Success or Snub? Cimarron (4th Academy Awards Review Pt. 2)

  To see part 1, click here.

The Nightclub~Charlie Chaplin - City Lights

Once more, the time frame for this ceremony is a half-year and half year, spanning from July of 1930 to June of 1931. First things first, let’s identify a few historical milestones.

    First is Skippy, a film about a young boy named Skippy, played by Jackie Cooper who is on record as the youngest actor to be nominated for the Oscar for Best Actor, a record held to this day. Film is rare and hard to find so no comments are made here.

There was also Trader Horn which started the safari film genre that became a big deal in the 30s. This was back before National Geographic and Animal Planet so the only way that audiences could see exotic animals was going to see movies set in Africa. The most popular example of these would be the Tarzan film series starring Johnny Weissmuller that began with Tarzan the Ape Man (1932). These movies were usually nothing more than an excuse to see animals so the plots would often be transparently bare and dragged out just to see more exotic animals. Trader Horn was no different.

And last is Animal Crackers, which was the breakout movie of the Marx Brothers, a family act that made their name on vaudeville and Broadway and made the transition to film at the dawn of the sound era. Unlike previous comedians of the silent era such as Fatty Arbuckle and Buster Keaton who specialized in slapstick, the Marx Bros. were more famous for their quips and puns (for example). In this regard, Animal Crackers is a very influential film as these kinds of quips were the defining sense of humor for many of the screwball comedies that were popular in the 1930s and other comedians of the time period (e.g. Cary Grant, Mae West, Shirley Temple etc.). This makes the film interesting to watch, though it does fall into the category of “nothing special” these days.

Either way, onto the main movies. Some more big hits came out, each of which were shaping up to define the 30s sound era. This is another multi-hitter so I’ll try to be brief with each before analyzing how many of them are actually more influential than Cimarron. Anywaaay, rapid fire review time!

Speaking of comedy, there was also City Lights, which came from the mind of another comedic genius of this era, Charlie Chaplin, and is often considered one of the best comedies of all time as well as the swan song of the silent era. In fact, it was the only silent movie to come out in 1931; it only got made because Chaplin paid for the movie out of his own pocket (if you're into silent films, another major silent film of 1930 that was also snubbed is Tabu: A Story of the South Seas by F. W. Murnau, very excellent). Though the silent era didn’t officially end until Modern Times in 1936, also made by Chaplin, which was the final send-off of the Little Tramp (which is about as good as City Lights though its problem is that it was far too late to be an effective send-off).

City Lights once more tells the tale of the Little Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) who saves the life of an eccentric millionaire (Harry Meyers). Said millionaire repays the debt by letting the Tramp party and live with him. While there, the Tramp meets a blind flower girl (Virginia Cherrill), falls in love with her and does what any of us would do in his situation and uses his newfound friend’s wealth to trick the girl into thinking that he’s richer than he actually is.

Despite this hilariously cynical set-up, the film also has a lot of heart to it which is the big reason why it was so beloved and still remains so to this day. All of the film’s sub-plots ultimately come back to the Tramp trying to help the poor flower girl and usually failing miserably. As a result, we’re often laughing at the Tramp whenever he falls flat on his ass but also feel bad because we want to see him help this poor girl that life just won’t give a break to. (And for the record, the film is still very, very funny. The slapstick hasn’t aged a day.)

This is the kind of heart that many comedians try to emulate to try to give their movie an intense scale, with usually mixed results. Even the Marx Brothers would learn from Chaplin as their later movies would revolve around them trying to rescue some poor loser (e.g. A Night at the Opera (1935), A Day at the Races (1937)). Very few have ever pulled it off as well as Chaplin though. The balance between comedy and heart is mastered here and few actors managed to get the well-meaning idiocy of Chaplin’s Little Tramp down perfectly.

Washing down the opus of one film legend with another, there was also Howard Hughes’ Hell’s Angels, an aviation movie about World War I flying aces that makes the flying scenes in Wings (1927) look like child’s play. It was also a big deal on the independent film circuit as it proved that an independent film can be every bit as groundbreaking and amazing as Hollywood. Granted, this is because it was being bankrolled and directed by a multi-millionaire like Howard Hughes but it still counts. It also bears mentioning that this had one of the most downright insane productions in cinematic history.

Quick recap: production began in 1927 as a silent film. Production was then stalled when the first director quit. The Jazz Singer then came out in 1928 which caused Howard Hughes to scrap the whole movie to reshoot with sound. The lead actress was then fired and replaced. The film went through four directors and culminated in flying stunts so dangerous that they destroyed several vintage WWI fighter planes and killed at least four stunt men (who were WWI veterans). The last stunt was so asinine that the stunt men refused to do it, so Howard Hughes hopped into the biplane to do the stunt himself and proved them right when he was hospitalized with a skull fracture. The film then opened up against another aviation film, The Dawn Patrol (1931), which Hughes sued to keep out of theaters so Hell’s Angels could release unopposed.

Despite this troubled production cycle and some groundbreaking stunts, as well as being one of the very first action films, I honestly think this movie is downright wretched. The film revolves around a pair of brothers named Roy (James Hall) and Monte (Ben Lyon), who join the Royal Air Force during World War I and the latter of whom is downright despicable. Considering how the movie was made to celebrate WWI aviation pilots, Hughes seems to possess a very bizarre way of celebrating them as most of the soldiers in the movie come off as boorish assholes (not to mention that, again, he killed several actual veterans while shooting the movie). Even the flying scenes, while impressive, just feel like they’re dragging on for an eternity.

Hughes also produced another movie that year as well, called The Front Page, a satire about newspaper journalists and how they can manufacture the news to make it more interesting. Hildy Johnson (Pat O’Brien) works in a press room and is deciding to leave his job but, unfortunately, has chosen to do so on the eve of the biggest news story of the year. His boss, Walter Burns (Adolphe Menjou), in particular is trying to manipulate him into coming back and cash in on the story.

This is a much better movie and definitely one of the best that year. The whole plotline about manufacturing news and the way that Hildy and Burns manipulate others through carefully chosen words reflects the newspaper that they work on and it can be a blast to watch (though admittedly a bit of a slow burn at first). If anything, this actually makes the movie pretty ahead of its time as this sort of question about journalistic ethics is something that still holds up in today’s world.

(The Front Page would later go on to be remade as His Girl Friday in 1940, which would once again be featured on the awards circuit, this time starring Rosalind Russell as Hildy Johnson and Cary Grant as Walter Burns. While also good, I personally prefer The Front Page since it’s a lot dryer and less screwball comedy-esque. However, it’s also often considered one of the few remakes that’s at least on par with the original. Watch both and decide for yourself!)

Of course, no review of this year in film would be complete without the great-granddaddy of all horror icons, Dracula, one of the most iconic horror movies of all time with one of the most iconic horror villains of all time. Telling of the infamous Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) who wreaks havoc on the rich upper class of London before meeting his match in the esteemed Professor van Hellsing (Edward van Sloan).

The impact of this film is hard to overstate, as its success launched the first wave of horror icons as well as the Universal monster movies that would be one of the staples of old-school Hollywood. While Nosferatu and the Phantom of the Opera were the first horror icons, Dracula was the one who really kicked off the first wave of horror icons that would last all the way up to the creature features of the 1950s. From when this came out to about 1958, a new monster would enter pop culture infamy every couple of years.

Dracula himself is instantly iconic with the slicked hair, evil stare, long dark cape and Transylvanian accent. Even if you’ve never seen the movie, you know this character from a simple look because he’s so ingrained in pop culture. Despite growing up with a large number of his parodies, I was surprised to find that I could still take him seriously as a villain. He’s very slick and diabolical but, when the situation calls for it, he can also be very charming. Edward van Sloan’s performance as van Hellsing is equally great, playing this kooky old man who can really go toe to toe with the count. The film also pioneered a lot of the Gothic imagery that would define these films with the fog-strewn streets and crumbling castles.

While the two leads are good, and the movie has many great scenes, it’s another case of it hasn’t aged with grace. Some of the supporting actors are really bad, with Dwight Frye’s performance as Renfield (Dracula’s servant) being some of the most embarrassingly bad acting you’ll ever see in your life.

But now it’s time for the feature presentation. This is going to be a twofer here since the movies came out at around the same time, had similar themes and similar impact. To round off this success or snub, let’s talk about Little Caesar

and The Public Enemy.

These are two of the, if not the, very first gangster movies in cinematic history. Obviously, there were crime movies before this, but they would usually be about some lost soul who joins a crime gang or the cops trying to catch the bad guys; these were the first films to be about the gangsters themselves.

The Public Enemy tells the rise and fall of Tom Powers (James Cagney) and how he abuses everyone in his personal life. Little Caesar basically does the same thing with the character of Little Caesar Enrico Bandello, nicknamed Rico (Edward G. Robinson) who eventually becomes one of the biggest gangsters in the Chicago underworld. Without these two, we never would have had other great characters like Michael Corleone, Henry Hill or Walter White.

Rico especially stands out as a truly iconic movie character, almost on the same level as Dracula. While you may not have heard of the name or recognize the face on the poster, if you hear this character, you’ll instantly recognize his voice from the dozens of parodies. (He’s the stereotypical gangster who talks out the side of his mouth and ends most sentences with, “see?” e.g. “You keep hanging around with me, see?” Watch a Bugs Bunny cartoon and you’ll know what I’m talking about, see?)

While there is a certain level of cheesiness to Little Caesar that is to be expected, it still holds up for the most part as a really solid gangster flick. The Public Enemy’s good too though I do think it’s the lesser of these two movies. James Cagney’s Tom Powers isn’t nearly as magnetic as Rico and there’s not as much upward mobility. While Rico is constantly gaining more and more power and shaking things up, Tom Powers quickly becomes a mob enforcer and just stays there for the rest of the movie.

Despite this, The Public Enemy is dark. A lot of the abuse presented is very edgy for its time and there’s even a rape scene. Granted, it’s female-on-male which isn’t as taboo, but it’s still shot and treated in a disturbing way. I don’t think I need to tell you that both of these movies garnered a lot of controversy in their time and probably helped accelerate the Hays Code into becoming more commonplace. (It also doesn’t help that in Little Caesar, Rico is very strongly implied to be homosexual.)

Both of these movies came out in the midst of the gang wars that defined the Prohibition era (in fact, the Castellammarese War was still ongoing at this time). Real-life bootleggers such as Al Capone and Joe Masseria were brutally murdering their enemies and, sometimes, innocent bystanders. These movies showed the destiny of these gangsters, what they do, how they affect the people around them and how toxic they can be.

Back then, this was a whole new kind of movie and one that was very relevant to America at the time. But, of course, neither movie was nominated at the Academy Awards which ended with Cimarron winning. Neither actor was nominated for Best Actor either. (The winner was Lionel Barrymore’s portrayal of a tragic alcoholic in A Free Soul, which was excellent, but both Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney were severe snubs.) So why is that?

Well, this brings up another problem with the Academy that we’ll be encountering a lot in this series. That being that they try to choose what is considered the best movie based on what the cultural zeitgeist of the year is but because of the primary demographic of the Academy (old white men), they almost never choose shocking, edgy films. Even though it’s usually these shocking, edgy films that usually end up breaking the most ground. Instead, they’ll choose the more “safe” option.

Now, this isn’t a universal truth but it’s still more common than it should be. This is why this blog spent so much time listing each major film that came out in this time period; to show how badly they dropped the ball on this one. Cimarron’s biggest accomplishment was talking about how much it sucks to be Native American without actually showing the struggles they face. Little Caesar and The Public Enemy talk about gangsters destroying American life by showing them destroy American life.

Even taking those two movies out of the equation, The Front Page was also talking about a big problem in America and how it can get out of control and City Lights was giving a fond sendoff to a style of filmmaking that would soon be gone forever. Even if they’re not the best movies, both Dracula and Hell’s Angels are still some of the most influential films of all time.

Again, Cimarron was well-liked when it came out but it wasn’t anything especially special. These other films were. I might be a bit biased in this one since I really freaking hate Cimarron but I like to think that the point remains. This was a…

SNUB!

Personal Favorite Movies of 1930/31

• City Lights (dir. Charlie Chaplin)
• Dracula (dir. Tod Browning & Karl Freund)
• Little Caesar (dir. Mervyn LeRoy)
• Tabu: A Story of the South Seas (dir. F. W. Murnau)
• The Front Page (dir. Lewis Milestone)

Favorite Heroes

• Captain Jeffrey T. Spaulding (Groucho Marx) (Animal Crackers)
• Professor van Hellsing (Edward van Sloan) (Dracula)
• Manahi and Resi (Manahi and Anne Chevalier) (Tabu: A Story of the South Seas)
• Stephen Ashe (Lionel Barrymore) (A Free Soul)
• The Little Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) (City Lights)

Favorite Villains

• Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) (Dracula)
• Hitu (Hitu) (Tabu: A Story of the South Seas)
• Little Caesar Rico Bandello (Edward G. Robinson) (Little Caesar)
• Tom Powers (James Cagney) (The Public Enemy)
• Walter Burns (Adolphe Menjou) (The Front Page)