluted; unfortunately, the pollution is represented by having all of the outdoors sequence take place in a thick rolling fog that a) obscures the action (this is the foggiest movie since THE SLIME PEOPLE) and b) looks entirely too clean to be pollution. All of the animals are dead, people eat from tubes, etc. etc; the movie is quite relentless with how depressing this world is. Then there’s the central premise, which seems a little extreme; even given the totalitarian government, the decision to ban all child-bearing seems extreme, but then I’m not a politician, so what do I know? The movie is slow moving, arty, and has a musical soundtrack that makes me wish that it had no musical soundtrack. Everyone is also acting in that detached style borrowed from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY; I guess some film-makers thought science fiction was supposed to be like that. However, it’s theme can’t help but have a little power, and there’s a sequence about two-thirds of the way through the movie where the couple with the baby is discovered by another couple, who, instead of turning them in, begin blackmailing them so that they themselves can have time with the baby, and this easily marks the best sequence in the movie, as you can really feel the strong desires of all concerned. The ending is inconclusive and unsatisfying. You have to really like dystopias to like this movie.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Woman Who Came Back (1945)

THE WOMAN WHO CAME BACK (1945)
Article #1302 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-7-2004
Posting Date: 3-6-2005
Directed by Walter Colmes
Featuring John Loder, Nancy Kelly, Otto Kruger

A woman returning to her home town meets a strange woman on the bus, and then becomes the only survivor when the bus crashes into a lake. She becomes convinced that she is possessed by the spirit of 300-year old witch.

This movie has some real strengths and some real problems. One of the biggest of the latter is a weak script; it tries to provide a Lewtonian touch to the proceedings, but it lacks the subtlety of a Lewton film and fails to effectively walk that delicate line between the supernatural and psychological; as a result, much of the movie is obvious, clunky and unconvincing, and the ending leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Still, there are some truly great individual moments here; it opens with a bang, it makes effective use of sound at times, and it does work up a real scare or two. I also like the title, since it’s ambiguous enough to refer to two different women. It also bears a certain surface similarity to CARNIVAL OF SOULS, but I think it would be possible to make too much of this. All in all, it’s worth catching for its good moments, but ultimately it doesn’t quite deliver the goods.

0 CommentsLeave a comment